DSLR IQ versus Micro 4/3

007peter said:

Canon Weakness:

• Canon makes lousy $500 lens ( tamron, sigma are better )

Click to expand...

what about 85 F1.8, 100 F2, 35 F2, 60 F2.8, 55-250?

007peter said:

• You can have Quality IQ, but you're not going to get portability

Click to expand...

I think the true is, you get better IQ but less portability. some people will find this trade off not worthwhile well others may find it acceptable.

I often carry my 60D + 17-55 with me. take pictures indoors at F 2.8 iso 3200 with IS, if i had a m43, i would not have a F2.8 zoom with IS, i would have to shoot at higher iso with worse quality. I may not find it acceptable.

007peter said:

m4/3 Strength:

• Reasonable Lens Prices - unlike Canon, m4/3 lens price are reasonable and competitive. You can buy an Olympus 17mm f/2.8 prime for just $180,

Click to expand...

I have to say I dont see the appeal in this lens, it is very slow, it is equivelant of a

007peter said:

or a Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 for $200. Where as Canon charge a whopping $ 800 for Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, and $ 750 for 28mm f/2.8 IS. Crazy price

Click to expand...

that panny is a 28mm F5 on cannon full frame, a 18-55 IS would do what it does on a canon APS-C.

IMO M43's biggest problem right now is lack of good sensor. sure it can't compete on resolution and high ISO due to its size, but it should be able to compete in colour accuracy and DR in low iso as these are not sensor size related - which they still lose.

Are those photos to the same scale? I know the Canon is nowhere NEAR as large in real life as it shows up in your post on my 19" 1280x1024 monitor. I have a 450D (all Rebels are about the same size) and with the 18-55 lens it is actually rather compact, not that jumbo-sized thing in the photo.

RobBobW said:

Depends upon how you do low light photography. If you want high iso, fast shutter speed shots, then m43 is not that great. If you do low iso, slow shutter speed shots on a tripod, m43 gives great results.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same side here, more or less... one doesn't HAVE to go full frame to get decent night shots except for very unusual circumstances (high ISO / fast shutter speed combo for example). I'm sure that 4/3 can also do well in low light, though even the Canon APS-C sensor is about 40% larger in surface area.

RobBobW said:

Midwest said:

filmluvr said:

If you're looking for good low-light performance, you should jump over the 1.6 crop format. The full frame bodies are significantly better.

Click to expand...

I'm sure full frame is better in low light, and I'd love to have one, but it's the difference between $500-$600 and thousand$. I've seen plenty of very good shots taken of night scenes with (say) the T3i, enough that spending 5 or 10 times as much for a camera just might not be justified

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
RobBobW
http://www.revelationimages.ca
http://web.me.com/bworthingham/Photography/Welcome.html
http://community.webshots.com/user/worthingham
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/19484.html
http://www2.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=98593

Click to expand...

--
'Bass-ackward' does not equate to 'superior'.

ultimitsu said:

007peter said:

Canon Weakness:

• Canon makes lousy $500 lens ( tamron, sigma are better )

Click to expand...

what about 85 F1.8, 100 F2, 35 F2, 60 F2.8, 55-250?

ultimitsu said:

• You can have Quality IQ, but you're not going to get portability

Click to expand...

I think the true is, you get better IQ but less portability. some people will find this trade off not worthwhile well others may find it acceptable.

I often carry my 60D + 17-55 with me. take pictures indoors at F 2.8 iso 3200 with IS, if i had a m43, i would not have a F2.8 zoom with IS, i would have to shoot at higher iso with worse quality. I may not find it acceptable.

ultimitsu said:

m4/3 Strength:

• Reasonable Lens Prices - unlike Canon, m4/3 lens price are reasonable and competitive. You can buy an Olympus 17mm f/2.8 prime for just $180,

Click to expand...

I have to say I dont see the appeal in this lens, it is very slow, it is equivelant of a

ultimitsu said:

or a Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 for $200. Where as Canon charge a whopping $ 800 for Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, and $ 750 for 28mm f/2.8 IS. Crazy price

Click to expand...

that panny is a 28mm F5 on cannon full frame, a 18-55 IS would do what it does on a canon APS-C.

Click to expand...

Speed advantage is speed advantage, the issue of DOF equivalence from FF vs MFT is not that different from FF vs APS-C. Arguably too shallow of a DOF can be a hinderance as well, needing to stop down and lose the light advantage, or when you stop down for deep DOF you fight against diffraction, etc. The D800 for example may not be showing all that it is capable of in studio shots because of stopping down and the effects of diffraction. This is already why people can come along with a premium compact and show at pixel peeping levels how good their deep DOF landscape shots are compared to 'superior' sensors.

