Reading mode: Light Dark

Is my m4/3 resolve cracking?

Go to last post
Every new camera or lens tempts us.

Either we think we need it for our photography, or we simply want the latest and best thing. For one reason or another.... we have fantasies about owning it.

In my own case, I never felt the need for full frame. But if I had, I would have moved to Sony FE years ago, despite the poor ergonomics and hyper expensive lenses. Today, if I felt that urge I would definitely go with a Panasonic S1, because it would probably be a better choice for me.

I am grateful I still don't want full frame. I am saving a ton of money.

In your case it might make sense to be a dual system user, and the L mount could be your best option. Panasonic will make a very nice camera, with great features, good ergonomics, latest technology, a good menu system, and plenty of nice lenses that are reasonably priced thanks to Sigma.

And best of all, you won't have to worry about whether your full frame sensor will be updated on the next iteration (unless you opt for a Foveon sensor). Unlike M4/3, there will be no seven year old sensors in new Panasonic L mount cameras. Because full frame is more "mainstream" while M4/3 is still a small market niche.

I'm just very grateful I still don't want full frame.
 
James Pilcher said:
I am (I thought) a m4/3 die hard. I joined 4/3 in 2004 and have been there ever since. I really want to acquire and use the new Olympus OM-D E-M1X. I have the funds, but I do not have the funds for both the E-M1X and...

The Panasonic S1 and 24-104mm f/4 lens are to be available very soon. I expect them to be very good, if not exceptional. I’m sorely tempted for the very first time to dabble in digital FF.

Who of you out there are thinking similarly?
Click to expand...
Y'know, I LOVE my M4/3 kit, but based on the limited information and specs we've seen so far, the S1 looks VERY compelling!!! Although, the body might be too big for my tastes.

My thoughts about dabbling in a FF camera would be body-only … PLUS a pile of lens adaptors for my stable of 135 format lenses. I have Nikon, Voigtländer and Pentax SMC Takumar lenses from 20mm to 300mm.

As far as native S-series lenses go, I'd be happy with just a couple of native primes… 35mm and 85mm.

Ideally, though, I'd like to see Panasonic release a 24MP S-series GX8 with the tilty EVF, of course. I've even put together a small kit of three Voigtländer rangefinder lenses that would make for a perfect compliment! 21mm f4. 35mm f1.4 and 75mm f2.5. They're great with my GX8.

cadab9de2e4b48dfa0ed683f565fb2d6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.

And please, do not bother responding as I am done with this thread now.
 
I am not going to jump ship right now :) . I have a few post here saying what i am doing. I hope we don't get dumped again by Olympus. With all my 4/3's lenses my E-30 and a Lumix Ll i am keeping all my equipment , it works i only upped to the OM-D E-M-5ll body and using all my lenses with the new body the lenses work fine with this body. The $3000.00 body is not my cup of tea.
 
Last edited:
Raist3d said:
James Pilcher said:
I am (I thought) a m4/3 die hard. I joined 4/3 in 2004 and have been there ever since. I really want to acquire and use the new Olympus OM-D E-M1X. I have the funds, but I do not have the funds for both the E-M1X and...

The Panasonic S1 and 24-104mm f/4 lens are to be available very soon. I expect them to be very good, if not exceptional. I’m sorely tempted for the very first time to dabble in digital FF.

Who of you out there are thinking similarly?

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life at 9100 ft
Click to expand...
I think you should really ask yourself first what kind of photography you do and what do you really need, what tools could be better for that kind of photography. Don't just go by hype or paper specs.

Why do you need to question or do a "m43rds resolve?' These are tools. If m43rds as a tool is better pick that. If not pick something else. Don't attach your identity to a tool from capitalist companies.
Click to expand...
 
James Stirling said:
s_grins said:
One S1 body + 1 standard zoom + 1 wide + my stash of FF legacy lenses ( i hope adapters will follow).
Click to expand...
No idea how well they work but I think there are already adapters for the Leica SL mount
Click to expand...
Fotodiox seems to make two SL lens adaptors at this point. That's the same L-mount, right?

One is for Leica M mount (DUH) for $60, the other is Nikon F mount, but with an integrated tripod foot, for $130.

Loading…

www.fotodioxpro.com

I'd need Leica M and Leica L39 (screwmount) adaptors, plus Nikon F, but NOT with a tripod foot and an M42 adaptor, too.
 
Sergey Borachev said:
cpt kent said:
I can see why you are tempted to leave m43
Click to expand...
[Jim] didn't say he's leaving M43. It's possible to try FF, and then decide to continue with both systems, or to stay with one of them.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not leaving m4/3! My resolve may be cracking only in that I might funnel money toward FF, denying Olympus some of my cash. But, I'm with m4/3 for the long game. With several Pro lenses and my Pen F, things are solid here. While that may sound at odds with my OP, it's not. :-)


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life at 9100 ft
 
... the first one to produce a 9-25/30/35 // 12-33/40/47 // 18-50/60/70 lens probably gets my money. So far Panasonic comes closest, though may be a bit too expensive.

