I gotta good feeling...

Brent J said:

You mentioned you are a portrait shooter and you say you want a larger sensor than what is in Micro Four-Thirds. My question is "Why"? Are you printing really large?

I ask because I made a series of portraits for my fellow employees and printed them on A3+ paper (13"x19", 330x483mm) and they are simply stunning. The images are actually 12"x18" and framed to 16"x20". The detail is so incredible you can see every skin pore, strand of hair, and thread on clothing. I honestly don't see how any more detail could be possible (or desired).

Oh yeah, the cameras I used to make these portraits were the Oly C8080, E300, and E330. I think all are 8 megapixels and the C8080 uses a smaller sensor than what is in Micro Four-Thirds.

And no, I don't have low standards of what is a good quality printed photo. I just find it strange when I read someone implying that they can't make a good enough image with the current MFT cameras.

Click to expand...

Oh no, I'm sure your portraits printed beautifully and I'm getting lovely images from the GX-1, it's just that I'm a shallow DOF nut and coming from FF the smaller MFT sensor does lose in this department (but wins for other types of shooting, I'm only referring to people who love very thin DOF, like myself). As I've said numerous times, ever since I discovered m4/3 in person of the GX-1, I've had more fun with photography than in a long time before that, and there is no going back to a big camera. But my standards have remained super high and I always see my D700 shots with a definite longing.

Jere Landis said:

Marla2008 said:

Jere Landis said:

Marla2008 said:

I'm happy with any camera because making pictures is so much fun and such a blessing That being said, the D700 is my dream camera, but now that I've had a taste of the small guys, no going back to the big gun !

Click to expand...

Happy with any camera?? !!! Whoa, I don't really think so! The EPM1 and G1X, neither one are you happy with by your own admission!!

Click to expand...

Hmm.. I think I AM in the best place to know whether I'm happy or not ? Having a color cast issue with the GX-1 doesn't keep me from loving it, and hating the E-PM1 doesn't even stop me from shooting it ! Believe me, I'm happy

Click to expand...

Please explain how you can be happy with a camera that delivers a color cast that you hate and to hate a camera that delivers color that you like? The final outcome is what really counts, isn't it. The mechanics of a camera ( knobs, heavy duty body, looks etc. ) give a pride of ownership and a perception of value, understood. If a camera like that doesn't deliver the goods, what good is it?

Click to expand...

All totally true, but I'd give it up. Sometimes we can all form an opinion on a product and there's no going back. It can also be a visceral emotional response every bit as much as being based on actual characteristics. It happens.

In its defense, the E-PM1 is Olympus' bottom tier mFT camera. As such, I find it a wonderful tool for a measly $425 that delivers stunning images once sharpness and saturation are brought down a notch, EV compensation set to -1/3, and IS and noise control are turned off (which still apparently leaves it on in JPEG mode, but at a much reduced level).

I view it akin to properly setting up a plasma TV which arrives at your door with factory presets resulting in garishly vibrant colors, these settings being chosen by the manufacturer to wow viewers in a brightly lit store showroom. Kind of like a lit up billboard; kind of like the factory presets on the E-PM1.

It is also a very basic tool, I've come to think of it as the Brownie camera of mFT, priced and sized like a compact but packing a sensor of DSLR quality. Simply great for low-key street shooting, it has a usable interface in the SCP and a usable but small LCD. Neither of these have any bearing on IQ coming out of the camera, which is what it's all about in a $425 camera.

To compare its controls to those on a GX-1 is obviously not fair, they're in two different classes. An E-P3 would have been more appropriate in terms of handling, but an opinion has been formed and now it's onto the next model.

I admit I've tired of the OP's bashing ("I hate it", no less) of an entry level mFT that takes excellent photos when properly adjusted. What can I say, I'm happy with it at its price point, but then I don't go through cameras like so many changes of clothing in a constant search for the holy grail. At this point, I frankly await the OP's purchase of the OM-D with some bemusement, fully expecting a fresh list of disappointments. Hopefully we'll also get a report on what was gotten right as well.

I apologize for my tone, but this is how these posts on several threads have now started to come across to me. Likely unintentional, the posting of simple words rather than being able to hold a true conversation can certainly do that.
--
Sailin' Steve

I thought you were saying you weren't satisfied with the detail you were getting with MFT but you are saying it is thin DOF you want for your portraits. I can understand that. There is a certain "look" that I see with portraits made with FF cameras that I have always wanted to get.

I use the 50mm f2.0 lens on my FT and MFT cameras and get a pretty shallow DOF for portraits. The face of the subject will be sharp and the ears will be out of focus. It's a slow lens to lock focus but it is accurate.

felixhsieh said:

Personally wasn't too impressed from early X1 Pro reviews.

Earlier this year I upgraded to a NEX-7 from my old NEX-5. The 5 was almost two years old already (an eternity in mirrorless evolution), and I wanted something better suited for the first two truly good Sony E lenses. But in the 2-3 months I spent with the NEX-7, I came away sorely disappointed: IQ was excellent, but AF hadn't improved noticably oveer the original 5 (considering how much more we expect from our equipment now). And the build quality wasn't much better either, despite the hefty premium.