MFT has a lot of great primes, and all of them will be stabilized on the OM-D, and the OM-D sensor is competitive if not possibly better than current Canon's APS-C (the jury is out on this but don't be surprised if DPReview or DxOMark reveal this to be true as initial results are very promising at even RAW levels). If you have decent performance at RAW levels, throw in the #1 jpeg processing, and you get overall great performance. Finally throw in stabilization for all primes. Smaller size would make me more conductive to swap lens all the time...I can swap lens inside my bag and worry less about wind/dust as it takes far less real estate to do so with much smaller lens. Swapping off my 17-55 2.8 IS is a pain, and in no way is it even possible to do within my slingshot. Getting my camera dirty means dealing with specks and dirt in my viewfinder all the time which is a PITA to clean. The sensor is far deeper making it more difficult to clean. OM-D is just a shallow sensor to clean and its weather sealed. I love my Canon but I'd be blind not to be enticed by the OM-D.

ultimitsu said:

IMO M43's biggest problem right now is lack of good sensor. sure it can't compete on resolution and high ISO due to its size, but it should be able to compete in colour accuracy and DR in low iso as these are not sensor size related - which they still lose.

Click to expand...

I checked some sources on the internet and the difference between the two, including the lenses is only 233 grams or about 1/2 of a pound (including battery and memory card). Are you sure that photo is correct and to scale?

I have Olympus E-500 and E-510 cameras with the Zuiko 14-42mm lens as well as the Canon T2i (550D) with the 18-55mm lens and something doesn't look right there...not saying it isn't right...but the comparison appears wrong. Granted I don't have the "micro" cameras, but if that micro camera and lens is that small...wow...amazing that they can get something looking that small for the amount of weight I find on the internet.

In the picture it doesn't seem to represent only 1/2 of a pound difference. Can someone verify this? Or did I make a mistake in my calculations? By the way, the Canon T2i (550D) is 53 grams lighter than the Canon T3i (600D) for that may be curous. According to the internet, the Canon 18-55mm IS lens weighs 200 grams and the M.Zuiko 14-42mm lens weighs 150 grams...not that much difference in weight for the size comparison shown.

I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that dSLRs have reached their peak in terms of development and new versions will represent improvements in the features, not IQ (read the 5D forum). However, I see rapid developments in micro 4/3 and other mirrorless cameras.

--
Jim
http://www.pbase.com/jcassatt

You can also check scale here: http://camerasize.com/compare/#289,219

I have both m43 and a T2i. These pics are pretty much on scale relative to each other.

Digirame said:

I checked some sources on the internet and the difference between the two, including the lenses is only 233 grams or about 1/2 of a pound (including battery and memory card). Are you sure that photo is correct and to scale?

I have Olympus E-500 and E-510 cameras with the Zuiko 14-42mm lens as well as the Canon T2i (550D) with the 18-55mm lens and something doesn't look right there...not saying it isn't right...but the comparison appears wrong. Granted I don't have the "micro" cameras, but if that micro camera and lens is that small...wow...amazing that they can get something looking that small for the amount of weight I find on the internet.

In the picture it doesn't seem to represent only 1/2 of a pound difference. Can someone verify this? Or did I make a mistake in my calculations? By the way, the Canon T2i (550D) is 53 grams lighter than the Canon T3i (600D) for that may be curous. According to the internet, the Canon 18-55mm IS lens weighs 200 grams and the M.Zuiko 14-42mm lens weighs 150 grams...not that much difference in weight for the size comparison shown.

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

Are those photos to the same scale? I know the Canon is nowhere NEAR as large in real life as it shows up in your post on my 19" 1280x1024 monitor. I have a 450D (all Rebels are about the same size) and with the 18-55 lens it is actually rather compact, not that jumbo-sized thing in the photo.

Click to expand...

I didn't take that photo. It is directly link from DPR 's own Olympus OM-D preview. Why don't you direct that question to DPR?

Here is the link to the review:

• http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusem5/4

DPR's own quote are:

The E-M5 may have borrowed the style of a DSLR but it's a lot smaller than one. Here we compared it to the Canon EOS 1100D (Rebel T3), itself not a particularly large example of the breed. As you can see the E-M5 is smaller in every respect, despite offering a much greater degree of direct control. The Rebel has a built-in flash, which the Olympus lacks, but the clip-on unit is so easily fitted in a pocket that it makes almost no difference when carrying the cameras.

