The future of Micro Four Thirds - has it stagnated?

[arad85]

I only have two MFT AF lenses, 20mm f1.7 and 14-42mm, and without attempting to measure focus performance with a stop watch both seem to be applicable to DSLR FF lenses in performance in normal real world use.

And those are the slow to focus micro 4/3rds lenses

 

[Glenn Surtees]

This makes quite interesting reading. Probably most impressive is the size comparison photo at the head of the article and is the principal reason I sold my Canon gear in favour of M 4/3 four years ago. Never looked back.

http://www.petertsaiphotography.com/blog/2012/12/10/olympus_omd_em5_review/

 

[Soulman]

I might be going a bit off topic but here goes....

I have never really understood this fascination with photographing kids running around, I have 3 and my most memorable images are taken when they stop for a moment and look at you. Any camera, used with a little skill, will get you these pictures. It feels a little like dslr owners beating mirrorless owners over the head with this AF weakness. If you want a smaller camera buy one and learn to use it.

I've owned m4/3 and currently an x-e1, both are capable of taking any type of image ( limitations only come because of ack of long enses for some systems) if correct technique is applied.

Sorry, rant over.

 

[Phall82]

I might be going a bit off topic but here goes....

I have never really understood this fascination with photographing kids running around, I have 3 and my most memorable images are taken when they stop for a moment and look at you. Any camera, used with a little skill, will get you these pictures. It feels a little like dslr owners beating mirrorless owners over the head with this AF weakness. If you want a smaller camera buy one and learn to use it.

I've owned m4/3 and currently an x-e1, both are capable of taking any type of image ( limitations only come because of ack of long enses for some systems) if correct technique is applied.

Sorry, rant over.

I've got an 18 month old that is just about to start walking so she's at the stage where she crawls everywhere and is nearly always moving. I can take the ones where she is still for a moment with my X100 but as soon as she sees I've got a camera (or anything expensive or useful) in my hand she straight over to try and 'examine it' (or ruin it as it always seems to me ).

I'm far from bashing mirrorless, I actually want to swap to Fuji fully but can't with the current AF setup. It's not about learning to use a camera if the auto focus is too slow for objects moving towards you, even slow moving. Yes, I could use a higher aperture but I don't want everything in focus. That defeats the point of an expensive camera with fast lenses and large sensor for me.

I find the auto focus can also struggle on their faces when light is too good... Ie no shadows. I think this is due to the lack of contrast in some situations. This can happen with my DSLR as well but not a badly.

General M43 just don't interest me. I'd rather have my DSLR to be honest but I do crave the Fuji X series. The problem with that is they seem to have the slowest AF.

 

[twist]

I've got an 18 month old that is just about to start walking so she's at the stage where she crawls everywhere and is nearly always moving. I can take the ones where she is still for a moment with my X100 but as soon as she sees I've got a camera (or anything expensive or useful) in my hand she straight over to try and 'examine it' (or ruin it as it always seems to me ).

I'm far from bashing mirrorless, I actually want to swap to Fuji fully but can't with the current AF setup. It's not about learning to use a camera if the auto focus is too slow for objects moving towards you, even slow moving. Yes, I could use a higher aperture but I don't want everything in focus. That defeats the point of an expensive camera with fast lenses and large sensor for me.

I find the auto focus can also struggle on their faces when light is too good... Ie no shadows. I think this is due to the lack of contrast in some situations. This can happen with my DSLR as well but not a badly.

The problem with that is they seem to have the slowest AF.

This!!

 

[arad85]

General M43 just don't interest me.

But you're commenting in a u4/3rds thread!!

Can you explain why u4/3rds don't interest you?

 

[ernesto]

I can tell you why they don't interest me if that helps

They are no better than a DSLR (in some areas they are worse) and the only advantage to them is size and weight. They are smaller and lighter but not by that much and as they still require a bag to carry them around it seems a bit pointless.
If I want to carry a bag then I use a DSLR, if I don't want to carry a bag I use a compact. The middle ground of u4/3 is not something that I need to use.

(realise this is nothing to do with the thread by the way!)

