Question on M43

emzee wrote:

GV27 wrote:

1) How good is the Panasonic GX-8 compared to some of the full frame options from Canon? (6D, 5D Mark III). Since I have used Canon 5D Mark II, I am quite familiar with Canon setup. Is image quality very much acceptable?

I always find this type of question tough and the best answer is "you'll have to see for yourself". The biggest problem here is that you're comparing things that are worlds apart in terms of price. And you DO get something for the extra money, though like most things in the photography world you pay as much (if not more) for the last 5% of performance as you do for the first 95%. Your old camera cost twice as much as the most expensive m43 offerings new, and even now used goes for about the same price as a high-end m43 body.

If you were looking at cars this would be like saying "I used to have a Mercedes-Benz S550 and now I'm looking at buying a Toyota Camry, will I be happy?" I don't know. The Camry is a powerful, comfortable and extremely reliable vehicle. It'll get you going where you're going comfortably. But will you start complaining that the ride's not quite as soft, the leather's not quite as supple and the heated seats don't warm up as fast? I have no idea how to answer that. Will you wish you'd spent the extra $60k to get those little things? How should I know?

m43 cameras are generally light, compact, economical, reliable and produce great photographs. But are you going to start looking at the results under a microscope and complain that it's not quite as good as the latest FF alternatives? Are you going to wish you'd spent 2 or 3 times the money to get a high-end FF DSLR? I don't think any of us can answer that for you.

Chris

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the comments. I think I would be happy with the 95% performance as this is a hobby for me. I have no plans to spend 3 times the cost to get a FF camera because I may not be using (or utilizing ) its fullest potential.

Regards,

emzee

You still haven't answered my questions about how high and how big. The answers to these questions determine whether MFT will be just as "good" as a larger format camera or not. If you're shooting under ISO 1600 and printing no bigger than 11"x14", you almost certainly won't see any difference in image quality. If you're shooting at ISO 6400 and printing 20"x30", you will. I shoot landscapes at base ISO and my 16"x21" prints are razor sharp and very detailed, even when viewed from a few inches away. I also shoot low-light events at ISO 3200, and the images can make very nice 12"x18" prints. Pick the tool that fits the job. There is no "best" for everything.

emzee wrote:

Clayton Jones wrote:

Sorry for the late reply, was gone for a few days.

Thanks for the reply. Since you came from medium format and APS-c, did you notice any image quality issues with M43?

No because I don't make large prints. The only restriction from the smaller sensor is the size of the prints that can be made, and that's partly a resolution issue (16mp vs 20 or 24mp). Other than that, the only IQ issues would come from the ISO/noise/DR arenas and the lens quality. Most of the m43 lenses are excellent to superb, and the newer m43 sensors and processing engines are competitive with APS-C (I use the new G7 and it's a superb camera). So I would say that the print size would be the major concern.

Regarding the Panasonic 14-140, any other options that you can recommend (either a standard zoom or super zoom)? I am not looking for 12-35mm lens from Panasonic as I am not sure whether it is worth.

I've used a number of standard range zooms and my favorite is the Lumix 14-45. It's sort of the Rodney Dangerfield zoom these days because of the newer and more expensive models like the 12-35. But according to my own experience and the slrgear.com interactive resolution widgets for lenses I haven't personally used, the 14-45 is more consistantly sharp across the entire frame than any of the 14-42 models, Oly or Lumix (I had an Oly 14-42 on my first m43 camera that was horrible in that regard). That's important for me because I do mostly landscape work where softer corners can ruin an otherwise good image. But lots of shooters don't seem to mind that and choose the 14-42 II because it's slightly sharper in the center.

The 12-35 is as good or better but it costs 3x as much. I've never found the 14-45 to be inadequately sharp, even for my largest 11x14 prints, and I don't need weather sealing, so I'm not tempted to get the 12-35 (and I often use the lens above 35mm (40-45mm is a great portrait length) and almost never find 14mm to be not wide enough, so the 12-35 range would be restrictive for me. The 14-45 is a winner and many users in this forum speak highly of it. It's my most often used lens and lives on the camera full time, only removed when some specialty lens is needed, such as a fast prime like the 42.5/1.7 for indoor portrait work. I recommend it without hesitation.

Clayton

Thanks for the suggestions. The Panasonic 14-45mm lens is not a newly releases lens. Is that correct? Any comments on other Panasonic 14-42 lenses?

Also any comments on Panasonic 12-32mm lens?

I got a 12-32 with my GM1. I don't find it's optical qualities very remarkable, it's main feature is it's small size.

My impression is that it's easily damaged, I discovered a small nick in the barrel after a recent low risk vacation trip and found the sharpness somewhat degraded -  the first time that has happened to me since I started in photography in 1972, even with 10 day wilderness canoe trips here and there.

I have since replaced the lens.

Regards,

emzee