How does 3/4 compete?

[gaius]

When comparing m3/4 cameras (EPL1, GF1 etc) to NEX-3/NEX-5, for some it is easy to say or even conclude that the NEX is better because it has a bigger sensor. Some says m3/4 is doomed when Nikon, Canon build APC size mirrorless cameras in the future. Is it so? How is it different from the current DSLR market segment? Olympus 3/4 DSLR cameras using the same size sensor seems to be able to survive and compete with the rest of DSLR cameras.

 

[dmanthree]

When comparing m3/4 cameras (EPL1, GF1 etc) to NEX-3/NEX-5, for some it is easy to say or even conclude that the NEX is better because it has a bigger sensor. Some says m3/4 is doomed when Nikon, Canon build APC size mirrorless cameras in the future. Is it so? How is it different from the current DSLR market segment? Olympus 3/4 DSLR cameras using the same size sensor seems to be able to survive and compete with the rest of DSLR cameras.

First thing: they're only "3/4" cams when you hold them vertically. OK, just teasing.

m4/3 will compete the same way small sensors compete with 4/3 today; provide features and image quality in a package and at a price level that people want. No other system has been designed from the ground up like 4/3, from the sensors to the bodies, to the lenses. Based on what I've seen from the NEX cams, it's not as easy as it looks. I wouldn't pick a NEX over a m4/3 on a bet.

We'll see what happens in the next couple of years, but I thin m4/3 is here to stay. Nice size, nice IQ, and the makers have been pretty innovative introducing things like multi-format sensors (GH1) giving the users some nice options for output and not limiting them to the usual 4/3 aspect ratio.

--
-------------------------------------------------
'Hit Refresh if pix do not appear. Flaky ISP at work.'

 

[Harold66]

Hello

There are less difference in image quality between 4/3 sensors and APS sensors than most threads would lead you to think

Most of these iQ differences are in fact more explained by different stages of expertise between sensors makers than the small difference in size sensors
and this is gets more true if you crop the aps sensor to the same ratio

On the other hand , there are HUGE differences in terms of user interface , lens line-up and all between 4/3rds, m4/3rds and some of the aps sensors size cameras

This should be what you look at when you choose the camera , along with your budget , the type of pics you do and so on

Let me know if you have nay questions

Harold
--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

 

[gaius]

Opps! Guess I shoot alot of portraits just now

 

[Corkcampbell]

sensor (for IQ) than those such as Sony? I'm talking about "better", meaning taking the size difference into consideration.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

When comparing m3/4 cameras (EPL1, GF1 etc) to NEX-3/NEX-5, for some it is easy to say or even conclude that the NEX is better because it has a bigger sensor. Some says m3/4 is doomed when Nikon, Canon build APC size mirrorless cameras in the future. Is it so? How is it different from the current DSLR market segment? Olympus 3/4 DSLR cameras using the same size sensor seems to be able to survive and compete with the rest of DSLR cameras.

. . . The NEX cameras may improve with future models but right now they're a rushed to market offering with poor lens choices and a silly user interface that some experienced Sony devotees say "isn't that bad" but in reality appears to be a real drawback compared to the PEN's and Panasonic m4/3 models. There will always be a size advantage for m4/3 lenses compared to any APS-C camera because of the smaller sensor. Look at Olympus' 14-42 collapsible kit zoom compared to the NEX kit zoom and you'll understand what I'm saying. The 4/3 sensor is capable enough for the needs of most enthusiasts and is much much better than the tiny sensors in the p&s compacts. Bigger sensors being better is true for some imaging parameters but full frame is even better than APS-C which is the conundrum here, how big is big enough without ruining the format's advantages for lens size and overall costs?

. . . I like the m4/3 format and prefer it to anything else at this time for a compact body, large sensor mirrorless system. YMMV

 

[fermy]

M4/3 actually stack up very well. It is a very simple tradeoff: smaller sensor means worse IQ, but smaller package. The problem with 4/3 was that it wasn't small enough to fit into the pocket, so 4/3 size benefits were marginal, while IQ hit was very obvious. Now m4/3 and NEX are on the limit of pocketability. This is territory where size becomes just as important as outright IQ. And on this battleground m4/3 is inherently superior because m4/3 lenses will always be smaller, just like APS-C sensors will always be better than 4/3 sensors.

 

[Everdog]

The height difference between the sensor in the GH1 and many APS senosrs is extremely small. APS sensors get their "advantage" from width (3:2 vs. 4:3). You lose that if you crop photos to 8x10 or 11x14, etc.

Also, Canon sensors on the T2i and 7D have higher pixel desity than just about any camera (non P&S), which proves that higher pixel density does not mean a sensor will perform better at high ISOs.

One other note. m4/3 has a big head start in smaller lenses. Go to the Sony NEX forum and read about how the NEX lenses fare. I won't get in to it here, but then read about the Panasonic 20mm lens and see the difference. Oh, and APS lenses will always be larger than m43 lenses. There is no way around that.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

The height difference between the sensor in the GH1 and many APS senosrs is extremely small. APS sensors get their "advantage" from width (3:2 vs. 4:3). You lose that if you crop photos to 8x10 or 11x14, etc.