 

[Phall82]

But you're commenting in a u4/3rds thread!!

Can you explain why u4/3rds don't interest you?

Well if we've decided to become pedantic about the size of the sensor then I'll refrain from commenting and apologise profusely. For now though, it's just seems to be you.

The underlying point of the (OP), as I saw it, was mirrorless technology which the Fujis fall into so I decided to comment.

To answer your question, I don't like the current crop of M43 because they don't have an optical viewfinder, feel uncomfortable to hold (because the body doesn't match the size of the lens in my opinion) and just don't do anything for me. I'm not slating the image quality or anything, I just don't like the feel of them. It's a personal preference thing.

I always find the perceived loyalty to a type of technology strange. If something meets my needs/wants, I'll buy it. Currently only the Fujis do that, and DSLRs. I've tried to like M43 but I just don't like the feel of them. The only exception to this might be the Olympus OMD EM5 but I haven't held it in real life, just read reviews and seen photos. That type of camera MAY tempt me away from an optical viewfinder.

I owned a Sony NEX as well and I missed the viewfinder so I sold it. And I realise that also has no place on this thread as they are also APS-C size but you get my point.

 

[arad85]

They are no better than a DSLR (in some areas they are worse) and the only advantage to them is size and weight. They are smaller and lighter but not by that much and as they still require a bag to carry them around it seems a bit pointless.

But there are big differences once you get into "decent" lenses. I took a 14-200mm equivalent set of pro lenses (f2.8 24-200 and f4 14-28) plus a body away with me to Japan in a smaller bag than I would have had my 5D2 plus one decent zoom lens. The whole thing - including bag and accessories was less than 2kg... In fact, about the same weight as a 5D2 plus 24-70 on its own...

 

[arad85]

Well if we've decided to become pedantic about the size of the sensor then I'll refrain from commenting and apologise profusely. For now though, it's just seems to be you.

The thread is entitled: [CSC] The future of Micro Four Thirds - has it stagnated?. That's fairly specific about sensor size

To answer your question, I don't like the current crop of M43 because they don't have an optical viewfinder, feel uncomfortable to hold (because the body doesn't match the size of the lens in my opinion) and just don't do anything for me. I'm not slating the image quality or anything, I just don't like the feel of them. It's a personal preference thing.

Fair enough....

 

[Phall82]

The thread is entitled: [CSC] The future of Micro Four Thirds - has it stagnated?. That's fairly specific about sensor size

Fair enough....

You're right, it is specific to that exact sensor size. I just thought we were discussing the technology behind CSC's and rather than the OP stating every brand and variation, he may have used M43 as a general term... as any reasonable person would do.

 

[ernesto]

But there are big differences once you get into "decent" lenses. I took a 14-200mm equivalent set of pro lenses (f2.8 24-200 and f4 14-28) plus a body away with me to Japan in a smaller bag than I would have had my 5D2 plus one decent zoom lens. The whole thing - including bag and accessories was less than 2kg... In fact, about the same weight as a 5D2 plus 24-70 on its own...

Not this discussion again. The point is a bag is required and I am not someone who uses "decent" lenses so as I said, for me personally, the difference in weight is not really noticeable. And that is why I don't need u4/3.

 

[arad85]

The point is a bag is required and I am not someone who uses "decent" lenses so as I said, for me personally, the difference in weight is not really noticeable. And that is why I don't need u4/3.

That's fine - and if you're sticking with entry micro 4/3rds+kit lens vs entry DSLR+kit lens, you may well feel that.

But your reply generalised to all micro 4/3rds... which is where I picked up on the point

 

[ernesto]

Well, generally they are not that much smaller or lighter. There are extremes but if we are talking generally then I stick to my point.

 

[ronnus]

Very interesting to read this. I'm getting out of MFT because of the speed new bodies are appearing at, meaning the older bodies devalue much more quickly. I realise this happens with DSLR's too, but IMHO it's a slower process. I loved some of the MFT glass but there didn't seem to be one perfect lens for me, whereas I keep going back to the 35mm f1.8 Nikkor with my DSLR's.

