Complete Beginner - 4/3 or DSLR

AndrewSt

AndrewSt

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,261
Edit My Images
No
Lots of discussion about people wanting to size down and move to CSC cameras like NEX or OM-D. Obviously most on here have invested a significant amount in certain systems and it just is not practical to change.

Starting again, completely from scratch would you go down the DSLR route or the CSC route?

Not talking about professionals and wedding photographers etc. Amateurs but good ones, serious about good pictures. Like to have their own prints on the wall at home and maybe one day would like to sell a few things?

Thats my problem at the minute. Was set on a OM-D 5, then a Canon 70D now considering the OMD-EM1. Going round in circles.
 
What type of photography do you envisage doing?
If it entails moving subjects then CSCs do not yet match DSLR/SLTs in tracking AF performance.
For landscape etc. they provide IQ as good as an equivalent format DSLR with less bulk & weight.

Rumours suggest that Sony will be launching 2 FF NEXs this month.
 
4/3 is DSLR, m4/3 is what your on about.

I have started again many times, Had 4/3 and m4/3 gear and am now on DX DSLR and 35mm Film.

I loved m4/3 but the fundamental bit at the heart of the system, the imaging sensor was not good enough and heels were being dragged over decent lenses.

I would love another Olympus, I was only saying earlier on my blog how there's something a bit special about the way Olympus render colours, and they have put an awful lot of good stuff in the OM-D, but I just don't think it would quite cut it for what I want until the top spec lens line up fills out a bit anyway.

I really miss being able to take all my gear in a small backpack and not have to cut trips short due to aching shoulders/neck!
 
Unless you need the phase detect A/F (and u4/3 is catching quickly) or very fast long lenses you really need to go full frame DSLR to get any significant advantage over u4/3 IMHO. Even then, you need to be printing big and have the best sensor (i.e D800)/lens combinations and pixel peep to really notice it.

There are enough people trading down from DSLRs to u4/3 to know that for 95% of people, 95% of the time, the smaller sensor is good enough - especially now the f2.8 zooms are available...
 
My uses will probably mainly be Landscapes, portrait and travel photography.
 
AndrewSt said:
My uses will probably mainly be Landscapes, portrait and travel photography.
Click to expand...

For those uses a larger sensor is going to give you more resolution, depth of field control and low light performance, its just a question of how much of each you need.

The problem for me though is that as you move beyond m43 I think lens size starts to become much more of an issue.
 
Is Fuji X off the table? I loved the concept of M4/3 and stuck it out over several bodies including an OMD, but I just felt it lacked that intangible 'feel', that something special.

I moved to a Fuji X-E1 and it was by far the most 'full-frame like' I've experienced from a smaller sensor, plus it retains the small size of M4/3 (I'm not sure how, lenses like the 14mm and 35mm are stunning). I travelled around the South West US recently and could honestly not have wanted anything more than my X-E1. The colours it produces from JPEGs are something I could never achieve through editing.

Here is my X-E1 set on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/sets/72157633814984521/, all shot with native Fuji X lenses and AF.
 
Last edited:
AndrewSt said:
Starting again, completely from scratch would you go down the DSLR route or the CSC route?
Click to expand...

I've just sold four full frame lenses but will be keeping my 5D and three lenses for now. The money from lens sales will be going into a CSC of some sort.

At the moment my only gripes with my first generation MFT are relatively poor high ISO performance and eye strain when shooting in low light. The higher ISO problems will be a lot better on later models and once the EVF's are sorted out and the eye strain issue goes away I'll probably never touch a DSLR again.

CSC are the way forward IMVHO but I do hope that the technical problems can be sorted out soon.
 
AndrewSt said:
My uses will probably mainly be Landscapes, portrait and travel photography.
Click to expand...

Landscapes - smaller sensor of m4/3 will help get more in focus, so no worries there. Obviously not the same resolution as a FF DSLR, but good enough for non-huge prints?

Portrait - less shallow DoF control with m43 but the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 can get pretty shallow. Depends just how shallow you need for your style, but I think MFT is enough.

Travel - slam dunk for CSCs (especially MFT) here. Smaller body, smaller lenses, less weight. Hooray!
 
I down-sized from DSLR to m4/3 a couple of years ago and love the system. IQ is fine for me. Gotta say though I'm using my Fuji X10 more than anything else at the mo' and have a very strong urge to go for an X-E1.
 
