Reading mode: Light Dark

Why you buy a micro four thirds ? most of my friends use Canon / Nikon / Sony

Go to last post
Banh Mi

Banh Mi

Well-known member
Messages
186
Reaction score
107
The micro four thirds system:
- bad on high ISO > 800
- sensor is small, so deep of field x 2.0, background not blur

But why you buy micro four thirds ? My brother in law with his 7D, and most of friends, they don't know what brand is "olympus", and they always me, why I use that brand, and not buy cheap Full Frame like A7 or 6D.

( P/S: I got Olympus E M10, because the body is so beautiful >_< I can't stop myself, hahahaha )

--
Add me? We shoot together
http://www.dslr101.com
http://flickr.com/photos/dslr101
 
Last edited:
Because I wouldn't be able to have 7.5mm thru 200mm worth of equivalent focal range between three or four lenses inside a small waist pack with an A7 or 6D.

Because I can even cram two small M4/3 bodies with three or four lenses in the same pack that wouldn't even fit a 24-100 L. Because I find enough DoF control on M4/3 with brighter primes, and because it seems plenty usable thru ISO 6400.

Your friends might have different requirements, nothing wrong with that. Hopefully you bought the E-M10 based on something other than looks tho, but even if you didn't you can still learn to appreciate it's advantages.
 
Banh Mi said:
The micro four thirds system:
- bad on high ISO > 800
- sensor is small, so deep of field x 2.0, background not blur
Click to expand...
I have been shooting Nikon DSLR's for years, just got my first m4/3, but wanted to add this note about DOF.

While true, it would be harder to get as narrow DOF that is also a plus at times. Sometimes the problem shooting wide open in dim light to get the SS you want leaves to much of your subject OOF, much easier to shoot at 1.8 on M4/3 and get everything in focus you want.

I played around shooting this weekend shooting with the 45 1.8 wide open. I was very happy with the DOF and background blur.

Banh Mi said:
But why you buy micro four thirds ? My brother in law with his 7D, and most of friends, they don't know what brand is "olympus", and they always me, why I use that brand, and not buy cheap Full Frame like A7 or 6D.

( P/S: I got Olympus E M10, because the body is so beautiful >_< I can't stop myself, hahahaha )

--
Add me? We shoot together
http://www.dslr101.com
http://flickr.com/photos/dslr101
Click to expand...
 
Karld70 said:
While true, it would be harder to get as narrow DOF that is also a plus at times. Sometimes the problem shooting wide open in dim light to get the SS you want leaves to much of your subject OOF, much easier to shoot at 1.8 on M4/3 and get everything in focus you want.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The recent (?) "discovery" of DOF "equivalence" is one side of a two-edged sword. It sidesteps the advantage of high DOF for some situations, in favor of a the-more-blur-the-better mentality. How did this bandwagon get started rolling?

Both shallow DOF and deep DOF have their place, depending on the subject and the photographer's intention.

--
David
pbase.com/morepix
 
Last edited:
Banh Mi said:
The micro four thirds system:
- bad on high ISO > 800
- sensor is small, so deep of field x 2.0, background not blur

But why you buy micro four thirds ? My brother in law with his 7D, and most of friends, they don't know what brand is "olympus", and they always me, why I use that brand, and not buy cheap Full Frame like A7 or 6D.

( P/S: I got Olympus E M10, because the body is so beautiful >_< I can't stop myself, hahahaha )
Click to expand...
 
Most people who got into M43 already had Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras before. I imagine that much like myself, they saw that those systems were not for them and decided to try M43 drawn by the system's small size and features.

Funny you compare your EM10 negatively against a friend's 7D. The EM10 sensor has generally better IQ than Canon sensors, including in low light and high ISOs. I think you shouldn't go by what your friends tell you and judge with your own eyes.

As for a "cheap FF" being better - I went from Nikon to M43 with no regrets, but later bought a Canon 5D2 with 3 lenses at a bargain price in order to have a FF option. Guess what, I still use my M43 system daily while the heavy and clunky FF kit sits in a bag most of the time. Even the A7 options don't draw me at this point - the system feels like it's still at a beta stage and paying customers are the testers. Give me a GH4 over an A7S/R any day...
 
Last edited:
Because I rarely shoot at an ISO > 800 and I actually like having more depth of field.

And getting blur is just a matter of getting the right subject to background distance.







--
RaymondR
 

Loading…

www.photographyblog.com

Almost everything you said makes little sense... bad image quality at over ISO 800 etc.

Check out that lens, a 35mm f1.4 lens, compare it to the olympus 17mm f1.8 and while I recognize they dont take the same pictures I can choose between an f2.8 for little real world gain, and an f1.4 which is a monster in the Sony system.

Then, aside from Sony, what is left for a FF mirrorless camera? APSC? Fuji, who uses a filter array which causes its own problems with detail leaving little advantage as I can just noise reduction the noise away and lose the same amount of detail.

