Would you make a significant "investment" in m4/3?

Paul Kersey Photography said:

I have been using m43 system since in was an early adopter of Olympus Pen EP-1. However, I have no interest in going "all in" to the exclusion of other systems. Why should I or anyone for that matter, hem themselves in by that approach? Present M43 technology is good for what it is, capable and mostly diminutive. Having said that, it is not the panacea of photography equipment, hampered by sensor size limitations. I will agree that for many casual photographers m43 is plenty good.

Click to expand...

I had a similar trajectory. Got the E-P1 but never fully committed to the system. I went back to analogue cameras (rangefinders) and have continued with them. But I didn't drop m43; after some hesitation, I decided to stay the course: digital is just too convenient and the new generation of fast focusing sharp lenses combined with the much better sensor are great for snapshots of the family and for travel photography. Rather than getting out, I bought two E-PM2s (one for my wife and she loves it) and just recently got an E-P5. I have three prime lenses and the inexpensive 40-150 telephoto zoom . . . . and I feel that is pretty much what I want of the system, though I am always considering new prime lenses (LOL).

To the OP:
A crucial issue for you is to decide what you want out of m43 because there really are two paths in m43. I have always seen size as the determinative factor in m43's favour, and I have purchased small compact cameras and lenses. But both companies also have larger cameras, like the E-M1, that are substantial enough to take very expensive pro-level zooms; this is a very different development in m43 and I have stayed away from it. If I went that way the costs would force me to drop shooting my old Leica, which would take the heart out of photography for me.

kenw said:

As to entering m43 now for me I'd be looking at Fuji X and Sony A7 closely.

Click to expand...

I agree here. If I had had more time and money I would probably have gotten a Fuji X camera to check out before re-committing to m43, but because I'm already invested in film cameras and lenses I have left that option alone.

timmer350 said:

Yup, already have. But I would be willing to spend on a decent tele lens (300 f4 with OIS)

--
Gone birding... http://picasaweb.google.com/timothyboucherbirder

Click to expand...

Don't panny already have one body with IS? OIS is unlikely to be the way forward. There are types of stabilisation you can't do with it - at all.
Axial for one. Guess what motion pressing the shutter release on a normally designer camera imparts? A slight axial 'shove'. The better you have mastered 'squeeze the trigger" the less axial movement.

Even legacy lenses are stabilised like this Nikkor was


ND 30 B+W filter





There was a french test done (they shook cameras with a machine if my very limited French passes). Olympus IBIS equalled the best in faster shutter speed. Anders posted it from memory.

By 1/8 second, the EM-1 and EM-5 were MILES ahead. The longer exposures, saw the EMs increase the lead. all the way down to 1/2 second exposures with standard zooms
That was with the older, useful but less than stellar, 12-50 zoom

Have a look ... H e r e ... is a test I performed sitting on a stool. Look at the image maxxed out. Sure there is blur. NOW have a look at the exposure time recorded by the camera. IBIS works well - very well. I see plenty of work from others that reinforce the notion that IBIS is better. The quasi-religious legacy shooters may have a different take.



--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Odd that people complain a lens is not sharp enough,
and then proceed to make pics where 95% is OOF ..
General Pics:
Oly and other .. Gear test samples - even RB-67!:
How DO OMDs cope with dim-light action and smoke?

My prior system was Sony NEX7. After Sony came out with the A7/r i considered that as well. However, my conclusion was that what i wanted was not a FF sensor but more lens options. And I figured that sony would put priority on developing FE lenses which will be larger than what you could do if you developed solely for APS-C.

So i decided to look into M43. I bought a Oly EM1 body and a few lenses. I did not regret it. Even though there are still some gaps in the M43 lens eco system there are a lot more option than for most other systems. Plus i have a fairly light set up. Besides that i never had a camera that handled as well as the EM1.

It looks like there is a fairly steady flow of improvements both on the body and the lens side. So i believe at this point a safe investment.

The really high grade glass is now available, with two more next year. The option of very small fast primes at not really a bad price has been there for some time. Outside of C/N DSLR, µ43 has the best lens selection available.