Llamaman said:
Portrait - less shallow DoF control with m43 but the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 can get pretty shallow. Depends just how shallow you need for your style, but I think MFT is enough.
Click to expand...

One thing that I find with FF is that for indoor available light I end up fighting between getting enough DoF and keeping the balance between shutter speed and ISO acceptable.

With a smaller system it's easier to get adaquate DoF (for example to keep the eyes in focus) whilst still maintaining a fast enough shutter speed and keeping the ISO acceptable. With FF and a 50mm even at f4 I can struggle to get adequate DoF but with MFT I can the same exposure but deeper DoF.
 
Its a no brainer for travel photography, although to be fair the newer DSLR are not huge, Canon 70D for example.

Landscapes are the big issue for me, but I think the lens will make more of a difference than the body to begin with.

Just a lot of money to invest in a system from scratch if it is not the right one.
 
AndrewSt said:
Landscapes are the big issue for me, but I think the lens will make more of a difference than the body to begin with.
Click to expand...
I get as good if not better images with my G5/7-14 as I did with the 5D2/17-40L

See this photo of a brick wall at 7mm and f4

P1010106-800.jpg


The full sized image is: http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/P1010106-full.jpg
 
AndrewSt said:
although to be fair the newer DSLR are not huge,
Click to expand...
You are not thinking in the right area. It's the LENS size - particularly in the longer lengths - where u4/3 really wins... At the end of the day, your hands are a certain size and going too small can actually be problematic (which at 6' 8" tall is why I have a gripped GH3 - the largest u4/3rds camera available)

I carry a 14-200 full frame equivalent lens setup. It is 3 lenses and a body (7-14, 12-35, 35-100 plus gripped GH3). Together with a polariser, GPS and bag, it weighs in at 2.2kg. If I wanted even lighter, I could use the G5 body which would keep the whole thing less than 2kg. The complete kit (just) fits in a shoulder bag that is 10" x 6" x 5"....
 
ukaskew said:
Is Fuji X off the table? I loved the concept of M4/3 and stuck it out over several bodies including an OMD, but I just felt it lacked that intangible 'feel', that something special.

I moved to a Fuji X-E1 and it was by far the most 'full-frame like' I've experienced from a smaller sensor, plus it retains the small size of M4/3 (I'm not sure how, lenses like the 14mm and 35mm are stunning). I travelled around the South West US recently and could honestly not have wanted anything more than my X-E1. The colours it produces from JPEGs are something I could never achieve through editing.

Here is my X-E1 set on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/sets/72157633814984521/, all shot with native Fuji X lenses and AF.
Click to expand...

Some great shots Harry - I recognise some of that scenery from our trip around California in April!
 
I have a m4/3 and love it
but for anything serious I can't replace my DSLR
focus speed, viewfinder, memory write speed/card speed
flash sync, off camera, or remote flash, with battery packs, quality of lenses etc, 70-200 f2.8 lens option, for example

for holiday stuff, then CSC is great and you can get some good kit.
for anything really serious I would miss my DSLR
 
DizMatt said:
I have a m4/3 and love it
but for anything serious I can't replace my DSLR
focus speed, viewfinder, memory write speed/card speed
flash sync, off camera, or remote flash, with battery packs, quality of lenses etc, 70-200 f2.8 lens option, for example

for holiday stuff, then CSC is great and you can get some good kit.
for anything really serious I would miss my DSLR
Click to expand...
Most of that can be attained with the right CSC - and you'll find the right camera/lens combo will actually focus faster than a DSLR - tracking focus may not quite be there yet, but it will get there.

Also, what's wrong with the 35-100 f2.8 for 70-200 replacement? Way smaller - it's actually portable so I carry mine with me always ;)

IMHO, it's a question of diminishing returns. If you need or want the last 5% performance a DSLR gives you, that's fine, but you can do serious with CSCs if you choose the correct equipment...
 
Serious is much easier with CSCs than 'the internet' suggests, I've shot motorsport for a couple of years with various CSCs, nobody even noticed until I mentioned it! A very good wedding photographer locally uses Fuji gear, would never have known if he hadn't mentioned it.
 
arad85 said:
Most of that can be attained with the right CSC - and you'll find the right camera/lens combo will actually focus faster than a DSLR - tracking focus may not quite be there yet, but it will get there.