I've also spent some time with the X100, which also had mediocre AF performance (and an especially awful MF experience), despite wonderful IQ. So in hearing about the X1 Pro's poor AF (despite the high price), I can't get excited about where the X series is going. The X10's white orb problems doesn't inspire much confidence, either. As with the NEX-7, excellent IQ won't matter if the camera is going to hunt half the time, and mis-focus most of the other half. AF performance really should be at least good for high-end cameras, and especially if the lenses are focus-by-wire.

Click to expand...

I second your X100 summary.

When, Olympus and Panasonic can do fly by wire focus in auto or manual I was so disappointed with Fuji. IQ, sensor size doesn't matter when they are way out of focus. Like any rangefinder tight composition is very difficult, so tight crop portraits are luck than design.

felixhsieh said:

Fortunately, the E-M5 has made getting rid of my NEX equipment an easy decision. It really is the first mirrorless that (for me) hits all the key areas. It doesn't surpass its competition in any one headline feature -- it's still a smaller FT sensor; still a moderate 16mp; etc -- but it gets all the basics right, and brings some truly useful features to the table (like 5-axis IBIS and weather-proofing) other than just sensor and IQ improvements. And for its price, it actually feels like a solid photography tool rather than an expensive electronic gadget.

If Oly can deliver MFT versions of some of their FT lenses, I would even consider getting a second body, instead of just speculating how they could improve the current model -- although I must admit I am looking forward to see how Oly plans to expand the OM-D line.

Nevertheless, it is exciting to see how each company is contributing to the mirrorless evolution, even if not all products are ones that I would be willing to buy.

Click to expand...

Marla2008 said:

... and hating the E-PM1 doesn't even stop me from shooting it !

Click to expand...

If I hated my e-pM1 I'd have bought an e-P3 by now.

Aside from getting used to how to change certain settings quickly (easier to do on almost any other m4/3rds camera body), and needing to add ergonomic grips to it ... it is a superb machine.
What's to hate?
Or is the hate the slippery & button-pushing shape?

and ...

Stop saying Rangefinder! Grr.

palker said:

... I second your X100 summary.

When, Olympus and Panasonic can do fly by wire focus in auto or manual I was so disappointed with Fuji. IQ, sensor size doesn't matter when they are way out of focus. Like any rangefinder tight composition is very difficult, so tight crop portraits are luck than design.

Click to expand...

There are only three digital rangefinders. None of them is a Fuji.

Marla2008 said:

It must be me but I do see IQ differences that are not negligible between the two, but I assume those will appear more to portrait shooters, having to do with DOF, micro contrast, super fine detail and color rendition...

Click to expand...

I like the IQ as well, but you have to decide what you're willing to trade for it. For now, the Fuji has a lot of small quirks, and a few larger issues. The lens selection is okay, but the 18mm just isn't great and if that's a focal length you like, you'd have to live with that. The AF will have trouble keeping up with your daughter. Having had one for two weeks and shooting over 1000 images with it, I honestly didn't see the sharpness and resolution that I'd have expected from it. I don't think it's any better than any other 16mp camera I've used in that respect, though it's not really fair to judge until raw support arrives.

So in the end, for me it was a choice between a camera with many flaws for more money but wonderful IQ in some respects versus a camera (the E-M5) which also has great IQ, even if it's not quite up to par with the Fuji, for less money and with fewer flaws. IQ isn't everything to me, the other flaws do add up.

I'm with you in that I am definitely looking forward to seeing what Fuji does in the future. If they address most of the flaws, I'll take another look.

Marla2008 said:

it's just that I'm a shallow DOF nut

Click to expand...

I'm quite a bit off topic here, excuse me please... I recently rediscovered 120 roll film via a gently-used Pentax 6x7. Talk about shallow DOF - there is no forgiveness if your focus is off by even a hair's width.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

You think 67 is bad try a 5x4. I once did a series of portraits using a 300mm on 5x4 and by the time I'd finished the focusing problems had nearly cased me a mental meltdown. f8 on that lens and format gives a DOF smaller than a gnat's chuff. Still the quality when printed was a different matter. If my pockets were deeper and my back could handle the weight I'd shoot large format all the time.

None of the cameras we have now are bad, they are all very capable machines. I think a lot of people cause themselves a great deal of anxiety by continuously looking for the "ultimate" camera thinking that if they had it their photos would be so much better. The sad truth is that it won't. The only thing that will make your photos better is learning to use what you've got more effectively.

The tendency to obsess over dynamic range, pixel peeping to see every optical flaw, worrying whether brand x is better than brand y at some ISO that looks like an international phone number is all crackers. Find a camera that you can afford, that feels reasonable in your hand and then take photos. Review the photos find out what works and what doesn't and then apply it to the next session. Repeat often.

