How does 3/4 compete?

[Tesselator]

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.

Yup! But wasn't that post purposely meant to mislead? I'm pretty sure it was! Either that or the person who created the image has very very poor logic skills. I think the later is not the case because they seem capable of image cropping and subject-item alignment. The low level of logic required to use that image honestly as anything other than misleading in the light it was posted in, would negate such skills IMHO.

Again, the "body size slash form factor" issue that mindless consumers repeat over and over and over is a totally meaningless claim and a very misleading bit of marketing once lenses are considered. And until we start talking about sensors at least in the APS-H size category there's just not enough difference to even mention! are two truths that are sorely in need of illumination for the masses.

 

[Jorginho]

Let's get this straight, APS-C has an area of 419.17 sq. mm (25.1mmX16.7mm) where u43 has an area of 243.00 sq. mm (18mmX13.5mm). It's obvious that APS-C has a area advantage of almost 2:1. This means if both were using the same technology sensor, APS-C would have almost double the area for pixels. This usually translates into better IQ and better high-ISO performance which is obvious in comparing a d300 to a GH1.

Foveon APS-c = 20.7 x 13.8 mm Foveon CMOS sensor= 285,6 mm2.
Okey: Foveon=Sigma so only used on Sigma cams. Not too many of those

Canon: 22.2 x 14.8 mm= 329 mm2 (so I got that one wrong I see..)
Nikon/Sony: 23.6 x 15.8 mm CMOS sensor = 372.9 mm2.
4/3 sensors: 17.3 x 13.0 mm = 225 mm2

So APS-c does not have twice the size andit depends on which APS-c you compare with.

The newer APS-c chips, at least Canons, go to 16 MPixels. Anyway: the high ISO and DR performance of those cams seems better.
Mind you: Pentax K7 and Samsung NX-10 perform worse when it come to noise.

So it is not clear cut, but in general I agree with you nevertheless.

The u43 camera has the advantage in the area of weight and size. For some reason, the u43 lenses aren't that much cheaper than APS-C lenses nor do they have a great advantage in weight/size (I use Panasonic as an example). Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm Lens cost $999.95 while the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens costs $789.95 or the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor AF Lens costs $974.95 (all prices quoted are B&H USA prices). Also, Nikon lenses have a 5 year warranty.

The prices are indeed not low and many will agree here. There have been enough arguments about it, so I agree. Size is a different matter. Again, look here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic-g1.shtml

At the bottom of the page you see a comparison. The difference with teh D90 is enromous and with the 450D it is still huge.

Pana 7-14 (14-28 35mm eq) f/4 83.1mm x 75mm, 306.17g (no filters possible)
Nikon 12-24 (18-36 35mm eq) f/4 90mm x 82.5mm, 485g
Nikon 10-24 (15-36 35mm eq) f/3.5-4.5 87mm x 82.5mm, 460g

460 gram + a Nikon D3000, the smallest cam at 536 gram= 996 gram

panasonic G2 + 7-14 lens = 425+306= 731 gram. The Nikon is 33% procent heavier. And it is the lightest cam they have. The GF1 weighs less...

With u43, diffusion sets in at f/8 where with APS-C diffusion sets in a f/11 (full frame diffusion sets in at f/16). For some reason, it's very difficult to get f/2.8 zooms for u43 where f/2.8 zooms are plentiful with APS-C. So you can say that the lack of lens diversity argument being applied to the NEX can also be applied to u43 (when compared with Nikon and Canon).

If AF is important, true. Otherwise adapters make it possible to use almost every lens on the m4/3 camera's. Same is true for NEX.

Accessories like flash hasn't tumbled in price either. Have you ever seen a GF1 with a Panasonic DMW-FL500 flash mounted? Also, the GF1 has one serious flaw, when you take a flash picture with the ISO set to auto, the ISO setting will always be 100. I called this in and Panasonic support was able to reproduce this. I sent this in over three months ago. I haven't heard from them since.

--
Cliff

The advantage is that size and weight are clearly less than APS-c cams witha mirror and image quality is very good. The lenses in general are good to very good (Panasonic ones). The 7-14 is said to be incredibly small by dreview and very good...

I have used an APS-c and a small one (1000D/XS) and it is clearly bigger, clumsier also..Whether it is too big depends on your personal preference.

 

[Everdog]

... Constantly retracting and locking the Oly lens after each shot is a PITA and the long term longevity hasn't been proven...

LOL!

Honestly, who retracts and locks the lens after every shot? That would make continuous shooting a little hard, right? I am still laughing after reading that comment.
Did someone tell you that when you bought the camera, and you just fell for it?

And the whole, "long term longevity hasn't been proven". Even funnier. The E-PL1 has been out a lot longer than the NEX cameras, and no one has complained about Oly lens.

 

[TEBnewyork]

Tesselator wrote:

You are just sooooooo way off base here I have to laugh. I took the shot. When I bought the NEX I was asked by some to post a picture with all of the different cameras I currently had on hand and specifically with the kit zooms extended.

