Reading mode: Light Dark

Micro 4/3

Go to last post
Porky89 said:
Just discovered? Nice troll!
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? A friend told me at the weekend that she had bought a micro 4/3 camera. I had not heard of that system and so googled it. This is a fairly standard mode of discovery. You may have even come across it yourself.

Please bear in mind this is the Beginners Questions forum! Not everyone is as knowledgable as you!

I also suggest you look up the meaning of the word "troll"
 
Last edited:
StuartT50 said:
Porky89 said:
There is no prism in the hump, but there is a viewfinder. Where would you put it? It has got to go somewhere. Why not in a housing on the top of the body?
Click to expand...
So it does have a 'look through' viewfinder? I assumed that micro 4/3 used an electronic viewfinder only (the LCD screen). But perhaps I have misunderstood
Click to expand...
No, it is an electronic viewfinder just an enclosed one viewed through an eyepiece thus allowing the camera to be used in bright light which can cause problems viewing the rear screen. It also has the effect of stabilising the camera when it is held up to the face far more than when held at arms length. This becomes more important when using larger heavier fast or telephoto lenses.

Ian
 
Porky89 said:
Porky89 said:
Where else is it going to go. In an extreme corner of the body? That would be horrible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There are rangefinder style mirrorless cameras with EVF (electronic view finders). That EVF is on the corner, some are articulated. Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus have them, that I know of, may be others. Do not know if you are being sarcastic.
 
I need to add some mirrorless are APS-C, Sony, Fuji but still range finder or SLR style.
 
CFuentes85 said:
Porky89 said:
CFuentes85 said:
Where else is it going to go. In an extreme corner of the body? That would be horrible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There are rangefinder style mirrorless cameras with EVF (electronic view finders). That EVF is on the corner, some are articulated. Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus have them, that I know of, may be others. Do not know if you are being sarcastic.
Click to expand...
I was about to say the range finder cameras did have the viewfinder at the corner as well. But the range finder suffered the parallax errors.

Sometimes, the form follow the function and sometimes not...
CFuentes85 said:
--
Cali Fuentes
Click to expand...
 
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
Porky89 said:
There is no prism in the hump, but there is a viewfinder. Where would you put it? It has got to go somewhere. Why not in a housing on the top of the body?
Click to expand...
So it does have a 'look through' viewfinder? I assumed that micro 4/3 used an electronic viewfinder only (the LCD screen). But perhaps I have misunderstood
Click to expand...
No, it is an electronic viewfinder just an enclosed one viewed through an eyepiece thus allowing the camera to be used in bright light which can cause problems viewing the rear screen. It also has the effect of stabilising the camera when it is held up to the face far more than when held at arms length. This becomes more important when using larger heavier fast or telephoto lenses.

Ian
Click to expand...
Right. Got you. Thanks
 
Porky89 said:
Dutch Newchurch said:
It makes it look like the OM4 with which I used to shoot Kodachrome.

It's a cool feature (but makes no difference to its ability to take pictures).
Click to expand...
It makes a difference if you need a viewfinder. Where else is it going to go. In an extreme corner of the body? That would be horrible.
Click to expand...
Actually not horrible - see for examples the Olympus Pen F, Panasonic GX 85 or the Fuji X Pro 2

All three place the viewfinder in the upper left of the camera back - similar to placement on a traditional rangefinder camera [e.g. Leica M series]
 
StuartT50 said:
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
Porky89 said:
There is no prism in the hump, but there is a viewfinder. Where would you put it? It has got to go somewhere. Why not in a housing on the top of the body?
Click to expand...
So it does have a 'look through' viewfinder? I assumed that micro 4/3 used an electronic viewfinder only (the LCD screen). But perhaps I have misunderstood
Click to expand...
No, it is an electronic viewfinder just an enclosed one viewed through an eyepiece thus allowing the camera to be used in bright light which can cause problems viewing the rear screen. It also has the effect of stabilising the camera when it is held up to the face far more than when held at arms length. This becomes more important when using larger heavier fast or telephoto lenses.

Ian
Click to expand...
Right. Got you. Thanks
Click to expand...
It is worth noting that eye-level view finders (such as on the OMD EM-1) tend to have a higher resolution than the rear screens. In the case of the OM-D E-M1 the rear screen has 1,037,000 pixels and the viewfinder has 2,360,000.

You should also understand that there are a variety of sensor sizes for cameras with interchangeable lenses. From the Nikon 1 series (13.2 x 8.8mm), Panasonic and Olympus micro4/3 (17.4 x 13mm), Canon APS-C (22.3 x 14.9mm), Nikon/Sony APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm), Sony "Full Frame" (35.6 x23.8mm), Nikon "Full Frame" (35.9 x 24mm), Canon "Full Frame" (36 x 24mm) to Pentax and Hasselblad "Medium Format" (44 x 33mm).

All of which are perfectly capable of producing exceptional images in the hands of a skilled photographer.

