Canon system to M43

R

RobA

Suspended / Banned
Messages
119
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
No
I'm thinking about ending my on off love affair with heavy (though amazing) SLR kit for the Oly/Panny system. Anyone else been this drastic?
 
RobA said:
I'm thinking about ending my on off love affair with heavy (though amazing) SLR kit for the Oly/Panny system. Anyone else been this drastic?
Click to expand...

Yes, (and bitterly regretted now), sold off my digital Canon gear to buy into m4/3rds. I was so disappointed by the drop in quality I ended up selling it within 2 months (at a loss) and am now back with a DSLR.

If you decide to experiment with m4/3rds, I would suggest not selling your existing gear off for a few months until you are sure you are happy with the quality you end up with.

Just to add, the size/weight difference between a m4/3rds camera like a Lumix G2 and something like a 500D/550D is actually pretty insignificant.


.
 
Last edited:
RobA said:
I'm thinking about ending my on off love affair with heavy (though amazing) SLR kit for the Oly/Panny system. Anyone else been this drastic?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm back on DSLR now.

Reaosns I moved to m4/3 were size weight and IQ. for it's size m4/3 really punches above it's weight and I can use all my lovely film glass. In a tiny back I could carry 2 camera sustems with me and with an ND8 grad filter could get really good landscapes at ISO100 (Panasonic GH1). However the lens I really want (12-35 f2.8) has still not been released. It has been known to be coming since before I bought into the system over 18months ago.

This led me to sell out on m4/3 to concentrate on film, with an LX5 alongside for digital polaroid and ebay shots.

I'm now on a Fuji S3 which to be honest trumps any gear I've previously had or am likely to get in the future, but only because it suits my needs. I'd rather have the fuji's guts in an E-M5 body, but that's not likely to ever happen!

For some things m4/3 is ideal: In good light it's as good as anything else, it's also great where you can use a tripod. It's not great where you need wide dynamic range and handholding/fast shutter speed - and that's where my Fuji blows m4/3 away.

I've previously said m4/3 makes APS obsolete - I now have to make the Fuji Super CCD sensor an exception to that!
 
I went from m43 to Canon DSLR, and wouldn't go back; I enjoyed using the Panasonic m43 kit, but never quite got what I wanted from it while photographing pets/wildlife. Maybe for street or portraiture you'd be happy with an m43, even I occasionally long for a GF3 with the 20mm 1.7, but I know I'd be disappointed in the long run & that money could've gone on a 50mm 1.4 or similar.
 
You could throw a nex7 into the mix with it's 1.5 crop sensor. There are a few nice emount lenses - but you also have adapters to use virtually any lens (albeit manual focus).

I sold up my 40D & 24-105L & 50mm 1.8 for the nex7 & tamron 18-200 (nice versatile lens) & the zeiss 24mm 1.8, which is stunning iq wise.
I'm also going to purchase the 50mm 1.8 & I'll think I'll be done then :D

It's another option for you to consider!
 
I would genuinely be interested to see this huge leap in IQ that entry level dslr's have over mft, apart from tracking and long distance lenses I've yet to see anything that made me want to sell my mft camera.


Dave1 said:
Just to add, the size/weight difference between a m4/3rds camera like a Lumix G2 and something like a 500D/550D is actually pretty insignificant.
Click to expand...

Really?

6984245186_177db1a761.jpg
 
Well my experience is best described with some time line info I guess. Dates are rough periods of time and I apologise if this gets lengthy. Sit back with a cuppa if ya like! :)

2002 - Bought first point and shoot Fuji digital camera
2003 - Bought Canon 300d, kit lens, 75-300mm, 50mm f/1.8
2005 - Bought canon 50mm f/1.4, 70-200L f/2.8, 17-40L

This is where it peaked for me in terms of disposable income, my interest levels and commitment towards photography. I had access to a lot of other lovely gear via colleagues and friends and photography was my number 1 hobby. I have very little to show for this though, and feel I never got to a level where I was taking pictures I was really happy with. Obsession over equipment quality, was high.

2006 - Sold all my expensive lenses and went back to kit lens and 50mm, mainly financial reasons, but also the lack of use and general lack of enthusiasm in carrying around such big/heavy/expensive lenses that grabbed too much attention. With kids, carrying something lighter started to appeal.

2007-2008 - Got back into it a bit and upgraded to a 350d.