Yup! But wasn't that post purposely meant to mislead? I'm pretty sure it was! Either that or the person who created the image has very very poor logic skills. I think the later is not the case because they seem capable of image cropping and subject-item alignment. The low level of logic required to use that image honestly as anything other than misleading in the light it was posted in, would negate such skills IMHO.

Now look down a few posts later when I posted these......













Again I got raked over the coals because the rear lens cap on the Oly was too big.

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

 

[Tesselator]

460 gram + a Nikon D3000, the smallest cam at 536 gram= 996 gram

panasonic G2 + 7-14 lens = 425+306= 731 gram. The Nikon is 33% procent heavier. And it is the lightest cam they have. The GF1 weighs less...

Do you realize you talking about grams as if they were kilograms? If this is actually a concern for you then you should join a health club and lift some weights. And I'm being serious too. If 100 grams matters to you at all in almost any situation then your body may be in danger of collapsing or crumbling. Just because sites like this one list grams in the spec sheets doesn't mean it should be actually taken as an issue.

If consumers do this kinda thing pretty soon manufacturers will be making camera bodies with paper-thin materials. Of course they would love nothing more... Then overtime you sneeze you'll have to buy a new camera...

OK, I'm being sarcastic but really... gimme-a-break... grams of weight as an issue? Come on.... 33% more of almost nothing is still almost nothing!

 

[Tesselator]

You are just sooooooo

Why did post any of those images? None of them were referenced by me! I referenced this image:



and commented on ONLY it. I'm only trying to say that this particular image (above) is very misleading.

And I should add that there are tons of them around. All for the same purpose of showing what incredible differences in size there are between these systems. (maybe Sony or Oly is paying for some of them? - Companies do do that you know!) When in fact there's just no practical truth in it.

That's all I wanted to point out... Nothing else.

 

[Jorginho]

Do you realize you talking about grams as if they were kilograms? If this is actually a concern for you then you should join a health club and lift some weights. And I'm being serious too. If 100 grams matters to you at all in almost any situation then your body may be in danger of collapsing or crumbling. Just because sites like this one list grams in the spec sheets doesn't mean it should be actually taken as an issue.

I am a well trained person, I row three to four times a week, I play squash and I practice karate. I also do long distance running.

And I have hiked through nature wuth a DSLR and a mFT for hours and hours on end. And you notice it. The Luminous landscape was added jus tbecause I agree that spec sheets by themselves do show the real difference.

If consumers do this kinda thing pretty soon manufacturers will be making camera bodies with paper-thin materials. Of course they would love nothing more... Then overtime you sneeze you'll have to buy a new camera...

OK, I'm being sarcastic but really... gimme-a-break... grams of weight as an issue? Come on.... 33% more of almost nothing is still almost nothing!

I wonder if you in fact have any experience with it and YMMV. I am considered a strong man. I know it is easy to say on the net, but that is not it. A strong man indeed notices the difference really well, so less strong people will notice it more.

Being sarcastic adds little to your argument and much less than 33% differences and grams.

 

[PeterLeyssens]

Hi Tesselator,

Do you realize you talking about grams as if they were kilograms? If this is actually a concern for you then

... I am stuck with a slipped disk at the moment. No fun.

OK, I'm being sarcastic but really... gimme-a-break... grams of weight as an issue? Come on.... 33% more of almost nothing is still almost nothing!

No, 33% doesn't say anything. If you say 250 grams, then I say: oh, I can take one lens extra !

But ultimately, you and most of what has been said in this discussion is correct. Summarising:

1) the size and weight difference exists, but who cares
2) the quality difference exists, but who cares.

I am looking for a camera that gives me the feeling of a chunk of gold: small and solid. Others like the feeling of a brick: also very solid but quite a bit bigger. It may please them for whatever reason that I may not understand but that's why there's more than one type of camera: because there's more than one type of user. In the end, the quality-size etc. discussion is actually not too relevant: does the camera do what you want and will you be comfortable when using it ?

Peter.

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

 

[Tesselator]

Do you realize you talking about grams as if they were kilograms? If this is actually a concern for you then you should join a health club and lift some weights. And I'm being serious too. If 100 grams matters to you at all in almost any situation then your body may be in danger of collapsing or crumbling. Just because sites like this one list grams in the spec sheets doesn't mean it should be actually taken as an issue.

I am a well trained person, I row three to four times a week, I play squash and I practice karate. I also do long distance running.

And I have hiked through nature wuth a DSLR and a mFT for hours and hours on end. And you notice it. The Luminous landscape was added jus tbecause I agree that spec sheets by themselves do show the real difference.

If consumers do this kinda thing pretty soon manufacturers will be making camera bodies with paper-thin materials. Of course they would love nothing more... Then overtime you sneeze you'll have to buy a new camera...