High grade glass holds its value very well. If you do decide that you want to go another direction later, you're not out that much.

If you look at the trend in sensor tech, it has definitely been moving towards closing the gap between smaller and larger sensor in the last few years, in terms of resolution, DR, and noise. All sensors are getting better, but current tech has elevated the large sensors in areas that most of us don't tend to use, while it has also brought the µ43 sensor closer to the FF sensor at the ISO's and resolutions that we do tend to use most of the time. Sure, the bigger sensor is better, but how often would you actually put ISO57600 to use? When do you really need 32+MP?

So, if the trend continues in the direction it is headed, you can expect the difference between larger sensor and smaller to continue to shrink. We have the Panny/Fuji tieup on the organic sensor, that will be available with µ43. We have the Oly/Sony tieup on sensors that brings any advancements in Sony sensor tech to µ43. There is still the possibility that Sigma may wake up and retool the DP series with a µ43 mount, adding a Foveon option. Cutting DOF in software has just begun to appear, and I suspect that when this is coupled with PDAF pixel information, it may become a viable option, thus diminishing another FF advantage.

You can always move on in a few years, but will you want to? µ43 looks to be in very good shape these days, a viable alternative to C/N DSLR's, with genuine size and weight advantages that C/N can't match with their current line.

Yes, I'm lusting over the new 40-150, but as I already own the equally excellent (though substantially larger) ZD 35-100 F2, I'm more interested in the 300 F4.

Understand the m43 is a pretty expensive system if you expect to own the good stuff:

E-M1 body - 1300USD

GH4 body - 1700USD

12-40/2.8 - 1000USD

12-35/2.8 - 1000USD

35-100/2.8 - 1300USD

42.5/1.2 - 1300-1500USD

40-150/2.8 - lord knows

As long as you don't use the top-end bodies and pro-grade zooms, it's a fairly affordable route. But if you want the good stuff, something like a D7000 or 7100 Nikon offers a lot better choices in sub-1000USD zoom lenses.

So if it really needs to be smaller than a D7000 rig, m43 makes a lot of sense. If it doesn't need to be that small, you could spend a lot more money chasing the IQ of a D7000 with a 600USD lens.

I've spent a grip on m43 stuff, but also have a fairly severe back injury. Had I not, I never would have spent as much as I have on m43. My recommendation is come to m43 for anything but affordability. You can easily spend $4000 on a body and two lenses, and as much as I like m43 personally I feel that sum goes further on most DSLR platforms.

I agree that you shouldn't jump into MFT expecting to spend a lot less money. There are some lower cost options, though, such as the Lumix GH3 vs. the GH4. If you don't need 4K video, then the GH3 is a much more cost effective choice. But, when it comes to glass, you're going to have to pay up to get the really good stuff.

I keep two systems, Canon and M43 (I look at M43 as my `premium compact' system). I started with Olympus four thirds as a compact system before Olympus abandoned the format. I've used all kinds of compacts but still think the M43 is the best for me ATM, because of the lenses and IQ. I've used many `true' compact cameras and super zooms, but M43 is big step up in lens range and IQ IMO.

When I make lens/accessories investments in either system, I weigh up the value compared to alternatives in the other. This has changed over the years.

Consumer / high grade zooms - Four thirds and M43 consumer grade zooms are small and very sharp, and usually very good value if you buy them used. I prefer almost all of the zooms I've tried in M43 over consumer grade canon zoom lenses (super wide Canon zooms are very nice). I keep Olympus 14-150, Panasonic 100-300, panasonic 14-42 G-X, Oly 9-18mm and the panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 at the moment.

Macro- Canon macros are extremely sharp and have excellent AF for doubling up as walkaround lenses. Since I owned Four-thrirds, Canon macros have been a little cheaper with more types and focal lengths to choose from. Briefly tried an inexpensive four thirds macro and didn't like the slow focus type compared to USM. So I still use canon macro.

Flash- used to be massively expensive compared to Canon flashes , and adds bulk (M43 is supposed to be my compact system). I use flash for macro mainly, so stay with Canon flashes.