2009-2011 - Swapped about a bit going from a 350d to 400d to 450d and having focus issues with them all on some of my lenses. I finally settled on a 50d as it came with AF calibration. Finally I was happy my gear all worked. I bought a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 as my main walk about lens. It took me 3 bad copies and a bad tamron to arrive at that. Again, the obsession over quality and perfect focus was there which kind of got in the way of the enjoyment of photography as a hobby.
It was almost like, I've spent quite a bit and this is good equipment so the results should be very good. Anything less where equipment malfunction/calibration was possibly the reason, I became too fixated on this.

The 50d was great. The Sigma was great. The 50mm prime was great yet still...

2010 - 2011 - I was using my camera less than ever. Everytime there came an opportunity to take it out somewhere I'd find an excuse. It was usually because it was not suitable to drag around my camera bag and lenses due to having kids with me and having to carry and look after other things. The weight and bulk was just hassle.

Then there was the stress of worrying constantly about where the camera is and accounting for it all the time. Is it in the buggy? Well I can't leave the buggy there. I'll put it round my neck...but now my neck aches and it's swinging about all over the place. Now I need to go back to the bag and get another lens etc etc. Of course, I am exagerating here, and frankly I can deal with it, it's more that I'd rather not have the hassle as it's more important to me to have a good time when out and about with my kids/family, and I was enjoying life more without this camera baggage complicating things.

2011 last autumn - It suddenly occured to me that I was using my camera so little that maybe I could downgrade all my gear to a decent point and shoot, or maybe even micro 43rds. Something else came up and I sold all my Canon gear to finance a mountain bike. Everything went. I saved a little bit from the sales to invest in new gear when I saw something I wanted.

2012 - My love for photography never went. I felt terrible that I had not been taking pictures of so many things. So much of my kids lives and missed opportunities. I started to desire a decent camera again. Lots of options went through my mind. I waited from January through till April watching announcement after announcement about Sony NEX, Olympus EM5 etc.
I decided I had to have an EVF on the camera so in the end could not refuse the ridiculous deal at Tesco for a Panasonic G2 for £180 plus the Panasonic 20mm with £50 cashback.

I have never been happier with a camera. Photography is fun again. It's accessible. It's portable. Lenses fit in my pocket or a tiny bag, that I can put in other bags. I am satisifed with the image quality. I worry not about the gear, but more the results and enjoyment of it. I love the modern feel of m43rd gear. And this is JUST a G2. Imagine a GH2 or EM5. It has a great lens line up and user community already. Other lenses like the 70mm prime and fast kit lenses are on the way. I am happy with the low investment cost I have made vs quality level being very high. Frankly I would have even paid more for this on the basis that I actually use it with passion.

I feel like when I use my G2 and lenses, people see it and don't expect too much, like an underdog. They are usually surprised with the quality. I also like the feeling that my gear is now not "semi pro" in certain people's eyes, and hence I relax more that I am doing my own thing, and the expectation is not set high. There was too much stigma and stereotype associated with some of the gear I had previously owned.

I now don't even need to react when I see pixel peepers telling me and others on forums that X is better than m43rds. It fades into insignificance when I am this happy with photography right now.


M43rds feels pure and fresh for me.
 
Last edited:
Danny_Two said:
I would genuinely be interested to see this huge leap in IQ that entry level dslr's have over mft, apart from tracking and long distance lenses I've yet to see anything that made me want to sell my mft camera.
Click to expand...

It's pretty apparent on every A3 print I've tried, blue skies are blotchy (for want of a better word), shadows and blacks aren't smooth. Subtle detail, like in flowers or buildings, is fuzzy.

Performance wise, focus is sadly lacking in speed and precision, especially if the light drops.


Danny_Two said:
Really?

6984245186_177db1a761.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, really. I have found a 500D will fit in the same coat pocket that a G2 will, it will fit in the same bag as well. Check the size/weight for yourself, a 500D and kit lens is only 90 grams heavier than the G2 with its kit. Considering a small bar of chocolate is 100 grams, it is insignificant.

Though I'm unsure what your picture with a 5D and a E-M5 has to do with the above example........
Or the 18-135mm on the xxxD body, unless to make it appear more bulky?


.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
It's pretty apparent on every A3 print I've tried, blue skies are blotchy (for want of a better word), shadows and blacks aren't smooth. Subtle detail, like in flowers or buildings, is fuzzy.