OK, I'm being sarcastic but really... gimme-a-break... grams of weight as an issue? Come on.... 33% more of almost nothing is still almost nothing!

I wonder if you in fact have any experience with it and YMMV. I am considered a strong man. I know it is easy to say on the net, but that is not it. A strong man indeed notices the difference really well, so less strong people will notice it more.

Being sarcastic adds little to your argument and much less than 33% differences and grams.

If you're really into karate then you'll know most of what you're claiming to notice is all mental! And that's not sarcasm.

PS: sarcasm can be fun. That too is a mental issue.

I think Peter (just above) gets it!

 

[fermy]

Again I got raked over the coals because the rear lens cap on the Oly was too big.

Isn't it a bit rich? Now you call a polite side remark "raking over the coals"?

 

[TEBnewyork]

YES !!!! I took all the shots and it is my gear. Paid for by me not by a camera company. You can see where it was originally posted:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=223942&postcount=67

You can also read the whole thread in context where I was asked several times to put them all together and post.

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17553

Funny if you think I'm being misleading with the G2, jokes on you. If I had to sell all the m4/3 gear the G2 would be the LAST to go. It is the best of all of them in terms of versatility.

You are just sooooooo

Why did post any of those images? None of them were referenced by me! I referenced this image:



and commented on ONLY it. I'm only trying to say that this particular image (above) is very misleading.

And I should add that there are tons of them around. All for the same purpose of showing what incredible differences in size there are between these systems. (maybe Sony or Oly is paying for some of them? - Companies do do that you know!) When in fact there's just no practical truth in it.

That's all I wanted to point out... Nothing else.

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

 

[Tesselator]

Again I got raked over the coals because the rear lens cap on the Oly was too big.

Isn't it a bit rich? Now you call a polite side remark "raking over the coals"?

Well if you're referring to my remarks and not the ones prior, then I did kinda rake him a bit. Sorry about that TEB. You got raked a tad by me trying to use your image as an example of a point I was making.

Nothing personal! We're cool! I apologize for any ruffled feathers!

 

[Jorginho]

You seem to be quite normative. Apparently you do not have an opinion, but you are telling THE truth...

 

[Tesselator]

Funny if you think I'm being misleading with the G2, jokes on you. If I had to sell all the m4/3 gear the G2 would be the LAST to go. It is the best of all of them in terms of versatility.

Cool! We're in harmony then!

Isn't harmony a wonderful thing?

 

[tinternaut]

They got the concept of the thing pretty much spot on from the get go so the cameras have all sold quite well in spite of the (sometimes eye watering) premium extracted.

The constant miscalculation on the part of Olympus and Panasonic has always been that 4/3 kit would be smaller than APS-C and this is not always the case (example, the NEX). Likewise, a lot of detractors point at the sensor size difference (hardly vast, hence relatively small size difference between comparable cameras), the total lack of DoF control (from an engineering perspective, this is clearly untrue) and ISO (which is unpredictable since not all manufacturers are on the same curve for a given photosite size).

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

 

[Tesselator]

Honestly, who retracts and locks the lens after every shot?

After shooting the scene you mean? Of course that would be the only logical reply. But you chose an illogical silly example - why? Just to flame the guy? Weird.

Everyone usually retracts their lenses after shooting the bird, bee, boat, or whatever bloody scene they were shooting. As soon as the camera goes back to hanging on the neck strap almost everyone retracts the lens. And it's a drag when a lens extends under it's own weight too.

Retracting the lens will lesen the chance of it getting bumped, knocked, splashed, etc. and most people who can think know this intuitively - thus try and remember to always retract the lens.

 

[TEBnewyork]

and yes, you got my sentiments completely correct.

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

 

[tinpusher]

"Quite well" is a good answer to the OP.

Unless they can improve High ISO performance of the m4/3 sensors I can see market share going to APS-C Compacts.

The more I use the m4/3 system my interest diminishes as I compare image quality with my compact X1 APS-C camera. I have this feeling that m4/3 is going the way of Half Frame

 

[fermy]

Again I got raked over the coals because the rear lens cap on the Oly was too big.

Isn't it a bit rich? Now you call a polite side remark "raking over the coals"?

Well if you're referring to my remarks and not the ones prior, then I did kinda rake him a bit. Sorry about that TEB. You got raked a tad by me trying to use your image as an example of a point I was making.

Doh! I also pointed out the caps size and thought TEB was referring to my remark.

 

[Everdog]

Honestly, who retracts and locks the lens after every shot?

After shooting the scene you mean? Of course that would be the only logical reply.

Did you read the whole post?

Constantly retracting and locking the Oly lens after each shot is a PITA and the long term longevity hasn't been proven .

She is saying that the lens will break because you have to lock it after every shot...which is plain silly. Don't skip over the part about longevity. It is the main part of the statment and what she was implying..and her reason for the OP not to buy an m43 camera.

If she meant every scene, then the part about possibly not lasting would not have fit.