|
Why would I add a 4/3 format camera?
If this has been asked previously, my apologies...I did a search and didn't find what I was looking for.
I continue to look at the 4/3 format units, but can't quite figure out (or justify to myself) why I would add it to my photo inventory. when travelling on trips, i take my nikon d200 along with a 24mm prime and either a 24-85mm or 18-200mm zoom. I also take my canon s95 with me constantly...which I love, has lots of helpful/manual features and I believe does a great job for a p&s. so, help me understand why I would opt to add any of the 4/3 formats...as interesting as they look? Thank you. |
First, I assume you're talking about the "new" mirrorless designs like the micro 4/3s Olympus Pens and Panasonic G's, Sony NEX, Samsung NX, etc and not the DSLR 4/3s cameras (Olympus E5)
IMHO, the micro 4/3s cameras represent the best combination of size and capability. Far better low light image quality than any compact, and much smaller than any DSLR/lens combination. Kind of the "jack of all trades, master of none" solution. From a technical perspective, there is really no need for a mirror and all the moving parts (and associated size and cost) in a digital system. Those things are only necessary when you have a "single use sensor" (aka film), not a reusable one like a digital chip. So, I guess the answer to your question is if you wanted to only carry one system that was smaller than your DSLR and more capable than your compact. For me, it came down to DOF. The small sensor, and associated infinite depth of field, of compacts was too limiting, and a DSLR (and more so the lenses) was too big. |
yeah, I think if you are happy with your current set up there's no need to buy another system.
I have looked at them too, but I am happy enough with my DSLR and compact backup. Investing in yet another type of body, different lenses, and accessories doesn't make sense for me. |
I'm with glennaa11 on this. If you're happy with what you have, I don't see a reason to add it. They make all of these different cameras because there are that many different demographic markets. Some people want a P&S, some people want 4/3rds, some want DSLRs and some want MF or LF. Some are like you and have use for more than one type with a clear defined boundary. Some have to have one of every segment. Some only have use for one. Only right or wrong answer is what works for you.
|
thanks everyone...still no real compelling arguments here to make me want to run out to buy a new kit...and more reinforcement why I don't. thanks
|
I don't think (right now anyway) it's a question of format, but rather of buying the camera system that will suit your needs and desires. For me, I'm very happy with my Nikon D700 and various lenses. For others, they're happy using a new iPhone 4S.
Personally, until the 4/3 format starts offering similar performance as my D700, I'm staying with what I have. |
Agree with the sentiment of the replies.
I did get a micro 4/3 camera, but only because I found that I had stopped carrying my DSLR due to its size and weight. The DSLR is without question somewhat superior to the micro 4/3, but you don't get good pictures if your camera is sitting in a drawer. If you are happy with (and using) your DSLR, there is no reason to get a micro 4/3. |
agree. that's not very likely to occur, do you agree? i don't know all the ins-and-outs of the technology, but from my limited reading I don't get the sense that the micro 4/3 technology could ever achieve that level. am I missing something?
Originally Posted by RCyyz
(Post 17309528)
I don't think (right now anyway) it's a question of format, but rather of buying the camera system that will suit your needs and desires. For me, I'm very happy with my Nikon D700 and various lenses. For others, they're happy using a new iPhone 4S.
Personally, until the 4/3 format starts offering similar performance as my D700, I'm staying with what I have. |
Originally Posted by jacknyoc
(Post 17312807)
agree. that's not very likely to occur, do you agree? i don't know all the ins-and-outs of the technology, but from my limited reading I don't get the sense that the micro 4/3 technology could ever achieve that level. am I missing something?
Just like a APS-C or even full-frame dSLR at this moment will not match a medium format digital camera. Question is what's good enough for the buyer? What's the buyer looking for? |
Originally Posted by jacknyoc
(Post 17312807)
... I don't get the sense that the micro 4/3 technology could ever achieve that level. am I missing something?
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 17312856)
A small sensor will never match the performance of a larger sensor at the same time. ...
Just like a APS-C or even full-frame dSLR at this moment will not match a medium format digital camera. This dissertation introduces a new approach to everyday photography, which solves the longstanding problems related to focusing images accurately. The root of these problems is missing information. It turns out that conventional photographs tell us rather little about the light passing through the lens. In particular, they do not record the amount of light traveling along individual rays that contribute to the image. They tell us only the sum total of light rays striking each point in the image. To make an analogy with a music-recording studio, taking a conventional photograph is like recording all the musicians playing together, rather than recording each instrument on a separate audio track. In this dissertation, we will go after the missing information. With micron-scale changes to its optics and sensor, we can enhance a conventional camera so that it measures the light along each individual ray flowing into the image sensor. In other words, the enhanced camera samples the total geometric distribution of light passing through the lens in a single exposure. Who knows? In the (near?) future we might have ultra small cameras that actively scan a scene and produce a high-quality shot compliments of micron-sized sensors and raw compute power attached to the camera. |
Originally Posted by RCyyz
(Post 17313453)
So while a small sensor can't currently match a big sensor, I see no particular reason why this might still be true 10 years from now. |
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 17312856)
A small sensor will never match the performance of a larger sensor at the same time.
Originally Posted by fanger
(Post 17313774)
The question is at what point does the performance of the smaller pixel become so good that we no longer care about the "better" performance of the larger sensor. Arguably, the best 4/3 sensors are approaching this limit now at around ISO 3200/16 MP.
One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is if you shoot a lot of long telephoto. The closer pixel pitch on the crop sensor will result in better image quality than cropping a FF image in post. |
Another thing is that for a given format size and f stop, it is easier to achieve shallow depth of field (bokeh) on the larger sensors. 4/3 and smaller sensors don't have as many lens options capable of achieving the same bokeh possible on the larger formats.
|
Originally Posted by fanger
(Post 17315313)
Another thing is that for a given format size and f stop, it is easier to achieve shallow depth of field (bokeh) on the larger sensors. 4/3 and smaller sensors don't have as many lens options capable of achieving the same bokeh possible on the larger formats.
They are (finally) addressing the fast lens options. Olympus just came out with 12/2.0 and 45/1.8 lenses. Panasonic/Leica just released a 25/1.4, and Panasonic has the pancake 20/1.7. Voigtlander has had a 25/0.95 out for a while. Sadly, no telephotos yet, but Panasonic has shown prototypes of upcoming "bright zooms" (Double all focal lengths for FF equivalent) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:31 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.