Performance wise, focus is sadly lacking in speed and precision, especially if the light drops.
Click to expand...

Fair enough when you're talking about printing, but how many print these days, and at A3.




Dave1 said:
I have found a 500D will fit in the same coat pocket that a G2 will, it will fit in the same bag as well. Check the size/weight for yourself, a 500D and kit lens is only 90 grams heavier than the G2 with its kit. Considering a small bar of chocolate is 100 grams, it is insignificant.

Though I'm unsure what your picture with a 5D and a E-M5 has to do with the above example........
Or the 18-135mm on the xxxD body, unless to make it appear more bulky?
.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The picture clearly shows the obvious size difference between mft bodies over dslr's.
 
I've gone from 5D2 and a load of L glass to full m43's. Ok we all know there is a quality difference, for me going m43's is more portable, cheaper and most importantly more fun. This is obviously just my opinion but I've found m43's a breath of fresh air
 
Got a GF1 a couple of years ago and haven't touched my Canon stuff (50D and L glass) since. I've only still got it all because I am too lazy to advertise it (I am getting round to it). I tend to shoot landscapes mainly and more often than not in the mountains. The reduction in size and weight with m43 is appreciable, obviously. Image quality differences are insignificant - even printed at A3. I tend to view from a couple feet away, not with my nose pressed against the print. Likewise on my PC, I don't pixel peep (a fruitless exercise).

If you are taking pictures of static scenes, or stuff that doesn't move too quickly, I can't really fault m43
 
I have both a 5D2 and a couple of m4/3. There are times when the m4/3 win out - holiday snaps, cities etc... and times when the 5D2 wins - south western USA last year was amazing. Unless I have to, I can see me keeping both.
 
I did the same, sold up and moved to M4/3, I was struggling with IQ that I wasn't happy with, even using the Leica F2.8 macro lens.. low light performance was terrible especially trying to use the EVF and focusing was slow, of course there is also the depth of field issue as well, its much harder to throw the background out with M4/3 than it is APS-C.

I sold it all, bought myself a 500D, nifty fifty,85mm F1.8 and a cheap tamron 70-300 with a vast improvement in IQ straight away.

Even if I could get out and had a need for a small compact "take everywhere" camera I don't think I would go to M4/3, I would add a Fuji with its APS-C sensor maybe.
 
iancandler said:
I sold it all, bought myself a 500D, nifty fifty,85mm F1.8 and a cheap tamron 70-300 with a vast improvement in IQ straight away.
Click to expand...

Appreciate we all have our own opinions and without knowing the particular model of m43 camera you used, I don't understand how you were seeing a 'vast' improvement on the 500D, unless you had the lens cap on :D (Sorry very cheeky). I didn't see a 'vast' improvement from my 5D2 to a G3 (let alone the OM-D). so maybe your m43 camera was faulty?
 
Last edited:
ShrubMonkey said:
Appreciate we all have our own opinions and without knowing the particular model of m43 camera you used, I don't understand how you were seeing a 'vast' improvement on the 500D, unless you had the lens cap on :D (Sorry very cheeky). I didn't see a 'vast' improvement from my 5D2 to a G3 (let alone the OM-D). so maybe your m43 camera was faulty?
Click to expand...

Or perhaps your perception of quality differs from the people who do see a improvement from something like a 500D over a PEN or G1 or G2. Or perhaps you aren't printing over A4 or only using a screen to view your images? Or standing so far back when viewing enlargements that minor imperfections from the m4/3 sensor arent that noticeable.

Or perhaps the E-M5 sensor is as good as people say (i havent had personal experience of it so cant comment on it, i wasnt prepared to throw another £1000 into the m4/3rds experiment) and you are generalising that all the m4/3rds models are that good.
 
changed my gh2 to nikon d7000 was never really happy with 4/3 IQ
 
Dave1 said:
Or perhaps your perception of quality differs from the people who do see a improvement from something like a 500D over a PEN or G1 or G2. Or perhaps you aren't printing over A4 or only using a screen to view your images? Or standing so far back when viewing enlargements that minor imperfections from the m4/3 sensor arent that noticeable.

Or perhaps the E-M5 sensor is as good as people say (i havent had personal experience of it so cant comment on it, i wasnt prepared to throw another £1000 into the m4/3rds experiment) and you are generalising that all the m4/3rds models are that good.
Click to expand...