Also, what's wrong with the 35-100 f2.8 for 70-200 replacement? Way smaller - it's actually portable so I carry mine with me always ;)

IMHO, it's a question of diminishing returns. If you need or want the last 5% performance a DSLR gives you, that's fine, but you can do serious with CSCs if you choose the correct equipment...
Click to expand...

in fairness, that 35-100 f2.8 looks gorgeous. expensive but very very nice.
on my GX1 I haven't seen focusing as sharp as on my 7D. however, if I only still had my 40D, then I would be more easily persuaded.
I think it also come from relative budget. The top end fuji units are much more expensive than i'd expect. CSC form my purposes is a budget option.
however, when I'm carrying stuff and maybe kids around on holiday in the future I will be very grateful for the size and portability of the CSC.
 
DizMatt said:
in fairness, that 35-100 f2.8 looks gorgeous. expensive but very very nice.
on my GX1 I haven't seen focusing as sharp as on my 7D. however, if I only still had my 40D, then I would be more easily persuaded.
I think it also come from relative budget. The top end fuji units are much more expensive than i'd expect. CSC form my purposes is a budget option.
however, when I'm carrying stuff and maybe kids around on holiday in the future I will be very grateful for the size and portability of the CSC.
Click to expand...

What lenses are you using?

At low to medium ISO's the images I get from my G1 stand up quite nicely to anything I got from my 20D or 5D focus sharpness wise as long as I'm using equally nice lenses and I'd be surprised if a good CSC with a good lens couldn't match your 7D which (and I don't mean to start a debate on 7D's :D) hasn't been exactly univesally praised for it's sharp images.
 
DizMatt said:
in fairness, that 35-100 f2.8 looks gorgeous. expensive but very very nice.
Click to expand...

It is:

P1010442-800.jpg

P1010432-800.jpg

P1010256-800.jpg


All taken at F2.8 and really are very sharp at 100%. (this is the first one at full res if you are interested: http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/P1010442-full.jpg) and the 100mm end is its weak spot!!

DizMatt said:
on my GX1 I haven't seen focusing as sharp as on my 7D. however, if I only still had my 40D, then I would be more easily persuaded.
Click to expand...
It depends what you are looking at. I found that before the GH3, I needed more sharpening. Here is an unsharpened (and over processed) image from a G5 and GH3 - notice the significantly sharper image from the GH3 when using the same lens (G5 first, GH3 second).

centre-over-B-200.jpg

centre-over-A-200.jpg


Yopu can see the comparison here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=450864

I assume this is due to stronger AA filters in front of the sensor. Newer cameras are coming with much weaker/no AA filters (the GX7 looks very sharp from what I have seen and it has no AA filter).

DizMatt said:
I think it also come from relative budget. The top end fuji units are much more expensive than i'd expect. CSC form my purposes is a budget option.
however, when I'm carrying stuff and maybe kids around on holiday in the future I will be very grateful for the size and portability of the CSC.
Click to expand...
You're equating size with price. I view CSC as a replacement, so am happy to invest almost as much in it as I had with FF DSLR...
 
Ive kinda gone for the best of both after using both. Went from beginner to mid-range DSLRs, tried a few M4/3s and serious compacts and have now decided on a Sony NEX.
I have an NEX-6 and NEX-7 sat next to me as I couldnt decide, both have great controls, a few custom buttons, etc. and both with excellent image sensors (NEX-6 has the same from the D7000 and the NEX-7 has a new one, I believe) but again the one problem is autofocus - not a problem for me because I dont really shoot fast moving objects but still worth bearing in mind. Also, the new 16-50mm zoom is great! Such a good wide-end makes things a bit fish-eye like (noticeable curving) and the zoom is a bit, well, its 50mm at f5.6 so its never going to be that good.

I had an EPL2 and I do like Olympus, it just felt a bit too toy-like for me but id have no hesitation trying out the EP5 or OMD.
And if I had the money for a Fuji with a good lens, again, no hesitation but the lenses are too expensive for me!
 
Last edited:
Not really a fan of the NEX systems as limited lenses at the moment. I will be interested to see what comes of the new Sonys that are rumored at the moment.

The fuji looks good on paper, I am just not sure on the looks to be honest.

Om-D looks good and some impressive shots on the thread and Flickr, the new EM-1 might be great but its going to cost a fair whack.