Regards
 
James Pilcher said:
Sergey Borachev said:
cpt kent said:
I can see why you are tempted to leave m43
Click to expand...
[Jim] didn't say he's leaving M43. It's possible to try FF, and then decide to continue with both systems, or to stay with one of them.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not leaving m4/3! My resolve may be cracking only in that I might funnel money toward FF, denying Olympus some of my cash. But, I'm with m4/3 for the long game. With several Pro lenses and my Pen F, things are solid here. While that may sound at odds with my OP, it's not. :-)

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life at 9100 ft
Click to expand...
You couldn't have said it better. Precisely where I'm at, too, fwiw.
 
Jeff said:
)Mon frère.

Yes, I had moments of doubt in the last few months. I'd like to up my game for next summer's shooting at our lake home. The Fuji GFX 50R coupled with a few lenses would give a high-res option for lakescapes and environmental portrait style shooting in isolated first nation communities. Got as far as getting the go-ahead from my spouse and ready to push the order button on Adorama.

But as I got ready to push the button, it dawned on me that I'd be giving up precisely what I prize about mFT. Namely, the convenience of putting a complete kit in a single bag for the boat, and a great IBIS implementation enabling me to shoot wildlife from the back of a rocking boat. This was just too much to give up. There has to be a better way.

What are the high-res alternatives? The Sony A7Riii is one. But there's no simple replacement for the 300/4 which is simply brilliant. To realize the 2 stop advantage of FF would mean buying 600/4, but have you seen the cost? 5 digits. And the size? (https://fstoppers.com/animal/nikkor...ra-telephoto-lens-field-tested-iceland-267058).

A more economical 600/5.6 is a possibility, but the size is still overwhelming. The 150-600 superzooms are a decent compromise between cost and capability. But at f/6.3 there is only 1/2 stop light advantage over the 300/4.

Regarding the Panny S. That could be really good. But the photos show 3 initial lenses at 24-105/4, a 50/1.4, and a 70-200. The 24-105/4 is the smallest of the bunch. But again it really only has a one stop advantage wrt to the Oly 12-40/2.8 Pro.

The real advantage of FF is in the near normal focal length lenses. The best primes in the range of 35 - 85 are amazing, offer a full 2 stop advantage and truly high resolution. If that was my only requirement, then FF would make a lot of sense. But that isn't my only requirement.

For my actual needs, I'm thinking the EM1x would be darn near perfect, particularly if I had the 17/1.2 and 45/1.2 to kit. So speaking for myself, my intention is to wait for the Panny announcement to get a better idea of that option, then go to an Oly launch event to handle the EM1x.

We'll see, but I'm thinking mFT is still the right path for me.
Click to expand...
You and I are thinking much alike. One difference is that, although I mentioned the 24-105mm f/4, it's really the fast primes like 50mm f/1.4 and the added control over DOF that draw me to FF. Yes, the 24-105mm f/4 offers only one stop more DOF control over my 12-40mm f/2.8 and Panasonic will have a very hard time matching, wide open, the quality of the 12-40mm f/2.8. So, that's a big question mark.

You and I even fantasize over the E-M1X and the three f/1.2 Pro primes; we are thinking alike.

So many questions yet to be answered. :-)


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life at 9100 ft
 
James Pilcher said:
I am (I thought) a m4/3 die hard. I joined 4/3 in 2004 and have been there ever since. I really want to acquire and use the new Olympus OM-D E-M1X. I have the funds, but I do not have the funds for both the E-M1X and...

The Panasonic S1 and 24-104mm f/4 lens are to be available very soon. I expect them to be very good, if not exceptional. I’m sorely tempted for the very first time to dabble in digital FF.

Who of you out there are thinking similarly?

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life at 9100 ft
Click to expand...
Photography equipment is just a tool to create images, and every format has its advantages and weaknesses.

I was an APS-C shooter for 12 years, and was planning to continue in APS-C ecosystem with a Nikon D500, however I got A7III for approximately the same amount of money.

Now I can understand why FF is highly regarded. It's a different world with different advantages and weaknesses, and to be honest, I'm happy where I'm now.

Maybe you should also try an FF system, but don't let go of your MFT system. Most of the FF people also have an MFT system and they also use it very frequently.

No system is superior to each other, but they're different and they excel in different areas.
 
GodSpeaks said:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.
Click to expand...
I agree yet disagree. I have no concern / interest / desire to worry about DoF equivalence, it is inherent in the sensor / system size choice and intrinsic in your use / choice of the gear. As you say, it is what it is.