I know that this is a very gear orientated forum, but it's sole purpose is to sell cameras. They do this by continually comparing and point out the short comings of the preceding model. My old Canon EOS300d still takes great photos if I do my part. My 25 year old OM 4 still takes wonderful pictures ... if I do my part. So if you read a review of a camera and it makes you start to feel a bit inadequate my advice is pick up a camera, any camera, take some photos and think about using that camera to its best advantage, process the photos and then print them. You'll find that the feelings of wanting a new shinny thing will pass as you realise that you actually had fun and enjoyed yourself.

If photography causes you angst it really is time to get a new hobby.

SterlingBjorndahl said:

Marla2008 said:

it's just that I'm a shallow DOF nut

Click to expand...

I'm quite a bit off topic here, excuse me please... I recently rediscovered 120 roll film via a gently-used Pentax 6x7. Talk about shallow DOF - there is no forgiveness if your focus is off by even a hair's width.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

Click to expand...

Marla2008 said:

OTOH, Fuji has my attention, and I mean ALL of it. The existing lenses for the X1 Pro are already capable, and the lens roadmap is sensible, and in a very near future. As a portrait shooter even though I'm enjoying what m4/3 has to offer, the smaller sensor is not my ideal proposition, and I am floored by the IQ I see coming our of both the X100 and X1. I'd bet my boots we'll see a cheaper X mount brody from Fuji in 2013, which will probably address the AF issue of the pro, with maybe a less stylish body and smaller size, all things I'd gladly buy...

Click to expand...

Marla2008 said:

Marla (with a bad case of X1 Pro lust, lol).

Click to expand...

Don't count on any future obvious directions. They might actually never materialize and you'll be stuck waiting for something that might never happen or by the time it does happen you missed out on so many shooting opportunities holding back for it.

Just look at the NEX people. Seemed like a no brainer that Sony would introduce some good lenses and game over for its competitors. Well right now, the NEX forum are jumping all over the place with the excitement of the new Sigma 2.8 while the same exact lenses are totally ignored here at m43. That just tells you a lot doesn't it?

our dreams and what companies can deliver are not necessarily inline.

As long as we're dreaming, my dream is a FF camera the size of a PEN. To heck with the crop Fuji X-Pro-1.

Marla2008 said:

Brent J said:

You mentioned you are a portrait shooter and you say you want a larger sensor than what is in Micro Four-Thirds. My question is "Why"? Are you printing really large?

I ask because I made a series of portraits for my fellow employees and printed them on A3+ paper (13"x19", 330x483mm) and they are simply stunning. The images are actually 12"x18" and framed to 16"x20". The detail is so incredible you can see every skin pore, strand of hair, and thread on clothing. I honestly don't see how any more detail could be possible (or desired).

Oh yeah, the cameras I used to make these portraits were the Oly C8080, E300, and E330. I think all are 8 megapixels and the C8080 uses a smaller sensor than what is in Micro Four-Thirds.

And no, I don't have low standards of what is a good quality printed photo. I just find it strange when I read someone implying that they can't make a good enough image with the current MFT cameras.

Click to expand...

Oh no, I'm sure your portraits printed beautifully and I'm getting lovely images from the GX-1, it's just that I'm a shallow DOF nut and coming from FF the smaller MFT sensor does lose in this department (but wins for other types of shooting, I'm only referring to people who love very thin DOF, like myself). As I've said numerous times, ever since I discovered m4/3 in person of the GX-1, I've had more fun with photography than in a long time before that, and there is no going back to a big camera. But my standards have remained super high and I always see my D700 shots with a definite longing.

Click to expand...

Marla

Other than thin DOF do you notice anything else in the type of image (good or bad) coming from D700 to mft?

What lens are you using? Have you tried the 45mm f1.8 as it seems to give very nice DOF?

Other than thin DOF do you notice anything else in the type of image (good or bad) coming from D700 to mft?

Richieg said:

What lens are you using? Have you tried the 45mm f1.8 as it seems to give very nice DOF?

Click to expand...

Yes I do have the 45/1.8 that I love, it really is great for thin DOF portaits, however I use the Panaleica 25/1.4 even more due to its beautiful micro contrast and color rendition, that is SUCH a special lens, love love it !

Coming from FF, I am amazed at how LITTLE IQ I actually lose with the GX-1, which has terrific IQ (I'd be much more critical of the older 12mp Oly sensor, but this one is behind us anyway).

AF for moving subjects is of course not on par with pro DLSR bodies (but who would expect it to be ?), other than that there's little to lose. To me the "loss" is totally linked to sensor size, and very predictable, DOF control, depth and richness of color, dynamic range. Those are still a good deal superior with an FF DSLR. But the catch is, now that I've shot the small cam and taken it all over either in my purse or full time on my shoulder, I just can NOT see myself reverting to DSLR. D700 bodies have gotten affordable, and this was my dream cam, but truly the joy of the tiny camera is beyond description, and a thrill in itself.