This puts it into the same range as something like a D7100 or a 70D which are the DSLRs that I am considering.
 
AndrewSt said:
Not really a fan of the NEX systems as limited lenses at the moment. I will be interested to see what comes of the new Sonys that are rumored at the moment. The fuji looks good on paper, I am just not sure on the looks to be honest. Om-D looks good and some impressive shots on the thread and Flickr, the new EM-1 might be great but its going to cost a fair whack. This puts it into the same range as something like a D7100 or a 70D which are the DSLRs that I am considering.
Click to expand...

It's a fair point, I do like the manual focusing with older lenses though which is one of the main reasons I got one. A bit disappointed with the lack of an affordable 35mm f1.8 though! £350 for what is £120 for a Nikon DSLR is a bit steep!
Fuji is top at the minute IMO for pure image quality and high ISO performance, really leading the field in CSCs. I like the looks but it's all personal opinion of course.
Yeah I don't think id pay the EM-1 price considering the top DSLRs for the same price.
 
Thrash said:
It's a fair point, I do like the manual focusing with older lenses though which is one of the main reasons I got one. A bit disappointed with the lack of an affordable 35mm f1.8 though! £350 for what is £120 for a Nikon DSLR is a bit steep!
Fuji is top at the minute IMO for pure image quality and high ISO performance, really leading the field in CSCs. I like the looks but it's all personal opinion of course.
Yeah I don't think id pay the EM-1 price considering the top DSLRs for the same price.
Click to expand...

Panasonic make a nice 20mm 1.7 that goes for £150 to £200. Nice and sharp but one of the slower focussing m43 lenses.

My camera progression was d40 > d80 > d300s > d7100 > omd em5.
Couldnt be happier with the Oly. Great selection of lenses designed specifically for the system to utilise its smaller size - the main reason i moved was similar quality and a much smaller system.
 
Talking about the ideal mirrorless system sensor size then I think the rumoured Sony FF lenses hint that m43 or ASPC might be it.

28-70mm F3.5-F5.6, 35mm F2.8 and a "high end" Zeiss 24-70mm F/4, all of that to me clearly says size saving although I'd guess not cost saving compared to higher spected DSLR alternatives.
 
I must admit, with the release of the EM1 Olympus and the GX7 I'm sorely tempted to consider going from DSLR to M4/3, but my big question is shooting action/fast movement.

I have totally polarised interests. landscape on a wide lens and airshows/sports on long lens.

I have a sigma 10-20 for wide, an 18-135 for general walkabout and 50-500 sigma for my shows. and I have it all running off a K30 Pentax body which is fine.

but I find myself seduced by the size and handiness of M4/3. I know it can handle landscape okay and I know there are lenses that would get me out to 600mm which is okay for airshows. I read time and again that M4/3 has blazing fast AF. but can it shoot action, can it cope with fast moving jets at 400-500-600 knots. can it cope with F1 cars doing 200mph on a track.

it's the one thing I never see answered really well in reviews.
 
arad85 said:
Also, what's wrong with the 35-100 f2.8 for 70-200 replacement? Way smaller - it's actually portable so I carry mine with me always ;)
Click to expand...

It's not an equivalent replacement on an APS-C sensor though as it does not give you the 'reach' of a 70-200 - more like a 140 on the long end? I use a 70-210 f4 on aps-c and 90% of the time I use it between 150mm and 210mm.
 
AndrewSt said:
This puts it into the same range as something like a D7100 or a 70D which are the DSLRs that I am considering.
Click to expand...

More like into the range of full frame - D600 and EM1 body only are currently at exactly the same price level £1299.00 - the latter admittedly at launch price but going by the Em-5 price that did not drop much from launch and took over 1 year for any significant drop.

EM1 looks great and seems to (hopefully) address what was (for me) one of the main flaws of the EM-5 - the poor ergonomics on an otherwise great (if somewhat pricey) camera. But the EM is dipping into full frame territory in terms of pricing which is a bold move for a micro four thirds camera.
 
applemint said:
It's not an equivalent replacement on an APS-C sensor though as it does not give you the 'reach' of a 70-200 - more like a 140 on the long end? I use a 70-210 f4 on aps-c and 90% of the time I use it between 150mm and 210mm.
Click to expand...
No... but then if you want longer, the 100-300 handily outreaches most lenses on APS-C. And for less than £400 too ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top