However, I do take the light gathering equivalence more seriously - after all, that is one of the most significant reasons for buying into a larger-sensored system. Your comparison shows a m43 camera body that loses 2-stops of light gathering ability versus the FF one, and then attaches a lens that loses yet another stop additionally. That's too much of a difference to truly make a comparison.
 
JDLaing50 said:
James Pilcher said:
The Panasonic S1 and 24-104mm f/4 lens are to be available very soon. I expect them to be very good, if not exceptional. I’m sorely tempted for the very first time to dabble in digital FF.

Who of you out there are thinking similarly?
Click to expand...
Not me.
Click to expand...
But, Jim, you are already in FF mirrorless. :-D


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Living above life at 9100 ft
 
dinoSnake said:
GodSpeaks said:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.
Click to expand...
I agree yet disagree. I have no concern / interest / desire to worry about DoF equivalence, it is inherent in the sensor / system size choice and intrinsic in your use / choice of the gear. As you say, it is what it is.

However, I do take the light gathering equivalence more seriously - after all, that is one of the most significant reasons for buying into a larger-sensored system. Your comparison shows a m43 camera body that loses 2-stops of light gathering ability versus the FF one, and then attaches a lens that loses yet another stop additionally. That's too much of a difference to truly make a comparison.
Click to expand...
About light gathering: if you want to gather more light, open shutter for a longer time. If you have overblown results, the theory does not work. I always check all theories on extremes - on both ends.

I want FF just out of curiosity: without bazooka style lenses the set can be quite "pocketable" - want to say acceptably light to deal with.
 
...didn't put all our eggs into one basket, meaning mainly the M4/3 basket. Like you, I was with regular Four Thirds way back when since the mighty E-1 (which, BTW, I still use, among others).

But quite a few of us have also delved into other mirrorless arenas along the way. After pursuing just Four Thirds and M4/3 cameras, I then began to experiment by obtaining the Fuji X-E1 awhile back. I wound up loving that camera and that got me involved with the Fuji X system (although for me personally, I enjoy their Bayer models better than I do the X sensor, but that's subjective, I know).

Then, being the international camera slut that I've always been, I then became curious about the Samsung NX system, winding up with the likes of the NX300, NX30, and then the awesome NX500. I loved them and was shocked when Samsung elected to just drop out of the camera market.

That was then followed by my curiosity about the Canon EOS M system. I never would have considered them - but 3-4 years ago I saw a fire sale of EOS M bodies with the kit 18-55 IS lens and a clip-on flash for only $250 on eBay. I figured, "why not," and got that one, only to find I really enjoyed using that camera. So then I added being an EOS M owner to the mix.

OK, so I'm being verbose here (as I tend to be) - but for those of us who also use a variety of other brand gear (although we've always enjoyed our M4/3 gear), we have many options available to use. If you want to get the Panasonic FF system - heck, go for it. I would not put the pressure on yourself with regards to the E-M1X - a camera, IMO that I would not purchase due to size, price, and sensor.

If I had the cash (which I don't), the Panasonic FF scenario intrigues me - but I just can't do it. So I'm quite happy using what I have, and will so for a very long time.
 
s_grins said:
dinoSnake said:
GodSpeaks said:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.
Click to expand...
I agree yet disagree. I have no concern / interest / desire to worry about DoF equivalence, it is inherent in the sensor / system size choice and intrinsic in your use / choice of the gear. As you say, it is what it is.

However, I do take the light gathering equivalence more seriously - after all, that is one of the most significant reasons for buying into a larger-sensored system. Your comparison shows a m43 camera body that loses 2-stops of light gathering ability versus the FF one, and then attaches a lens that loses yet another stop additionally. That's too much of a difference to truly make a comparison.
Click to expand...
About light gathering: if you want to gather more light, open shutter for a longer time. If you have overblown results, the theory does not work. I always check all theories on extremes - on both ends.
Click to expand...
When taking action shots in low light, keeping shutter open more is not a real option unfortunately.
s_grins said:
I want FF just out of curiosity: without bazooka style lenses the set can be quite "pocketable" - want to say acceptably light to deal with.
Click to expand...
 
bayindirh said:
s_grins said:
dinoSnake said:
GodSpeaks said:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.
Click to expand...
I agree yet disagree. I have no concern / interest / desire to worry about DoF equivalence, it is inherent in the sensor / system size choice and intrinsic in your use / choice of the gear. As you say, it is what it is.

