MFT. I'm impressed.

[blockend]

I just bought my first micro four-thirds camera, and it's the nearest thing to the promise digital photography offered 35mm film users, but so far missed the mark. It's virtues are:

It's small. Fits into the pocket of my hoodie, easily.
Focus is instantaneous. The only camera I've owned that matched a zone focused film camera for speed.
The lenses are also small. No SLR sized glass to spoil the lines.
It has the features of a smart phone, with camera ergonomics.
In body image stabilisation and lens stabilisation. 1/8 sec shots easy, and 1/2 possible.

So far I've owned APS-C sensor cameras, DSLR and mirrorless, but the Panasonic GX80/85 is easily the most pleasurable digital camera experience I've had. As I rarely printed 35mm negatives larger than 15 x 10", I don't think the smaller format will be a handicap. Any other MFT users want to comment?

 

[Eric Rose]

I sold my D700 after using m43 for over a year. I'm currently using the Panasonic G85 and love it. My wife is using a Panasonic GX7 and her 5DmkII is very lonely.

 

[Jim Jones]

The mirrorless camera is the future of small format. It will force the development of good digital viewfinders to where they will far surpass the great rangefinders and SLRs of the past. It is ideal for IR converted cameras. My IR converted Panasonic Lumix G3 makes far better photos than the discontinued Kodak High Speed Infrared film in 35mm.

 

[lantau]

I'm a big MFT fan. Indirectly I got into film because of it. I love the size, the lenses and the physical look. In my case I'm using Olympus bodies.

IMHO there is no need for 95% of users to buy a DSLR. The mirror is required for film, but antiquated for digital sensors. And I much prefer a good electronic viewfinder over an optical one. Well, my 6x6 MF viewfinder is nicer, but not better.

I love the traditional ergonomics. I have a Pen epl3 and an EM5 (OM-D) and they are like my old manual Minolta SLRs, only smaller.

DSLRs, on the other hand are huge and I hate the way they look like. Some of the last AF film SLR are just as terrible, some are OK. Of course with a vertical grip, or winder any camera looks disgusting.

I know that a lot of people mock the small sensor, but I get everything I need. Those few who require that extra bit of whatever can go for a larger sensor, why not. But why should everyone carry huge lenses (and bodies of you go for a mirror) without having a need.

Personally I like the DoF of the sensor. With my film equipment I usually stop down to get similar DoF.

 

[blockend]

M4/3 is the natural inheritor of the Leica concept. The earliest Leica cameras did not have a rangefinder, and when they did it was for focus confirmation. Cartier-Bresson and the rest used them as a point and shoot camera, accepting their limitations for the possibilities they offered. They fit in a pocket and you could take them everywhere. MFT is the nearest thing to an early Barnack conceptually.

 

[RattyMouse]

Personally I like the DoF of the sensor. With my film equipment I usually stop down to get similar DoF.

You can always stop down a lens to get more depth of field. With tiny sensors like micro 4/3rds, you can never get the DOF that a 35mm sensor can.

When I shot APS-C digital I thought the lack of DOF control was very limiting. I can't imagine how much I'd dislike a smaller format. Small and portable was never a quality I placed much priority in with my gear purchases.

 

[michr]

I feel like my photography has grown quite a bit since November 2016 when I bought a used micro 4/3, Pen E-PM1.
I've used Nikon dSLRS for years, and I've long wanted the ability to attach non-native lenses and try out the wide variety that's available. The long flange-focal distance of Nikons are quite limiting in that respect. Now I have a crop of 16mm cine camera, Pentax 110, Leica, Argus, CCTV and other oddities, all of which can be mounted and focus to infinity on the format. I attribute the camera's contribution to my improvement to the fact that is unobtrusive, small enough to fit in a jacket pocket, while retaining all of the manual features I look for in a camera. The live image histogram has gotten me away from the inaccurate image preview method of measuring exposure and now I can be certain the image is properly exposed (I use the ETTR method). I use the onboard magnification mapped to the video button. 5x to 14x zoom for critical focusing all at the touch of a button. I find my Nikon dSLR a bit painful and primitive to use now.

It's unfortunate there's few options for inexpensive wide-angle lenses. It's not a perfect system, but it comes close.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...The mirror is required for film, but antiquated for digital sensors. ...

Really?

