Micro Four Thirds keeps GAS under control (for now)

WARNING: this post is somewhat pointless, and contains criticism of other camera systems. If you can't stomach that, please move along.

I have an E-M1 and E-PM2.

The other day I was wondering if I had "GAS" (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and after some Googling, found the excellent article "7 stages of Gear Acquisition Syndrome" by bloggers Rob Power and Matt Parker. These guys are into music gear but I'm convinced what they wrote applies equally to photography. The seven stages are:

1. Dissatisfaction
2. Desire
3. Research
4. Purchase
5. Guilt
6. Acceptance
7. Relapse

This was very illuminating. I realized my MFT system currently has me perpetually stuck somewhere between stages 2 and 3.

I've been dissatisfied with the MFT's ability to shoot "the last 5%". MFT is adequate for about 95% of what I shoot. The "last 5%" are those photos where some shallower DOF or extra megapixels or higher ISO could have turned a Great image into an Absolutely Perfect image, or perhaps make the image a candidate for enlargement rather than being forever relegated to Facebook or small print.

So I heard about the Sony A7 / A7R and Fuji X, and Nikon D610 (I own Nikkor lenses) and that is how I got into Stage 2 and almost immediately into Stage 3 - research mode.

Here are the results of my research, and the issues that have prevented me from progressing to Stage 4:

Sony A7/A7R - full-frame mirrorless

• Only 4 native lenses. Other lenses require an expensive and bulky adapter.
• Only two primes: 55/1.8 and 35/2.8.
• No pancake lens.
• No f/2.8 zoom.
• No IBIS and none of the full-frame primes have OIS
• Lacks automatic eye-priority AF (requires a button press, and loss of a customizable button)
• RAW files reportedly use lossy compression. Others may not care, I do.
• Real-world continuous shooting speed (not the fake "speed priority mode" which drops AF and AE) is barely over 1 fps
• System lacks a pocketable body that can use the same lenses at same FL.

Fuji X - APS-C mirrorless

• The only pancake lens is an f/4.2 equivalent, vs. MFT f/3.4 equivalent.
• System lacks a pocketable body
• The only UWA is not quite as wide (15mm vs 14mm) - not sure if true on horizontal AOV
• No all-purpose daytime travel zoom (28-300 equivalent)
• No 600mm equivalent lens
• Lacks IBIS and none of the primes are stabilized

D610 - full-frame DSLR

• I previously owned D600 and D700, was hoping the D610 would be a meaningful update. No such luck. AF is just as limited as the other DSLRs. Focus-and-recompose is not for me, and shoot-and-crop negates the benefits of the larger sensor.
• The Nikon system does have a pocketable body (Nikon 1) but unfortunately it does not share lenses at the same focal lengths. The 2.7x crop means you need two full sets of lenses in order to use FF and N1 side-by-side.
• My older Nikkor motor-driven lenses autofocus very slowly, so I don't think I'll be keeping them -- the fast focus of the E-M1 has raised my standards
• Oh yeah, it's big and heavy, I sometimes forget that when researching cameras online

So now I'm stuck in research and keep monitoring these forums waiting for a better camera to come along

That's all I had to say. I'd be glad to hear others' stories and ideas on the topic. There isn't really a specific point to my post, it's a sort of open discussion.

Sean Nelson wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

I've been dissatisfied with the MFT's ability to shoot "the last 5%". MFT is adequate for about 95% of what I shoot. The "last 5%" are those photos where some shallower DOF or extra megapixels or higher ISO could have turned a Great image into an Absolutely Perfect image...

You may be a candidate for one of the Voigtlander Noktons, which could fill at least some of those gaps. It's not small, but no lens + camera with that kind of speed is going to be...

Yes, good point. I got the Metabones Speedbooster which makes f/1.0 lenses from my Nikon f/1.4's. You just reminded me I need to shoot with it a little more

markintosh13 wrote:

But then there's also software blurring in PP which is getting better.

Is there any specific software you have in mind when you say this function is getting better?