. . . Very few prints are made in 3:2 format. 8x10 and 16x20 are more commonly wanted by most people and the frames sold in stores illustrate that fact.

Also, Canon sensors on the T2i and 7D have higher pixel desity than just about any camera (non P&S), which proves that higher pixel density does not mean a sensor will (not?) perform better at high ISOs.

. . . It's too bad that Panasonic's sensor technology isn't as good as Canon's. Hopefully, that will change in the future.

One other note. m4/3 has a big head start in smaller lenses. Go to the Sony NEX forum and read about how the NEX lenses fare. I won't get in to it here, but then read about the Panasonic 20mm lens and see the difference. Oh, and APS lenses will always be larger than m43 lenses. There is no way around that.

. . . Yeah. Sony's NEX has nothing that compares favorably with the 20/1.7 and 14-45 Panny kit lenses for optical quality and Oly's 14-42 collapsible kit lens is a dramatic example of the size advantage of m4/3 lenses compared to the NEX kit zoom.

 

[bpalme]

Two words:
Smaller lenses.

When people buy into a "system" camera they are buying into the lens system.

So they tend to want a "complete" system from Ultra wide angles to Macro to Telephoto.

Sony has managed to make a pancake that seems small and light weight but what about the future? Can you imagine how big and heavy the UWAs will be compared to m4/3?

People want small and DSLR quality. They can improve the NEX shortcomings like UI but people in it for the long haul know if that stuff changes in the end the lenses will still be relatively bigger/heavier.... smaller body or not.

 

[Everdog]

Two words:
Smaller lenses.

When people buy into a "system" camera they are buying into the lens system.

So they tend to want a "complete" system from Ultra wide angles to Macro to Telephoto.

Sony has managed to make a pancake that seems small and light weight but what about the future? Can you imagine how big and heavy the UWAs will be compared to m4/3?

People want small and DSLR quality. They can improve the NEX shortcomings like UI but people in it for the long haul know if that stuff changes in the end the lenses will still be relatively bigger/heavier.... smaller body or not.

+1

A fast, sharp lens in the APS format means "BIG". A fast, sharp, long lens in the APS format means "Huge".

btw, I keep the 45-200mm m43 lens in one pocket and my wife's E-PL1 in the other when we go out. No camera bag and I am ready for anything.

 

[SirSeth]

... imo are overblown in the mind of some posters who use math to justify superlatives. I'm a math teacher though and have no problem with math in itself, I just like to view the numbers as relative measures that only have meaning when compared with a significant body of data. Saying that APS-C is bigger and therefor better is (imo) perfect grounds to grow a completely subjective view. That suits the purpose of many brand loyalists. "Bigger" means nothing more than the brain of the speaker desires it to be. Even tossing in a number like A is a certain % larger than B, gives no comparative measures to objectify what a margin like that means. For example APS-C is not a standard format and it ranges in size quite a bit. More so than the difference between 4/3rds and APS-C. Most people don't know that because they want to say that bigger is better without needing to say how much is needed to be significant. So lets use math and compare with numbers so long as it is a large enough range of values to compare with a little more objectivity and not just leveraging two data points in space (which is basically a system without scale).

You have to understand that this topic has been scrutinized under a magnifying glass for the entire history of 4/3rds and I'm sure there are plenty of posters who would disagree with my line of logic above. But if you want my purely subjective opinion from the viewpoint of someone who has shot a lot of 4/3rds and Canon APS-C it's this.

Canon has good technology that yields a great balance between high pixel count and low noise at high ISO noise. They always test competitively in these areas. This has less to do with sensor size than sensor level processing (and they do a lot of work even with RAW files to remove noise). This leads to what I consider a "plastic surgery look" which I don't prefer but sure can get the job done in dim churches and museums. They are great low light and high speed cameras, not because of APS-C, but because of Canon. They are fast, but are not market giants because they are better--more because they have sold themselves to be better with exceptional marketing. That is purely my opinion on the matter.

4/3rds and Micro4/3rds has improved in leaps and bounds in noise processing without losing a more natural "film like" look and a more pleasing color rendition. They have increased sensor level noise reduction without going crazy like point and shoot manufacturers have been forced to do on nearly all models. With the noise differences coming down to processing more than sensor size, the gap has narrowed significantly though the size has remained the same. To my standards, 4/3rds has become competitive with all APS-C sizes with the recent generation of sensors. They will only get better, so much so that other image qualities are are inextricably linked to sensor size will take center stage. For example DOF consideration--but this is not better or worse, it's is user style and preference. A slightly greater DOF is better for macro and landscape. Shallower DOF is often preferred for portraits. Is the difference significant? That's also subjective. Personally, I think 4/3rds is a nice balance. It's not a matter of being competitive as it is being preferred for a specific style. Pixel density also plays a role and as we know the mass market believes more is better. It's not always better as we've seen in compact camera sensors.