 

[lantau]

You can always stop down a lens to get more depth of field. With tiny sensors like micro 4/3rds, you can never get the DOF that a 35mm sensor can.

When I shot APS-C digital I thought the lack of DOF control was very limiting. I can't imagine how much I'd dislike a smaller format. Small and portable was never a quality I placed much priority in with my gear purchases.

How do you open up to get more light in without lowering DoF on 35mm? There is no absolute truth here, it goes both ways. It depends on what you want.

If you shot 35mm for decades and can't get on with a different crop that's fair enough. There are so many fantastic cameras out there, whatever your desired parameters are there will be a match. I started out with MFT when I made photography a hobby just under five years ago and I feel good about that format.

Occasionally it is nice to have strong bokeh, and MFT will give me that if I set out to get it. But I really like it when I hit DoF such that the background is only slightly out of focus. You can still see what is going on there, but being only slight out of focus it gives it such a 3d pop. It's also nice to get a result like that with film on a 6x6. It goes really well with a low grain/noise image.

 

[lantau]

Really?

Hehe, well I had TTL cameras on my mind there.

 

[blockend]

With tiny sensors like micro 4/3rds, you can never get the DOF that a 35mm sensor can.

Did you mean to say the lack of depth of field? Small sensors offer greater depth of field at equivalent settings. My 2/3" sensor X10 could focus from the filter to the moon at f11. On 35mm film I shoot, in order of frequency, lenses of 35mm, 28mm and 50mm at f8 +/-. MFT gives me f8 DoF at lower apertures. Image stabilisation lets me get the shot at much lower speeds - acceptably sharp at almost 1 whole second on my test.

Because I never embraced digital photography as a fine tool in it's own right, preferring the aesthetics of film, I want a digital camera that's a notebook for source material, including moving images. It's early days, but so far the compact point and shoot approach M4/3 encourages fits my way of working.

 

[Eric Rose]

Here is a great article written by a very successful pro photographer in Austin TX. His name is Kirk Tuck and is the author of several well regarded photography books as well. This article talks about the Panasonic GH5 and is relationship to size and usability.

https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.ca/2018/01/the-gh5-and-gh5s-are-so-big-why-are.html

 

[Cholentpot]

I sold my D700 after using m43 for over a year. I'm currently using the Panasonic G85 and love it. My wife is using a Panasonic GX7 and her 5DmkII is very lonely.

I know a place where a 5d2 would feel loved and used...

 

[wyofilm]

Where I to go and buy another digital camera to replace my Nikon d90, with is in bad health, it would be with a micro 4/3. I like the size and the 4/3 aspect ratio. All of that image stabilization sounds pretty good, too.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hehe, well I had TTL cameras on my mind there.

Really?
Do you know what TTL actually means? It means "Through The Lens" metering.
Here is no mirror TTL camera. Every one of them:

 

[lantau]

I literally meant TTL here. Typing on mobile, saving characters. Not for exposure but viewing.

 

[RattyMouse]

How do you open up to get more light in without lowering DoF on 35mm? There is no absolute truth here, it goes both ways. It depends on what you want.

If you shot 35mm for decades and can't get on with a different crop that's fair enough. There are so many fantastic cameras out there, whatever your desired parameters are there will be a match. I started out with MFT when I made photography a hobby just under five years ago and I feel good about that format.

Occasionally it is nice to have strong bokeh, and MFT will give me that if I set out to get it. But I really like it when I hit DoF such that the background is only slightly out of focus. You can still see what is going on there, but being only slight out of focus it gives it such a 3d pop. It's also nice to get a result like that with film on a 6x6. It goes really well with a low grain/noise image.

In the digital world, I don't open up the lens to get more light. I boost the ISO rating. FF cameras shoot comfortably well over ISO6400 these days without any serious image degradation. So with a 35mm sensor, you can have as shallow a DOF as you want, or you can stop down and put everything into focus and everything in between.

I would think macro photography would be the one area where smaller sensor cameras would offer a benefit over the larger ones. There DOF is at a premium and every 0.5mm counts. Even fully stopped down one wants more DOF. Here the smaller sensors would perform better.