I'm not generalising that all m43's are 'that good', I stated clearly that without knowing his particular m43 camera I found it hard to see such a difference. I backed this up by stating I'd not noticed a vast difference between my 5D2 and my G3 also.

Anyway, clearly an emotive subject, I'm happy to have dumped my DSLR gear, others are happy to have moved from m43's. Each to their own
 
Last edited:
mikeysaling said:
changed my gh2 to nikon d7000 was never really happy with 4/3 IQ
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess and say quite a number of people agree with you.

In fact, a person only has to look into the classifieds and see how much newish (as in, under 12 months old) m4/3rds gear has recently been sold or is up for sale.
 
For those who were bitterly disappointed with m4/3, which cameras did you try? Looking at reviews and studio test shots (which is never the ultimate way of judging) there is a big gap between - say - a GF1 and a GX1 but there is only a small gap between GX1 and 600D IMHO.

I don't see myself being without the 5D2 (unless it's for a 5D3!!) but I do now have 2 m4/3rds which are used more than the 5D2.

And as to size, the m4/3 setups are quite a bit smaller than a DSLR if you have the right lenses. My GX1, 14-42, 14mm pancake and 7.5mm Samyang fit in a cupcake 1500 which is probably smaller than the Rezo T10 I used to house the 450D and 18-55. The lens combination is also far more creative...
 
I'm just in the process of moving from Nikon dslr to micro 4/3rds, should get my GX1 either today or tomorrow so I'll find out first hand the differences in image quality!

For me I found my enjoyment of photography actually decreased when I upgraded to a dslr. I believe this is purely down to the size of the camera and the unwanted attention it draws. As someone else mentioned above I find myself thinking of excuses not to take out the dslr due to its size and at a recent party I went to I found carrying the dslr round made people 'think' I was some kind of pro which put pressure on to become 'photographer' for the evening! Having just booked a holiday with a measly hand luggage allowance I really started to think the dslr world wasn't for me so m4/3 here I come...

I have read extensively about it all on the web and I know I will loose out on some low light abiility, some image quality and shallow DOF control but I think the compromises are worth taking. I will find out soon!
 
For me mft doesn't replace the dSLR, it just gives me another option.

I love the fact I can mount a old manual focus lens to a mft without the need to alter the optics.

My dSLR is for serious stuff, when I have to rely on the performance. MFT is my new point and shoot with lots of option with lenses. Without a doubt MFT would become my choice to take on hols.
 
I went from 5D2 -> E-P1 -> X100 -> D5100. These small DSLRs are so good in these days in terms of sensor performance, I don't feel like I'm losing any significant IQ over the 5D, good compromise.

I did however, have a play with a friend's OM-D with the Voigtlander F0.95 MF primes.....wow...such a nice combo!
 
I think the OM-D is the first time that the u4/3 sensor is good enough to compete with the best of nikon/canon semi-pro bodies.

Previously u4/3 cameras (I had an EPL2) had visibly inferior sensors, but the results from the OM-D are absolutely stunning in both dynamic range and high ISO (and I'm comparing to full frame).

Also, u4/3 has some shockingly good lenses.
 
joxang said:
I think the OM-D is the first time that the u4/3 sensor is good enough to compete with the best of nikon/canon semi-pro bodies.

Previously u4/3 cameras (I had an EPL2) had visibly inferior sensors, but the results from the OM-D are absolutely stunning in both dynamic range and high ISO (and I'm comparing to full frame).

Also, u4/3 has some shockingly good lenses.
Click to expand...

Panasonic GH1 and GH2 had very good sensors also, far better than any of the otehrs (except OM-D). Trouble was Panasonic can't make JPEGs for toffee, had I not switched to Raw within a week of purchasing the GH1 it would have been sold again that week. They are THAT bad, blotchy, noisy, soft (so incredibly soft as to look OOF!) and very strange colours that I could very often not manage to replicate from RAW!

Blue sky blotchiness and posterisation was still an issue in Raw but I found ways around it most of the time.
 
The AF and the image stabilisation are two other factors that really bring the OM-D into the big league. Thought I'd pop this on here (this isn't my photo). Taken by someone (Emanuele_C) over at fredmiranda forums on OM-D and kit lens, on a fast moving lizard - impossible shot without the blazing fast AF. Now that's what I'm talking about :D.

bg_e-m5.jpg
 
That's a cracking image, in the right hands it's M43's is more than capable for most situations.
 