Ian
 
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
Porky89 said:
There is no prism in the hump, but there is a viewfinder. Where would you put it? It has got to go somewhere. Why not in a housing on the top of the body?
Click to expand...
So it does have a 'look through' viewfinder? I assumed that micro 4/3 used an electronic viewfinder only (the LCD screen). But perhaps I have misunderstood
Click to expand...
No, it is an electronic viewfinder just an enclosed one viewed through an eyepiece thus allowing the camera to be used in bright light which can cause problems viewing the rear screen. It also has the effect of stabilising the camera when it is held up to the face far more than when held at arms length. This becomes more important when using larger heavier fast or telephoto lenses.

Ian
Click to expand...
Right. Got you. Thanks
Click to expand...
It is worth noting that eye-level view finders (such as on the OMD EM-1) tend to have a higher resolution than the rear screens. In the case of the OM-D E-M1 the rear screen has 1,037,000 pixels and the viewfinder has 2,360,000.

You should also understand that there are a variety of sensor sizes for cameras with interchangeable lenses. From the Nikon 1 series (13.2 x 8.8mm), Panasonic and Olympus micro4/3 (17.4 x 13mm), Canon APS-C (22.3 x 14.9mm), Nikon/Sony APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm), Sony "Full Frame" (35.6 x23.8mm), Nikon "Full Frame" (35.9 x 24mm), Canon "Full Frame" (36 x 24mm) to Pentax and Hasselblad "Medium Format" (44 x 33mm).

All of which are perfectly capable of producing exceptional images in the hands of a skilled photographer.

Ian
Click to expand...
Thanks Ian.

I clearly have a hell of a lot to learn. Maybe I am overvaluing the frame size and number of pixels. I guess because I was a film guy for so long I tend to think of 24x36 as the standard and that everything else is somehow "less"
 
StuartT50 said:
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
Porky89 said:
There is no prism in the hump, but there is a viewfinder. Where would you put it? It has got to go somewhere. Why not in a housing on the top of the body?
Click to expand...
So it does have a 'look through' viewfinder? I assumed that micro 4/3 used an electronic viewfinder only (the LCD screen). But perhaps I have misunderstood
Click to expand...
No, it is an electronic viewfinder just an enclosed one viewed through an eyepiece thus allowing the camera to be used in bright light which can cause problems viewing the rear screen. It also has the effect of stabilising the camera when it is held up to the face far more than when held at arms length. This becomes more important when using larger heavier fast or telephoto lenses.

Ian
Click to expand...
Right. Got you. Thanks
Click to expand...
It is worth noting that eye-level view finders (such as on the OMD EM-1) tend to have a higher resolution than the rear screens. In the case of the OM-D E-M1 the rear screen has 1,037,000 pixels and the viewfinder has 2,360,000.

You should also understand that there are a variety of sensor sizes for cameras with interchangeable lenses. From the Nikon 1 series (13.2 x 8.8mm), Panasonic and Olympus micro4/3 (17.4 x 13mm), Canon APS-C (22.3 x 14.9mm), Nikon/Sony APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm), Sony "Full Frame" (35.6 x23.8mm), Nikon "Full Frame" (35.9 x 24mm), Canon "Full Frame" (36 x 24mm) to Pentax and Hasselblad "Medium Format" (44 x 33mm).

All of which are perfectly capable of producing exceptional images in the hands of a skilled photographer.

Ian
Click to expand...
Thanks Ian.

I clearly have a hell of a lot to learn. Maybe I am overvaluing the frame size and number of pixels. I guess because I was a film guy for so long I tend to think of 24x36 as the standard and that everything else is somehow "less"
Click to expand...
What really matters is how much light you're capturing in a frame, not the size of the frame. An mFT camera with an f/1.4 lens can do pretty much anything that a FF camera with an f/2.8 lens can do. If you were happy with f/2.8 on your FF, you'll be happy with an mFT with an f/1.4 lens.

If you were happy with an f/1.4 lens on your 35mm film camera, apart from DOF, you'll be happy with a mFT camera with anything faster than f/4 or so.
 
StuartT50 said:
bobn2 said:
StuartT50 said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
StuartT50 said:
baloo_buc said:
You have just discovered America.

The sensor is four thirds. The Micro 4/3 is the mirrorless mount.

FYI there are mirrorless with even smaller sensors (1" sensor, like Nikon 1).

Regarding the shape of the OM-D series it is just esthetic so to look alike the old OM SLRs (that had pentaprism).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
bobn2 wrote
Click to expand...
bobn2 said:
Depends on the camera. The standard for mFT is 16-24MP, the standard for FF is 20-24 MP. There are FF cameras available with 30-50MP but they are all expensive cameras. Sure, they can capture detail that mFT can't. The mFT lenses also use the smaller image circle and relax size constraint a little and are optically very good indeed, so for normal purposes, there isn't much, if any, deficit due to lens quality.
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
StuartT50 said:
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
iancrowe said:
StuartT50 said:
Porky89 said:
There is no prism in the hump, but there is a viewfinder. Where would you put it? It has got to go somewhere. Why not in a housing on the top of the body?
Click to expand...
So it does have a 'look through' viewfinder? I assumed that micro 4/3 used an electronic viewfinder only (the LCD screen). But perhaps I have misunderstood
Click to expand...
No, it is an electronic viewfinder just an enclosed one viewed through an eyepiece thus allowing the camera to be used in bright light which can cause problems viewing the rear screen. It also has the effect of stabilising the camera when it is held up to the face far more than when held at arms length. This becomes more important when using larger heavier fast or telephoto lenses.