I haven't touch the E-M5 in person yet, I'll reserve my final judgement then. But I have no doubt DPR's scale is correct.

My first shocker is when I placed my Canon SD4000 HS (300hs Europe) point/shoot against my friend's Panasonic GF3......They're the same SIZE.... Yet my canon point/shoot has only a 1/2.7" BSI-CMOS sensor, where as his Panny GF3 has a huge m4/3 sensor in it. I'm jealous.

The OM-D looks like a winner, but I'll wait until I can get my hands on one.

I've recently moved from an Olympus E-PL1 and Panasonic G1 to a Canon T3i.

I was impressed enough with the E-PL1 images I saw in the review here at DPR to go ahead and replace my old dSLR with it. I picked up the Panasonic 45-200 as well. Unfortunately, I didn't get along with the lack of a viewfinder, and the kit 14-42 lens was not to my taste. I enjoyed the 45-200, it is a good buy if you can find it for around $200; however, my "keeper" rate was low because it was difficult to keep the camera still while holding it at arm's length. I got the VF-2 EVF and a better lens, but I wasn't getting what I wanted and it was still not comfortable; I decided it was time to move on.

So, I got a T3i with the 2-lens kit. Image quality is better - and focus is faster, high ISO is cleaner, RAW images have more detail, the kit lenses are sharper, and IS is more effective. I sorely miss the compactness of the m4/3 cameras; but I don't miss shooting without a viewfinder or the lenses I had.

My answer to your question is - maybe. I think the dSLR format with optical viewfinder is still the best photographic tool at this time - at least for me. The size and weight difference is a big deal, you need to consider whether you want to carry a big old-style dSLR everywhere you go. Micro-4/3 is starting to mature, and the new cameras are clearly improving. I still have some reservations - the lens that DPR uses in the comparator (the Zuiko 50mm macro) is not a native micro-4/3 lens and you'll be hard pressed to find a current m4/3 lens as good with a useful focal length. You should consider waiting for more info on the Oly 12-50 - if it's as good as the Zuiko 12-60 it'll make m4/3 a lot more palatable.

Olympus user here who came across this post as I was looking at affordable Canon and Nikon DSLR/lens combinations for BIF.

With the introduction of the OMD (E-M5), the most significant advantage remaining for DSLR's is PDAF for action and BIF photography. I'm toying with the idea of either a T3i/70-300 f4-5.6 combination for around $1200 or a D5100/70-300 f4.5-5.6 for around $1300 for just this purpose.

I have an E-PM1 which I enjoy a great deal due to its incredibly small size yet high IQ even with the kit lens (which is decent). I also use the optional adapter to mount my Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm equiv.), 40-150mm (80-300mm equiv.) and occasionally my 70-300mm (140-600mm equiv.) zooms. While slower to focus than the native kit lens (which is lightening fast), these are all still very usable.

The E-PM1's primary advantage is its discrete appearance, allowing me to walk around urban settings and shoot to my hearts content without anyone taking offense. I can also easily carry it all day and toss a couple of lenses in my pockets as well. For $420 (which is what I spent), it really broadened my horizons beyond my two DSLR's (both which happen to be Olympus).

The E-PM1 is ground breaking for the mFT format, introducing a small weather sealed alloy body with built-in high quality EVF, tilt 3" OLED screen, 5 axis IBIS (stabilization that works well with any lens), and a 16 MP sensor that, based upon all tests viewed thus far, appears to fully match APS-C sensors in IQ. It's MSRP of $1000 for the body is also a great deal, especially with the current special bundling a weather sealed 4/3's adapter for free.

Between Olympus and Panasonic there is now also a broad array of lenses, especially quality primes of diminutive size compared to their APS-C counterparts. The poster who noted the 50mm used in DPR's test is a 4/3's lens and that there is no mFT equivalent should look no further than the Olympus mFT 45mm f1.8.

The one thing mFT still lacks is the ability to shoot action and BIF with a high level of success, which is why I'm here now. Different tools for different applications.

ecm said:

I've recently moved from an Olympus E-PL1 and Panasonic G1 to a Canon T3i.

I was impressed enough with the E-PL1 images I saw in the review here at DPR to go ahead and replace my old dSLR with it. I picked up the Panasonic 45-200 as well. Unfortunately, I didn't get along with the lack of a viewfinder, and the kit 14-42 lens was not to my taste. I enjoyed the 45-200, it is a good buy if you can find it for around $200; however, my "keeper" rate was low because it was difficult to keep the camera still while holding it at arm's length. I got the VF-2 EVF and a better lens, but I wasn't getting what I wanted and it was still not comfortable; I decided it was time to move on.