The latest M4/3rds cameras and sensors are a big step up from earlier models, even from a couple of years ago. The difference between the best M4/3rds and APS-C format DSLRs is frankly negligible and some M4/3rds even best them.

In practical performance terms, the main drawback still remains auto-focus, that is mostly very fast and accurate with static subjects, but pretty hopless with moving subjects, and servo-tracking you can just forget. Nikon have had a go at fixing this with their hybrid phase/contrast detect system and that's better, but still not as good.

Then if you like shallow depth of field effects, that's harder with smaller formats. You can get some very low f/number lenses for M4/3rds to address that, but then the size advantage evaporates. And if you really push the ISO, larger formats are (usually) better there, but then how high do you need to go?

I was very impressed by a Sony NEX-7 and kit zoom recently, and it could mostly do what I was using my Canon 5D2 and 24-105 lens for just as well, but at a fraction of the size and less than one third of the total weight. That's not quite apples with apples, but it makes the point. Panasonic GX1 is very good too, though not tried the new Olympus OM-D (looks v promising).

Speaking of smaller sensors and what they can do, check out the Nikon 1 series. Amazing. Sensor technology, and the associated processing engines, have really jumped forward very recently. Compacts are good, M4/3rds and APS/C are really very good, and full frame almost too good for most of us now (Nikon D800/D4 and Canon 5D3/1DX).
 
Heck is not even use a 1.5 crop again let alone 4/3s. The IQ is not there for my tastes and the bodies are far far too small too. Of course thats just my personal opinion.
 
ShrubMonkey said:
Appreciate we all have our own opinions and without knowing the particular model of m43 camera you used, I don't understand how you were seeing a 'vast' improvement on the 500D, unless you had the lens cap on :D (Sorry very cheeky). I didn't see a 'vast' improvement from my 5D2 to a G3 (let alone the OM-D). so maybe your m43 camera was faulty?
Click to expand...


Panny G1 - + 14-45mm, 45-200mm & Leica 45mm F2.8 macro.

The main problem was the EVF which doesn't like low light, shooting in a darkened room with flash was a nightmare, the struggle to get a small depth of field, even with the leica and the IQ at high ISO's.

It was a gamble chasing a small and light outfit that didn't work for me, if unlike me your able to get out into good light then I'm sure it performs differently, but shooting indoors with the limitations I have the canon + fast glass is vastly better.
A 5D would be even better, but bar a lottery win that will never happen for me.
 
iancandler said:
It was a gamble chasing a small and light outfit that didn't work for me, if unlike me your able to get out into good light then I'm sure it performs differently.
Click to expand...

IMO, no. I tried to enlarge some landscapes taken under bright sunlight, even then I had problems with some focussing (the E-PL2 worse than the G2) and with inconsistencies in areas of similar colour (like the sky). At A4 it was OK, at A3, not good enough for me (perhaps I have higher expectations than others).

This was with a G1, G2 and E-PL2 with 14-42, 40-150 and 45 f1.8.

When the E-M5 sensor is in a body at GF3 / E-PL2 prices I might try again (but I won't be selling my Canon gear next time).
 
Last edited:
iancandler said:
Panny G1 - + 14-45mm, 45-200mm & Leica 45mm F2.8 macro.

The main problem was the EVF which doesn't like low light, shooting in a darkened room with flash was a nightmare, the struggle to get a small depth of field, even with the leica and the IQ at high ISO's.

It was a gamble chasing a small and light outfit that didn't work for me, if unlike me your able to get out into good light then I'm sure it performs differently, but shooting indoors with the limitations I have the canon + fast glass is vastly better.
A 5D would be even better, but bar a lottery win that will never happen for me.
Click to expand...

You mention some challenging environments that CSC gear will sometimes struggle. Also probably most significant is using the G1, now one of the oldest m43 bodies, so coupled with low light environment was probably the cause for your findings. As I also have a G1 I've found it works brilliantly when outside, used for landscape work, obviously a scenario that would yield better performance. One other point with the G1 is its handling, for me and others this is one of its strengths, that coupled with it only costing me £90 I think it's a steal.
 
Last edited:
I bought into the m43 system from the beginning with a gf1, I also sold all my canon dslr stuff - despite having no viewfinder, evf or otherwise, I loved using my 'little Geoff' and with the 20mm f1.7 I had no issues with focussing or dof...

Fast action and low light was where it struggled due the the poor higher iso and lag in the LCD.