Telephoto- I need long lenses and AF performance for my main photographic interests. Olympus had some very expensive, fast, Super High grade telephotos available for four thirds, that I felt were somewhat wasted on the noisy, slow performing four thirds sensor. Some of them cost many thousands of dollars. Canon equivalents have been more affordable for me, and a lot better performing.

The M43 sensor has better high ISO performance, with faster AF. So I am thinking about the new Oly Pro lenses. My gut feeling is its likely that I'll feel the camera AF tracking capabilities are not good enough.That shouldn't be a deal breaker, but in expensive telephotos, poor AF tracking cripples the lens capabilities IMO.

The camera is not the investment for me. It's the images that I get, which I find are difficult to put a price on. I could surely use any camera, but for me, m4/3 is that spot where I found the portability and image quality struck a good enough balance to put some money into, so that I could get images the way I imagined them in my head.

m4/3 gives me a wide range of bodies to chose from, and quite a good selection of lenses to suit my tastes, and prices that I can personally afford--especially the lightly used or refurbished gear.

But it's just a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself.

If there is something as good that is cheaper, better, faster, and more portable, I'd switch if I had the chance. But there isn't anything out there besides high end compacts that currently have my attention away from my m4/3 gear. (Seriously contemplating that LX100...)

Steve_ said:

40-150/2.8 - lord knows

Click to expand...

According to BH Photo, its $1,500 USD


And yes, that certainly is expensive, esp. without IS (Olympus is making a killing on not having to include IS in all their lenses it seems).

MinAZ said:

MinAZ said:

40-150/2.8 - lord knows

Click to expand...

According to BH Photo, its $1,500 USD

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...v315050bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_40_150mm.html

And yes, that certainly is expensive, esp. without IS (Olympus is making a killing on not having to include IS in all their lenses it seems).

Click to expand...

And I think that is actually a fair price for what it is. I think Olympus could have charged even a few hundred more without raising too many eyebrows.

I've bought a lot of Nikon and m4/3 lenses over the years. You probably won't save money going to m4/3, but you will get a much more portable system. That was, and still is, important to me.... but it's not a good reason for everyone. I carried Nikon gear around for seven years without complaining... then I had kids and wanted a smaller system.

You can spend as little or as much as you want with either m4/3 or a DSLR like Nikon, depending on the compromises you are willing to make. If you want the latest professional grade lenses, it's going to cost you no matter what system you buy into.

Sean

in 10 years, which will be on top? which format? cellphones?

As an Olympus FourThirds user I had NO interest in Micro FourThirds. I didn't like the PENs or Panasonic's cameras.

That was until the E-M5 was announced. I have two E-M5's (one silver, one black), 4 batteries, flashes I have from regular 4/3, and lenses, at least 6 m4/3, and adapters for my non-m4/3 lenses.

So with the advent of E-M5 I have invested in m4/3.

For the record I'm not a fan of the E-M1 body.

MinAZ said:

... would you put a significant amount of money buying into the micro four thirds system?

Click to expand...

Lessee: I have about $4000 into lenses and $1300 into bodies—I'd say I was invested. ;-)

MinAZ said:

As a side question: does anyone know if besides Olympus and Panasonic, any other mfgs are planning on joining the m4/3 consortium?

Click to expand...

The Micro-FourThirds consortium is tightly held by Olympus and Panasonic. I believe that they've invited all the folks who are a part of it, it's not been open requests to participate.