So, I got a T3i with the 2-lens kit. Image quality is better - and focus is faster, high ISO is cleaner, RAW images have more detail, the kit lenses are sharper, and IS is more effective. I sorely miss the compactness of the m4/3 cameras; but I don't miss shooting without a viewfinder or the lenses I had.

My answer to your question is - maybe. I think the dSLR format with optical viewfinder is still the best photographic tool at this time - at least for me. The size and weight difference is a big deal, you need to consider whether you want to carry a big old-style dSLR everywhere you go. Micro-4/3 is starting to mature, and the new cameras are clearly improving. I still have some reservations - the lens that DPR uses in the comparator (the Zuiko 50mm macro) is not a native micro-4/3 lens and you'll be hard pressed to find a current m4/3 lens as good with a useful focal length. You should consider waiting for more info on the Oly 12-50 - if it's as good as the Zuiko 12-60 it'll make m4/3 a lot more palatable.

Click to expand...

--
Sailin' Steve

sderdiarian said:

The E-PM1 is ground breaking for the mFT format

Click to expand...

Meant to say E-M5, apologies.

--
Sailin' Steve

ecm said:

So, I got a T3i with the 2-lens kit. Image quality is better - and focus is faster, high ISO is cleaner, RAW images have more detail, the kit lenses are sharper, and IS is more effective. I sorely miss the compactness of the m4/3 cameras; but I don't miss shooting without a viewfinder or the lenses I had.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much for all the replies. The aspect of this that interests me and seems to cause the most confusion is the question 'have Micro 43 cameras closed the gap to now match DSLR's at low ISO's.

For the most part DSLR's like the Canon 600D (T3i) have always been ahead at the higher ISO's but as I have never owned a DSLR having entered the market with the Lumix G1 and upgraded to the G2 and GF2 I would really like to know opinions on this especially from those that have both systems?

I read conflicting reviews from magazines like Whatdigitalcamera who always seem to rate the Micro 43 cameras IQ at all ISO levels below DSLR's with other reviewers like Gordon Laing at Cameralabs now saying that the G3 for example matches and in some cases surpasses cameras like the Canon 600D.

If anyone can advise I would be very grateful.

I think the reason you are still looking for a definitive answer is simply because their is not one.

I had the G1 for a few months and really liked it, actually found the EVF very good when I got used to it. I changed it because to my eye, images were not as sharp, vivid and pleasing to my eye as my DSLR.

I am now shooting with the entry level EOS 1000D, it is small light and 10 mgapxl is fine for me, I think the images knock the socks of the G1 4/3. However things have moved on and the 4/3 are certainly going to get better and better as time goes on.

'For me' my DSLR supported by my Nikon P7000 both produce sharper, more detailed JPG images than the G1.

Just my view.

inverness lad said:

I think the reason you are still looking for a definitive answer is simply because their is not one.

I had the G1 for a few months and really liked it, actually found the EVF very good when I got used to it. I changed it because to my eye, images were not as sharp, vivid and pleasing to my eye as my DSLR.

I am now shooting with the entry level EOS 1000D, it is small light and 10 mgapxl is fine for me, I think the images knock the socks of the G1 4/3. However things have moved on and the 4/3 are certainly going to get better and better as time goes on.

'For me' my DSLR supported by my Nikon P7000 both produce sharper, more detailed JPG images than the G1.

Just my view.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply however you have provided a definitive answer by saying that you feel that even the entry level EOS1000D produces much better images than the G1?

Can I ask in what way they are much better? Is it simply more detail, more depth or?

Thanks again

You miss my point, it can never be definitive because my idea of the style, colour, sharpness perspective etc, etc of an image will be completely different from yours.

Only you can make the decision based on your own taste.

IMO what gets me pumped up for trying other systems is not the bodies...its the lens. The bodies of course just have to be good ergonomically, have decent FPS and AF performance, etc and for some also have to have good stabilization for IBIS systems. Of course that doesn't mean you should get a body with a cruddy sensor, etc but pick some leading sensors in each 'system' and you'll realize in the end its mostly about the glass. And in that regard you'll realize just how great the Sony NEX line is in sensor quality...but how terrible it is in native lens such that almost all NEX shooters I know are manual focus legacy glass shooters bypassing all AF advantages entirely!

Why talk about how one systems 1600 ISO is slightly better or worse than another, when there are strikingly large differences in the quality of fast glass?