Ian
Click to expand...
Right. Got you. Thanks
Click to expand...
It is worth noting that eye-level view finders (such as on the OMD EM-1) tend to have a higher resolution than the rear screens. In the case of the OM-D E-M1 the rear screen has 1,037,000 pixels and the viewfinder has 2,360,000.

You should also understand that there are a variety of sensor sizes for cameras with interchangeable lenses. From the Nikon 1 series (13.2 x 8.8mm), Panasonic and Olympus micro4/3 (17.4 x 13mm), Canon APS-C (22.3 x 14.9mm), Nikon/Sony APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm), Sony "Full Frame" (35.6 x23.8mm), Nikon "Full Frame" (35.9 x 24mm), Canon "Full Frame" (36 x 24mm) to Pentax and Hasselblad "Medium Format" (44 x 33mm).

All of which are perfectly capable of producing exceptional images in the hands of a skilled photographer.

Ian
Click to expand...
Thanks Ian.

I clearly have a hell of a lot to learn. Maybe I am overvaluing the frame size and number of pixels. I guess because I was a film guy for so long I tend to think of 24x36 as the standard and that everything else is somehow "less"
Click to expand...
What really matters is how much light you're capturing in a frame, not the size of the frame. An mFT camera with an f/1.4 lens can do pretty much anything that a FF camera with an f/2.8 lens can do. If you were happy with f/2.8 on your FF, you'll be happy with an mFT with an f/1.4 lens.

If you were happy with an f/1.4 lens on your 35mm film camera, apart from DOF, you'll be happy with a mFT camera with anything faster than f/4 or so.
Click to expand...
 
StuartT50 said:
baloo_buc said:
You have just discovered America.

The sensor is four thirds. The Micro 4/3 is the mirrorless mount.

FYI there are mirrorless with even smaller sensors (1" sensor, like Nikon 1).

Regarding the shape of the OM-D series it is just esthetic so to look alike the old OM SLRs (that had pentaprism).

--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
Click to expand...
he he. Except I have a new Canon EOS1300D as my entry into the digital world, so I shall not be purchasing a micro 4/3. I am already slightly bothered that my sensor is less than full frame (therefore less detail). I certainly don't want to go to an even smaller sensor!
Click to expand...
I have been in (pro) photography for 55+ years and shared that same opinion.

I would never have considered anything smaller than FF, (or the dreaded APS because I felt that HAD to be inferior compared to FF).

But I went on an Alaskan cruise with a new lady I had met and decided taking all my dSLR's would take too much time from her, and the longest lens I had was 200mm and was concerned that was not long enough for an (offshore) boat cruise anyway.

So I tried a Sony HX-100 (1/2.3") w/ 800mm, (longest available at that time).

I was SURPRISED that I was AMAZED at the IQ as it was much better than I expected.

I certainly won't say it was equal to FF/APS-DX, but seemed more than adequate for most purposes.

I then switched to a Nikon P-500 because it had a 22mm-EFL starting WA, (14mm had been my favorite lens back in FF days).

But I HATED that camera, (very SLOW and HDR was unusable).

So I then switched to Panasonic FZ-200 and LOVED its 600mm-EFL @ f/2.8.

I even successfully shot a wedding w/ FZ-200 and was able to include some panoramic's, and other things I would not have able to do with dSLR.

Then got the FZ-1000 for all its additional options/features.

I now find I have 10X more shooting opportunities and having 100X more "FUN".

I am selling 24"x36" from 1"-type sensor.

NOTE that there has been several posts here, (and OPEN forum), where no-one could tell the difference between a FA and 1/2.3" BSI sensor.

So while I fully agree FF still has a place and need, 1/2.3", (and now 1"-type BSI sensors), can be more than adequate for many, (especially beginners and "family" people that could enjoy the additional options and features possible w/ smaller sensor.
 
StuartT50 said:
bobn2 said:
StuartT50 said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
StuartT50 said:
baloo_buc said:
You have just discovered America.

The sensor is four thirds. The Micro 4/3 is the mirrorless mount.

FYI there are mirrorless with even smaller sensors (1" sensor, like Nikon 1).

Regarding the shape of the OM-D series it is just esthetic so to look alike the old OM SLRs (that had pentaprism).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
StuartT50 said:
StuartT50 said:
bobn2 wrote

Depends on the camera. The standard for mFT is 16-24MP, the standard for FF is 20-24 MP. There are FF cameras available with 30-50MP but they are all expensive cameras. Sure, they can capture detail that mFT can't. The mFT lenses also use the smaller image circle and relax size constraint a little and are optically very good indeed, so for normal purposes, there isn't much, if any, deficit due to lens quality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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