G

I personall believe that the 4/3 system is here to stay and that the bigger manufacturers will get into the market too with more substantial offers, but DSLR is not dead, and won't be anytime in the near future, and this is why I will hold on to my Nikon D7100 for a long time to come. Frankly, although I like the 4/3 camera that I have, to be honest, I also love my Nikon . I appreciate the size and convenience of the 4/3 system when all that I want to do is take a few pictures here or there, but when I want to do any serious shooting I fall back on the Nikon. This is not to say that the 4/3 system is not capable of doing so , but not to the extent and ease at which the SLRs do. Weight aside, there is still no match for a good handling DSLr

Answell said:

I personall believe that the 4/3 system is here to stay and that the bigger manufacturers will get into the market too with more substantial offers, but DSLR is not dead, and won't be anytime in the near future, and this is why I will hold on to my Nikon D7100 for a long time to come. Frankly, although I like the 4/3 camera that I have, to be honest, I also love my Nikon . I appreciate the size and convenience of the 4/3 system when all that I want to do is take a few pictures here or there, but when I want to do any serious shooting I fall back on the Nikon. This is not to say that the 4/3 system is not capable of doing so , but not to the extent and ease at which the SLRs do. Weight aside, there is still no match for a good handling DSLr

Click to expand...

And BTW, I only have 2 lens for my EM-5 which I find very adequate. The Oly 14-42 , and a Panasonic 45-175mm. Ok I lied, I just purchased 2 Canon FD lenses . A 400mm f4.5 and a 50mm macro.

If I had the money, I'd be shooting E-M1 + 12-40mm f2.8 + 40-150mm f2.8 + 60mm macro + 75mm + 1.4x + Nikkor 400mm f3.5. Oh, and if I really had the money, a D750 and a few choice lenses there as well.

But I don't and it's ok. Money and cameras isn't everything.

Cheers, Seth

MinAZ said:

MinAZ said:

40-150/2.8 - lord knows

Click to expand...

According to BH Photo, its $1,500 USD

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...v315050bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_40_150mm.html

And yes, that certainly is expensive, esp. without IS (Olympus is making a killing on not having to include IS in all their lenses it seems).

Click to expand...

No they save money not wasted on extra motors jiggling lens ELEMENTS around for motors to MORE quickly focus the lens groups.
.
CaNikSon have NO lens that has this AOV/aperture - period. Tap, tap, tap ... now where are those equivalence police .. to help a little with rough shutter presses, Olympus IBIS can perform Axial IS that OIS cannot - it simply is not possible to do that by rotating glass bits ..
Check this hand held shot you'll notice a little blur full size. Now look at the Exif data the camera recorded.

.

Expensive? Not really ..
While they are both great lenses, a Canon 70-210/2.8 costs almost as much here and only has 2/3 the reach, WEIGHS about twice as much and has less than HALF the close-up ability. Then Nikkor costs MORE weighs MORE and has WORSE close-up ability.

Some people "think" an F150 is a "better" car than a Porsche because it has more metal/glass. Don't listen to them unless you need to haul hay bales
Want a compact system with a excellent lens options saleable IQ and excellent (leading) IS? This is worth a good look.
Want something else and have plenty of space as in a studio? Look elsewhere (maybe).

--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Odd that people complain a lens is not sharp enough,
and then proceed to make pics where 95% is OOF ..
General Pics:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/
Oly and other .. Gear test samples - even RB-67!:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests
How DO OMDs cope with dim-light action and smoke?
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts

MinAZ said:

In the thread title, I put the word "investment" in parentheses due to the fact that cameras are seldom truly investments in the usual sense, but of course what I mean is: would you put a significant amount of money buying into the micro four thirds system?

Click to expand...

I have done already 5 bodies ... 10 lenses .. speedbooster

MinAZ said:

Personally, I feel like I am on the brink of doing so. So far, I have been dancing around the edges - I own two m4/3 Olympus bodies and the usual kit lens and a few of the primes (one thing you can say for m4/3 is that they do make reasonably priced primes)... also a general walkabout lens. You know, stuff that won't affect my mortgage payments.

I have tried two other mirrorless systems - Nikon's J1 and Sony's A6000, before experimenting with Olympus.

Click to expand...

Check out PanasonicGX7 - quite a different menu system - nice set of controls

MinAZ said:

So far this is the system I seem to have stuck with, mainly because of the lenses. But for whatever reason, I have never taken the plunge to get the really fast glass or stuff like the FL50R. Ditto the incredibly expensive wide-angle lenses.

Click to expand...