 

[David Brown]

I, too, have a Lumix GX85, after using a Lumix LX7 (1" sensor) for a couple of years. I own a full frame Sony dslr, but I don't ever see buying another dslr of any sort. Even though I (unlike others) prefer the optical viewfinder, I can get by with the EVF. It's all a choice. As for that illusive (and often mythical) "image quality" M43 does just fine, thank you. The reason I still maintain and use the Sony is that I have a large stable of lenses for it, that are shared with my Minolta film cameras, and so I can do things with it that the little GX85 is not yet equipped for. But they day will come when the big ol' dslr will not leave the house anymore.

 

[blockend]

Bumping this to say I've been using the L Monochrome jpeg pre-set, Panasonic's idea of classic black and white film. I'm dubious of such claims having tried all kinds of in camera and edit film simulations, but Panasonic's is easily the best I've come across. It has lots of tonality, with deep blacks and pearly whites, rather like a nice 6 x 4.5 black and white negative in appearance. Things become a little graphic at high ISOs, but at base 200 the rendering is lovely and stays that way to 800 ISO.

Digital cameras meter to keep the whites from blowing out, which can kill the highlights, so I use manual exposure. Being a jpeg you have to meter like a slide or Polaroid, with great care, but hats off to Panasonic for its version of monochrome.

 

[faberryman]

If you are only using a digital camera as a sketchbook, almost anything will do.

 

[blockend]

If you are only using a digital camera as a sketchbook, almost anything will do.

The important thing with a digital camera as sketchbook, is it turns out something that looks good straight from the camera. Any modern digital camera can show impressive results with lots of software intervention to the Raw file, but that becomes a whole different activity, and certainly not a sketchbook. I use the same approach with point and shoot film cameras, some choose settings I like and meter well, others not so much and need work in the darkroom or Photoshop.

 

[michr]

I bought a used Olympus EPM1 about 15 months ago and I love it. It was already a 3 year-old camera at that point. Despite being out-of-date technology, it does a fantastic job at what I bought it for, which is being discreet and hosting a wide variety of lenses. I often use the 15mm f/8 pancake lens, which is surprisingly sharp in the center, and just about the most compact lens possible. You barely have to focus it, though you can move it quite close and get wide-angle detail shots that look nice. I have a small crop of old 16mm cine lenses, and various adapters and lenses for mounts such as LTM, Pentax 110, Nikon, Canon, Exakta, and Argus C3. Altogether I can put a series of primes which cover 15 to 100 (30mm to 200mm equiv.) in a tiny bag and have room left for the camera. I like how cheap it can be, especially when buying a used body and using manual adapted lenses. The only thing lacking is my budget for the fast-wide end of the scale.

I've mapped the video button to magnify the scene to make manual focus easier. Critical focus is very easy to achieve. Live histogram means I never blow highlights, or underexpose. They did a lot of things right with this camera, and it makes my much better full-frame SLR seem primitive in some respects. The mirror gets in the way more often than not.

The only missing piece is image quality. It's a bit noisy, which I make up for by image stacking. I'm sure that has been improved in newer versions of the camera, and it doesn't compare to the quality of full frame or even APS-C. But often it's better that I have a camera ready, than have the best camera. I like that it's a serious camera in a small package. People don't seem to mind if I point the camera in their direction, even though I have a telephoto that fits in the palm of my hand. It's a better camera for interacting with the public than a full-frame with the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, that's for certain.

 

[blockend]

But often it's better that I have a camera ready, than have the best camera

Agreed. The GX80 starts up almost instantaneously, which was always my bugbear with compact digital cameras. No point being stealthy if the thing slowly cranks into life and the shot's gone. I'm also a fan of pancake lenses, the 12-32 is plenty sharp enough for my purposes.

 

[lantau]

That 15mm/f8, if it is the one I'm thinking about, is called a bodycap lens. That is beyond a pancake. It's supposed to be a fun lens, but anything can be used for serious purposes, of course.

 

[blockend]

That 15mm/f8, if it is the one I'm thinking about, is called a bodycap lens. That is beyond a pancake. It's supposed to be a fun lens, but anything can be used for serious purposes, of course.

Yes, I know the lens you mean and have seen shots from it. The biggest advantage apart from its size, is the fact it doesn't need to be focused. That's a real boon in point and shoot situations. My point was flat profile lenses as a whole are easier to carry on your person, stealthier and appear less threatening. I also have two Canon pancakes that stick out no further than the pentaprism.

Fuji also make a body cap lens, but it's difficult to get hold of outside Japan.