So for me, the sensor size.... meh. Not really significant between 4/3rds and APS-C imo. It's the total system package that makes each competitive for different needs. I like the balance of great compact lenses, sensor IS, no dust, natural pleasing color, less post processing of both RAW and JPG, ergonomics (4/3rds DSLRs), compatibility with legacy lenses (Micro4/3rds especially), technology lending to better HD video, live view, and EVF technology, from a company who is more innovative than focused on keeping the status quo. At the same, time, I appreciate the strengths that Canon has leveraged. Great when it's needed for that special 5% of shooting. I'd rather use the system that is better for me 95% of the time even if it is less competitive for that 5% where Canon is king of the mountain.

Cheers,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[Brent Gair]

I'm so tired of hearing how APS sensor are so MUCH bigger than 4/3 sensors. It's just baloney.

I tell people that APS just has bigger ears. The size advantage comes from a small bit of area to the left and right. The size advantage is minimal and only means anything if you can use that particular aspect ratio to it's maximum. Sure, there are occassions when you can take full advantage of that aspect ratio. However, claiming that APS offers a truly SIGNIFICANT size advantage is misleading.

Interestingly, I note that Black's Photography here in Canada has recently begun pushing 6x8 prints...offering them for just a few cents more than 4x6 prints. And 6x8 fit's 4/3 perfectly.

 

[mh2000]

Canon EF 28/1.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8 are all small, fast and very good. All work on APS or FF sensors.

Two words:
Smaller lenses.

When people buy into a "system" camera they are buying into the lens system.

So they tend to want a "complete" system from Ultra wide angles to Macro to Telephoto.

Sony has managed to make a pancake that seems small and light weight but what about the future? Can you imagine how big and heavy the UWAs will be compared to m4/3?

People want small and DSLR quality. They can improve the NEX shortcomings like UI but people in it for the long haul know if that stuff changes in the end the lenses will still be relatively bigger/heavier.... smaller body or not.

+1

A fast, sharp lens in the APS format means "BIG". A fast, sharp, long lens in the APS format means "Huge".

btw, I keep the 45-200mm m43 lens in one pocket and my wife's E-PL1 in the other when we go out. No camera bag and I am ready for anything.

 

[mh2000]

Honestly, compared to current Canon cameras, the Pens don't compete... not for support, system, performance... anything... except that the Pens are way cooler cameras. I'm not sure Canon or Nikon will be able to get a small m43-like camera system out there... but with the new little retro-Pentax, maybe they will come out with something, mirrorless, retro and cool.

I'm not trying to build an event, studio, PJ or sports photography kit so I can work with cool.

 

[fermy]

Canon EF 28/1.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8 are all small, fast and very good. All work on APS or FF sensors.

Small by DSLR standards, but nowhere near the size of m4/3 pancakes. Even Zuiko collapsible zoom is smaller than Canon 50mm prime.

 

[TEBnewyork]

Each kit lens is fully extended.



--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

 

[3dwag]

Brent Gair, SirSeth, and others have already said it very well, but I will add that Nikon's mirrorless cameras will more likely be using a sensor smaller than µ43 - not that there is anything wrong with that!

When comparing m3/4 cameras (EPL1, GF1 etc) to NEX-3/NEX-5, for some it is easy to say or even conclude that the NEX is better because it has a bigger sensor. Some says m3/4 is doomed when Nikon, Canon build APC size mirrorless cameras in the future. Is it so? How is it different from the current DSLR market segment? Olympus 3/4 DSLR cameras using the same size sensor seems to be able to survive and compete with the rest of DSLR cameras.

--
-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas

 

[PeterLeyssens]

Hi Brent,

I'm so tired of hearing how APS sensor are so MUCH bigger than 4/3 sensors. It's just baloney.

Oh, it's quite clear from the way that the poster asks his question and reacts to certain posts only that he's not very interested in hearing the positives.

It's a bit like people claiming an SUV is always the best car in any situation. Or that a big house is always better. I don't carry 6 people or wood logs most of the time and I don't usually have 3 other families sleeping over, so it's baloney indeed. I do like to make a lot of portraits and looking at this forum, there's plenty of material to convince even the biggest die-hard that µ43 can do that wonderfully. If the OP cares to see the positives, he can find them quickly in this forum without asking questions that would be provocative if they weren't so extremely boring by repetition.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://www.techwriter.be/nap

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

Each kit lens is fully extended.

. . . If you look at the NEX & kit zoom and the E-PL1 & kit zoom next to it and visualize the lengths of the lenses retracted when they're not in operation at their longest focal lengths, you see clearly that these camera/lens combinations demonstrate the NEX's problem with lens size. The size issue is most important when you're carrying the camera and not when you've extended the zoom to take a shot for a few seconds before retracting it again until the next shooting opportunity IMO.

. . . Also, if you mounted the 14-45 kit zoom on the GF1 and placed it in this same lineup, you'd see that it's also considerably smaller than the NEX/kit lens combo when they're both retracted.