A cheap way to get some really fast glass with decent IQ is to buy a Metabones Speedbooster for legacy lenses. Example: Speedbooster + FD 50mm F1.5 = 35mm F1.0

Speedbooster: $400 FD50mm F1.4 $50 on eBay FD85mm F1.8, FD 200mm F2.8 on ebay $200

(Comparison: Voigtlander 42.5mm F0.95 is $1000, Panasonic 42mm F1.2 is $1700)

MinAZ said:

I have been contemplating buying my first expensive glass for the system, and probably if I do so, I am going all in. At which point, I am probably going to be locked in to m4/3 for the foreseeable future since I do not think I would be bothered to change the entire system out unless someday m4/3 becomes obsolete.

I'd like to hear from others who might have done the same. Are there any out there who have really put a lot into m4/3 and do you feel that this is a system with potential to last out the competition and see the race to the end?

Click to expand...

Nobody knows how the race ends or when. Hard to say. But Panasonic and Olympus have been selling M43 gear for 6 years now, with a remarkable increase in volume and penetration.

In the Compact system Camera market space, the biggest M43 competitor is Sony, then Fuji. Are Sony and Fuji going to take over the Compact System camera market space to the extent that Olympus and Panasonic will drop out? I don't see it happening.

Are the smartphone vendors going to draw users away from M43 - I don't see that occurring.

Are Canon and Nikon going to develop small systems products so attractive that that it will draw significant users away from M43 and Sony - no signs so far.

BESIDES:

My film equipment form 1970's still works. If Panasonic or Olympius drop out of M43, I think my camera gear will still work fine for as long as it matters, and used gear will become available for cheap.

MinAZ said:

As a side question: does anyone know if besides Olympus and Panasonic, any other mfgs are planning on joining the m4/3 consortium?

Click to expand...

Non of the big camera vendors are likely to join. Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony have all made big investments in M43 competitors, they won't join; Samsung and Ricoh/Pentax don't seem likely either. Kodak has joined M43 but few people care.

For lenses, Samyang/Rokinon, Sigma and Voigtlander-Cosina make good M43 lenses. Tamron is thinking about it.

Metabones makes a lot of M43 Speedboosters. This is key, as it allows people transferring in from other systems to continue using their lenses.

--
Eric

photohounds said:

MinAZ said:

photohounds said:

40-150/2.8 - lord knows

Click to expand...

According to BH Photo, its $1,500 USD

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...v315050bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_40_150mm.html

And yes, that certainly is expensive, esp. without IS (Olympus is making a killing on not having to include IS in all their lenses it seems).

Click to expand...

No they save money not wasted on extra motors jiggling lens ELEMENTS around to instead more quickly focus the lens groups.
CaNikSon have NO lens that has this AOV/aperture - period.

Click to expand...

But they do. The aperture of the 40-150 / 2.8 ranges from 40mm / 2.8 = 14mm to 150mm / 2.8 = 54mm. Compare and contrast with the Canon 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS where the aperture ranges from 70mm / 4 =18mm to 300mm / 5.6 = 54mm -- essentially the same.

Except you know, and I know, that you don't understand the difference and significance between the relative aperture (f-ratio) and the virtual aperture (entrance pupil):

• 150mm on mFT has the same [diagonal angle] of view as 300mm on FF.
• f/2.8 on mFT has the same aperture diameter as f/5.6 on FF for a given [diagonal] angle of view (150mm / 2.8 = 300mm / 5.6 = 54mm).
• The same aperture diameter results in the same DOF and diffraction for a given perspective, framing, and display size.
• The same exposure time results in the same motion blur, regardless of system.
• The same aperture diameter and exposure time results in the same total amount of light on the sensor.
• The same amount of light on the sensor results in the same noise for equally efficient sensors (the ISO setting is merely to adjust the brightness of the LCD playback / OOC jpg).

photohounds said:

Tap, tap, tap ... now where are those equivalence police ..

Click to expand...

Demonstrating, once again, that you really don't get it.

photohounds said:

No they save money ...

Click to expand...

Actually, this was my point!