However, I do take the light gathering equivalence more seriously - after all, that is one of the most significant reasons for buying into a larger-sensored system. Your comparison shows a m43 camera body that loses 2-stops of light gathering ability versus the FF one, and then attaches a lens that loses yet another stop additionally. That's too much of a difference to truly make a comparison.
Click to expand...
About light gathering: if you want to gather more light, open shutter for a longer time. If you have overblown results, the theory does not work. I always check all theories on extremes - on both ends.
Click to expand...
When taking action shots in low light, keeping shutter open more is not a real option unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Why not?
bayindirh said:
bayindirh said:
I want FF just out of curiosity: without bazooka style lenses the set can be quite "pocketable" - want to say acceptably light to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
s_grins said:
bayindirh said:
s_grins said:
dinoSnake said:
GodSpeaks said:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.
Click to expand...
I agree yet disagree. I have no concern / interest / desire to worry about DoF equivalence, it is inherent in the sensor / system size choice and intrinsic in your use / choice of the gear. As you say, it is what it is.

However, I do take the light gathering equivalence more seriously - after all, that is one of the most significant reasons for buying into a larger-sensored system. Your comparison shows a m43 camera body that loses 2-stops of light gathering ability versus the FF one, and then attaches a lens that loses yet another stop additionally. That's too much of a difference to truly make a comparison.
Click to expand...
About light gathering: if you want to gather more light, open shutter for a longer time. If you have overblown results, the theory does not work. I always check all theories on extremes - on both ends.
Click to expand...
When taking action shots in low light, keeping shutter open more is not a real option unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Why not?
Click to expand...
I don't like motion blur in my dancing shots. :D
s_grins said:
s_grins said:
s_grins said:
I want FF just out of curiosity: without bazooka style lenses the set can be quite "pocketable" - want to say acceptably light to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bayindirh said:
s_grins said:
bayindirh said:
s_grins said:
dinoSnake said:
GodSpeaks said:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.
Click to expand...
I agree yet disagree. I have no concern / interest / desire to worry about DoF equivalence, it is inherent in the sensor / system size choice and intrinsic in your use / choice of the gear. As you say, it is what it is.

However, I do take the light gathering equivalence more seriously - after all, that is one of the most significant reasons for buying into a larger-sensored system. Your comparison shows a m43 camera body that loses 2-stops of light gathering ability versus the FF one, and then attaches a lens that loses yet another stop additionally. That's too much of a difference to truly make a comparison.
Click to expand...
About light gathering: if you want to gather more light, open shutter for a longer time. If you have overblown results, the theory does not work. I always check all theories on extremes - on both ends.
Click to expand...
When taking action shots in low light, keeping shutter open more is not a real option unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Why not?
Click to expand...
I don't like motion blur in my dancing shots. :D
Click to expand...
If you think that FF sensor saves your shot, you're wrong.

Just remember light rule of photography: high light - high photography, low light - low photography, no light - no photography. Also stop dancing while doing photography

:-D
bayindirh said:
bayindirh said:
bayindirh said:
bayindirh said:
I want FF just out of curiosity: without bazooka style lenses the set can be quite "pocketable" - want to say acceptably light to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...
 
Last edited:
s_grins said:
bayindirh said:
s_grins said:
bayindirh said:
s_grins said:
dinoSnake said:
GodSpeaks said:
Just as I posted. Your faux aperture equivalence is nonsense. DoF is what it is for the sensor size. I have ZERO desire, or interest, in trying to make DoF equivalent between cameras with different sizes.

If you are really all that hung up on DoF, then choose and use the sensor size that fits YOUR needs.
Click to expand...
I agree yet disagree. I have no concern / interest / desire to worry about DoF equivalence, it is inherent in the sensor / system size choice and intrinsic in your use / choice of the gear. As you say, it is what it is.

However, I do take the light gathering equivalence more seriously - after all, that is one of the most significant reasons for buying into a larger-sensored system. Your comparison shows a m43 camera body that loses 2-stops of light gathering ability versus the FF one, and then attaches a lens that loses yet another stop additionally. That's too much of a difference to truly make a comparison.
Click to expand...
About light gathering: if you want to gather more light, open shutter for a longer time. If you have overblown results, the theory does not work. I always check all theories on extremes - on both ends.
Click to expand...
When taking action shots in low light, keeping shutter open more is not a real option unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Why not?
Click to expand...
I don't like motion blur in my dancing shots. :D
Click to expand...
If you think that FF sensor saves your shot, you're wrong.

Just remember light rule of photography: high light - high photography, low light - low photography, no light - no photography. Also stop dancing while doing photography

:-D
Click to expand...
You can't hold your partner and a camera at the same time, so I can't take photos while dancing. :D

However, in tango nights even an APS-C with F1.8 lens cannot take decent pictures. It's an extreme situation, comparable to a theater but with much faster action. :D

BTW, I'm no MFT hater. I just believe in "horses for courses" philosophy.
s_grins said:
s_grins said:
s_grins said:
s_grins said:
s_grins said:
I want FF just out of curiosity: without bazooka style lenses the set can be quite "pocketable" - want to say acceptably light to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
https://www.flickr.com/zerocoder/
 
Last edited:
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