I then bought a g1 for a trip to new york and took both bodies and 2 lenses in a small bag and was overjoyed with the iq in decent light - the g1 with the evf also struggled terribly with low light shots.

I then sold it all and went back to a dslr - why? Boredom probably and equipment lust. As usual I should keep my gear and use it rather than worry about the next greatest thing.

Then I got bored with the dslrs (7d and 5d2 and assortment of big lenses) and bought a Nikon d3100 - trying to replicate the small convenience of the m43 kit I had owned previously but with a dslr, phase detect af and optical finder.

The d3100 with a 35mm prime is not much bigger than a g1/2/3 and iq is about equal to the newer m43 kit IMO.

Just recently I also bought a GX1 with the awesome 20mm, plus the 14mm f2.5 and the 14-42mm kit lens - the newer m43 Panasonic sensor is 16mp and much improved noise at higher iso's has made a real difference to the usability in lower light.

So I am keeping a dslr (now a d5100) with the 18-55kit and 35mm prime for those occasions when I 'need' an ovf, but for everything else the gx1 in the leather ever-ready case is my favorite camera of all time - everything the gf1 was - with great improvements in handling, noise and iq - whilst remaining equally as magical.
 
Last edited:
Alan Clogwyn said:
Panasonic GH1 and GH2 had very good sensors also, far better than any of the otehrs (except OM-D).
Click to expand...
Except the OM-D supposedly uses the same sensor as the G3 and GX1....

From: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/
dpreview said:
The camera is built around a 16MP Four Thirds sensor, which all our testing suggests may well be the same one seen in Panasonic's DMC-G3.
Click to expand...

But as a number of people have said in the thread, the latest cameras (i.e. the ones seemingly built around that sensor) are a big step up from the first generations and are close enough to APS-C to make no practical difference.

As to raw vs JPEG - I also only ever use raw. I'm not sure I'd buy a camera now without raw as half the fun of photography for me is seeing what you can do with the image in post.
 
Olympus m43rds is reknown for amazing out of camera JPEGs, of which I agree do look good. I think Panasonic gets an unecessary amount of stick for their JPEGs. They look ok to me to be honest. I'm not a pixel peeper at 100% kinda guy anymore mind. SOmeone above said they would not even use a crop camera as they are not happy with the image quality. That's totally fine to have that opinion, and it may well be valid. I think the point is, it's very dependant on your usage with said cameras. I think the main argument for m43rds can be summarised as "more than good enough" (for a vast amount of keen photographers) and "more pictures captured" as it's more portable and usable. To many, having a 5D is pointless if it stays in the bag at home 24/7.
 
Last edited:
I will echo what's already been said - the newer u4/3 stuff is good enough for me to let go of most of my Canon APS-C gear and split my system to full-frame 5D + L-glass (which I already have fortunately) and u4/3.

The only clincher for execution is that I'm pretty sure canon will pull a mirrorless out of their hat latest September... But what lens system and sensor size? Then again, EF-S lenses are huge (like the NEX lenses) which negates the u4/3 idea for me. So I might as well go for it..!
 
I think its personal preference really. I made the change from a Canon 350D to a Panasonic G2 and I don't regret it one bit. There is only a small difference in the size and weight, but it was noticeable enough for me, particularly when the G2 is paired with the 14mm pancake.
I'm no pro and I only use the camera for family, holiday, wildlife and landscape shots so I don't need amazing IQ and low light performance. I very rarely print above A4 so m4/3 is good enough for me.
The main thing I've found though is that the change has renewed my enthusiasm for photography. The G2 is a fun little camera to use, especially with the moveable screen. I got to a point with the 350D where I felt it was too much to carry around and everyone was expecting pro shots from me, whereas now I can fit my camera in my pocket and have no expectations as to what I take.
 
I made the move from Nikon D7000 to M4/3, I don't regret it for one minute. I now have three M4/3 cameras.

IMVHO, IQ is not an issue, I'm getting very good images, on a par with anything I got from my Nikon gear.
 
I have got DSLR gear and u4/3

Both have their uses, and I wouldn't be without either. The DSLR is for when I am working in low light, or shooting fast action. The u4/3 is the rest - I currently have an E-P2 with 20mm f1.7 and 45mm F1.8. Image quality, when I can get it to focus on the right point, is superb. Sadly the focus is not very good on the E-P2 so I have to resort to (badly implemented) manual focus a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top