Canon has an algorithm in the S120 that derives "depth from focus plane" from two exposures at different apertures, then selectively adds Gaussian blur to the background.

I've been wondering how long we'll have to wait before this shows up in common RAW processing software.

lattesweden wrote:

Maybe I can tempt you with a Sony RX1?

Perhaps if they make a 55mm version! I find I'm not very good at using wider primes... I forget to get closer and then end up cropping a lot.

If you agree that there is no such thing as the prfect camera, then if you're really at 95% you're doing quite well aren't you? But some of us just like checking out new equipment and we tend to be somewhat easily seduced. I know I'm guilfty of that: I sold my whole E-M1 rig to move over to Fui X-T1, only to realize that I liked the E-M1 so much better. I ended up returning all the Fuji gear and buying all the Micro 4/3 stuff back. Stupid and expensive, but now I know.

It can't be as bad as tubes and pickups. : )
It's a never ending quest for perfect tone.

Oh, maple or rosewood, which batteries for my pedals!

You're not seriously into GAS until you thirst uncontrollably for an E-M1 or a GH4 -- or both!

Sean Nelson wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

I've been dissatisfied with the MFT's ability to shoot "the last 5%". MFT is adequate for about 95% of what I shoot. The "last 5%" are those photos where some shallower DOF or extra megapixels or higher ISO could have turned a Great image into an Absolutely Perfect image...

You may be a candidate for one of the Voigtlander Noktons, which could fill at least some of those gaps. It's not small, but no lens + camera with that kind of speed is going to be...

Why stop at just one?

Voigtländer has a nice array of excellent lenses with Leica M and L39 mounts. They're worth a serious look!

My GAS is on hold right now as I wait for the release of the Oly 40-150 mm f/2.8.  I know it's going to be big and heavy (for an m43 lens) and expensive, but if it's anything like the magnificent 12-40 f/2.8, I MUST have one.  :\

Thank you for a very reflective and illuminating post.

You mention that you are in a continuous cycle from stage 2 to stage 3 - research then desire - that reflects my situation as well. I think that's much more reasonable than frequently repeating the entire stage 1- stage 7 cycle, thus replacing all your gear at short intervals. In addition to the substantial cost, it incurrs other hidden costs as well.

Now as long as we spend more time shooting than discussing gear, I think life is good.

mimritty wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

Divert your interest away from new gear, by channeling it into doing more with what you have.

Love this story... and the result.

I feel like I finally found the camera that will last me a while.

Not to worry: You can still accumulate lenses

mimritty wrote:

PC Wheeler wrote:

mimritty wrote:

I feel like I finally found the camera that will last me a while.

Not to worry: You can still accumulate lenses

I was hoping no one would call me on that little loophole.

For me, it was accumulating 5 adapters and then the lenses.

Alex Notpro wrote:

markintosh13 wrote:

But then there's also software blurring in PP which is getting better.

Is there any specific software you have in mind when you say this function is getting better

I think I've seen some plug-ins discussed somewhere here that looked okay, and I played around a bit with PShop's lens blur filter.

Though I certainly wouldn't want to have to develop a style and process stacks and stacks of photos in PP.

And I think the latest Android camera software has some multi shot software blur.

Almost every recent smartphone does, the stock Android cameras one of the last to add said feature; i.e. different OEM had done something similar at a hardware or software level already. HTC went hardware with their dual sensor/lenses and in practice it produces one of the most fake looking effects... At a technical level the method Google's using with the stock camera app looks pretty elegant but the results are still pretty terrible. LG's approach is more subtle but more appealing too.

I'm not a snob by any means, I like A LOT of shots that come out of my phones, even from my Nexus 5 (and it's camera gets criticized a lot)... Those fake DoF effects have a long long way to go before they're anything more than a gimmick tho. At this point the use is questionable even for FB, unless you have pretty low standards and care more about the effect than any of it's side effects. PP post processing probably still produces much better results even without any depth mapping or any of the fancy new techniques that seek to automate/improve this.