So to quickly summarize, MFT has some awesome fast primes in the Oly 45mm 1.8 and the PanaL 25mm 1.4. Look at the sample pictures, look at MFT tests, look at various resources, these blow away any Canon APS-C offering...the nifty fifty is junk in comparison and you need to use things like 28mm 1.8 or 30mm f2, etc and IMO those aren't even that great...old old film EOS era glass meant for FF or 35mm, etc.

On the otherhand Canon APS-C has the 17-55 2.8. This easily supplants the need to buy many non-stabilized wide angle EF primes which are mostly no good IMO. This is the same situation as the FF 24-70 2.8 supplanting many primes and IMO most likely easily beating them in IQ as well!

I'm being harsh on the Nifty FIfty, but to put it in perspective, for 100 bucks you do almost equal the 17-55 2.8's performance at 50mm f2.8. Throw in the stabilization and zoom range flexibility however and I just find the 17-55 2.8 better.

I realize however that the Oly 45mm 1.8 is just plain better in all sample pictures wide open, all online measures of quality, from various online sources. It's also 3x-4x more expensive...but the upshot being you buy a 1.8 glass to be able to shoot at 1.8, and the Oly lets you do that while the Canon will throw in a dream haze art filter over your shot. I didn't find the 50mm 1.4 offering much more of anything a whole lot better in most regards actually except reliability issues at 3x the cost. Shooting at 1.4 at FF sounds pretty dumb to me actually and if I need to stop down anyways again it comes down to being able to use my 17-55 2.8 stabilized with great wide-open performance at 2.8 as well.

Other APS-C Canon I've tried are standouts is the 55-250 IS, and the 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2.

Samsung has some standout decently fast pancake lens...you will need to wait on the NX20 to truly get a body without kinks and wrinkles, etc...I predict the NX20 + their lens lineup to be popular very soon just as Hyundai's are getting very popular in auto's here. Again look at their sample pictures and overall consensus in online reviews/tests...they know how to make lens.

Nikon I'd say may even beat Canon in consumer primes with their 35mm 1.8, their new 85mm 1.8, etc. However I'd vastly prefer the cheaper Canon 17-55 2.8 to their non-stabilized heavier and more costly 17-55 2.8 which would just about never provide superior quality without a tripod.

Sony is a joke in the lens arena...which is said because the reverse is true...they have technically excellent Bodies and Sensors!

Whatever system you choose, do it for their standout lens! In fact buy into other systems for their standout lens, and you no longer need to worry about lens swap. I wouldn't mind having a Canon 17-55 2.8 around as well as being able to switch to a MFT 45mm 1.8 prime setup!

IMO micro 4/3 cameras are capable of producing great images - but the lenses are letting them down. I don't find the available primes all that attractive - the new m4/3 45mm f/1.8 is claimed to be a match for the (near-perfect) Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro, but that's a pretty much useless focal length for anything I want to shoot. The only one useful for my tastes is the 14mm and it's supposed to be soft.

The upcoming 12-50mm may change all that, though; I'd wait for some hands-on reviews of this lens. If it's as good as the Zuiko 12-60, at a reasonable price, you may want to keep your G2 and just get this new lens.

the 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 is an acceptable lens (its like the kit lens in sharpness and chromatic aberrations control but has near macro starts at 12 an is weather sealed and has power zoom) so its not like the 12-60. But the 12mm f2 is +- like the 12-60 in sharpness and the 14mm f2.5 pany lens is sharper then the 12-50 but the corners are weak wide open.

There is a 12-35 on the way and stabilized and with 2.8 (panasonic)

It brings me back to the time where early full-size samples were taken and everyone stated they must have used poor camera settings, etc.

Here is a picture of grass, wood, a metal sign, and a red scarf
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photones/6891615022/sizes/o/in/photostream/





And here is my picture of a red rag sitting on a trailer with a mix of metal and wood as well shot with the nifty fifty at 2.8 which I plan to sell eventually (a performance I guarantee my 17-55 2.8 can duplicate if not better ).

Obviously scale is different as I'm probably a bit closer to the subject, however the other shot was done with quite a decent lens shot at 36mm stopped down to 5.6. At first I thought maybe it was very strong wind and rapid movement of the scarf, but for sure I doubt the wood reinforcement or signpost moved that much, not to mention the grass would move the most and they don't really show motion blur. I see sharp grass near the base of the sign post I think and the focal length and aperture would seem to indicate that the sign post and scarf should be in DOF, but just look at the full-size image or 100% view and see how the wood, metal, and scarf is pretty much devoid of details?