There are more, but I have to get back to work.
 
To the OP:

First of all, the IQ is fine to ISO 3200 and beyond. My FT E30 wasn't much good past 1600 ISO.

Second of all, I have shot Olympus since 1973.

Third, and finally, why should you or I care what other people shoot?















 

Attachments

  • 3160329.jpg
    3160329.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
morepix said:
Karld70 said:
While true, it would be harder to get as narrow DOF that is also a plus at times. Sometimes the problem shooting wide open in dim light to get the SS you want leaves to much of your subject OOF, much easier to shoot at 1.8 on M4/3 and get everything in focus you want.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The recent (?) "discovery" of DOF "equivalence" is one side of a two-edged sword. It sidesteps the advantage of high DOF for some situations, in favor of a the-more-blur-the-better mentality. How did this bandwagon get started rolling?

Both shallow DOF and deep DOF have their place, depending on the subject and the photographer's intention.

--
David
pbase.com/morepix
Click to expand...
not...i dare say that FF's DoF is too shallow and 2X crop is just right but that's just me...

here are crops from Sony FF and E1....













more subject(s) in focus in E1 image.



--
Thanks,
Paul
 
morepix said:
Karld70 said:
While true, it would be harder to get as narrow DOF that is also a plus at times. Sometimes the problem shooting wide open in dim light to get the SS you want leaves to much of your subject OOF, much easier to shoot at 1.8 on M4/3 and get everything in focus you want.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The recent (?) "discovery" of DOF "equivalence" is one side of a two-edged sword. It sidesteps the advantage of high DOF for some situations, in favor of a the-more-blur-the-better mentality. How did this bandwagon get started rolling?

Both shallow DOF and deep DOF have their place, depending on the subject and the photographer's intention.
Click to expand...
David, I often wonder what happened to just taking a picture and being happy, like when I was young and a box camera was it for pics. And the pics from80 years ago still look as good as then. This age of technology has taken many to exotic places at the risk of losing the value of simplicity. Just my opinion and do not mean to start any fuss.

Russell
 
Banh Mi said:
The micro four thirds system:
- bad on high ISO > 800
Click to expand...
Bad, eh? This was taken at ISO 3200 on my GX7.

Sure, there was some noise, and I applied some light NR in Lightroom, but nothing that required much, and didn't require me to dig into a more powerful tool like Noise Ninja or Topaz Denoise.


Banh Mi said:
- sensor is small, so deep of field x 2.0, background not blur
Click to expand...








Banh Mi said:
But why you buy micro four thirds ? My brother in law with his 7D, and most of friends, they don't know what brand is "olympus", and they always me, why I use that brand, and not buy cheap Full Frame like A7 or 6D.

( P/S: I got Olympus E M10, because the body is so beautiful >_< I can't stop myself, hahahaha )

--
Add me? We shoot together
http://www.dslr101.com
http://flickr.com/photos/dslr101
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 3161372.jpg
    3161372.jpg
    702.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 3162819.jpg
    3162819.jpg
    467.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Because 4/3 format has 2 stop advantage for better noise with lower ISO, faster shutter speed, more power from flashes, longer distance with flashes, depth of field for sharp subjects in portraits, better in macro by depth of field and magnification.

And then of course the manufacturer reasons, Olympus IBIS, EVF, WiFi remote, live bulb/view/composition, great in productivity and macro, sports, wildlife...

Most important, it is FUN. It is allowing more creative approaches and E-M1 (body) is best out there for fast situations.

I can't get nothing out of the camera or after post priceasing like E-M1 offers,
from any DSLR or what CaNikOny offers.
 
Banh Mi said:
The micro four thirds system:
- bad on high ISO > 800
- sensor is small, so deep of field x 2.0, background not blur

But why you buy micro four thirds ? My brother in law with his 7D, and most of friends, they don't know what brand is "olympus", and they always me, why I use that brand, and not buy cheap Full Frame like A7 or 6D.

( P/S: I got Olympus E M10, because the body is so beautiful >_< I can't stop myself, hahahaha )
Click to expand...
 
I would agree with two replies below regarding high ISO as I shoot indoor images of my two grandsons by avaialble light up to ISO 4,000 and have printed the results up to 11 x 14 inches to my satisfaction.

I also own a Sony FF system and save it for images where I need, all else being equal, top quality results.

I do not travel with the FF however as it's too heavy and cumbersome for my old shoulders when trekking round towns in foreign countires. The M4/3 is much more unobtrusive and I get less stares when using it as it doesn't look like a serious camera yet gives serious results.

Anyway, all the best in your choices and enjoy taking photographs.

Regards. Tom
 
Your dog photo shows how ears and nose is Already out of focus and is for many useless. So using a 135 format would make it even worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top