My first take on MFT was "it's so small and light!", plus I loved the way the likes of the G2 handled (better controls than my D7000 IMHO) but then reality and additional lenses kicked in, and I was carrying a rucksack with 7 lenses just to go for a walk. Accepted that's probably just me, but I've decided to go down the advanced compact route instead and have a nose at some of those. So far I'm loving the X10, not quite as much love for the XZ1 but still a versatile little thing that crucially can fit in my pocket.

I way well go back to a CSC once things have levelled off a bit, never say never

 

[JohnBradbury]

I haven't dabbled with any of the new generation of m43 bodies but I was an early adopter having owed (and sold) several GF1 bodies, an EP2 and an EP3.

I prefered the Olympus bodies at the time but I had excellent output from them all. Coupled with the 20 f1.7 I was able to produce A3 level prints that looked razor sharp.

The problem for me was always AF speed (although this now appears to have been addressed), lack of viewfinder (again this has been addressed in some bodies) and ISO performance.

I tend to shoot in dimly lit conditions. Looking back through lightroom most of my shots range between 1600-3200 ISO, but it's not uncommon for me to push 6400. With the generation of bodies I tried the end product just wasn't good enough under these conditions.

Looking at some of the images produced on DSLR bodies around today even 12,800 looks reasonable. Where does m43 stand these days?

For me the lens lineup is one of the key selling points, fantastic.

I would like to see an increase in ISO performance (16MP is plenty so stop adding more to the detrement of noise handling).

I would like to see improved electronic viewfinder resolution and colour rendition (not to mention an improvement in lag time).

I would also like to see improved AF tracking.

and finally competetive pricing of the high end bodies. At the moment it's hard to get my head around the price tag of the OMD EM5 when you look around at other offerings. (If size isn't an issue)

 

[Phall82]

Very interesting to read this. I'm getting out of MFT because of the speed new bodies are appearing at, meaning the older bodies devalue much more quickly. I realise this happens with DSLR's too, but IMHO it's a slower process. I loved some of the MFT glass but there didn't seem to be one perfect lens for me, whereas I keep going back to the 35mm f1.8 Nikkor with my DSLR's.

My first take on MFT was "it's so small and light!", plus I loved the way the likes of the G2 handled (better controls than my D7000 IMHO) but then reality and additional lenses kicked in, and I was carrying a rucksack with 7 lenses just to go for a walk. Accepted that's probably just me, but I've decided to go down the advanced compact route instead and have a nose at some of those. So far I'm loving the X10, not quite as much love for the XZ1 but still a versatile little thing that crucially can fit in my pocket.

I way well go back to a CSC once things have levelled off a bit, never say never

+1 for the X10 (or X20). That's what I did from my Sony NEX system. The initial thought is how small and light but the lenses build up. The X10 is my favorite small camera setup for a flexible 'take anywhere' option.

 

[arad85]

Well, generally they are not that much smaller or lighter. There are extremes but if we are talking generally then I stick to my point.

The pro lenses are 3x smaller and 3x lighter than the Canon equivalents... And the longer you go, the bigger the difference.

In fact, if there wasn't a significant difference, I'd still have my FF 5D2 and bag of L lenses

 

[woof woof]

I just wanted to comment on MFT not being a significant saving because you need a bag...

But first just a bit of background... I'm coming up to 52 but still pretty fit. I competed in track events for my school and have a certificate for gymnastics from those days too and played hockey and football at college. In later years I've kept my fitness up and exercise almost every day... so... I may be getting on in years now but still pretty fit by average standards...

Most of my photography these days is done when I escape my responsibilities and go out walking for half a day or so and despite being reasonably fit I personally find the weight of my 5D+ lens a little irritating and I find myself swapping my Lowpro bag from shoulder to shoulder. I find my G1 plus a lens or two much more comfortable to carry and in fact the first time I went out with it I actually had to check the bag to make sure the camera was still there so I do find the bulk and weight saving significant.

Mostly I use manual lenses on my MFT but just out of interest today I used my 14-42mm and I found the focus performance to be perfectly acceptable and certainly compatible to any AF lens I've used with any SLR or DSLR I've owned. I haven't timed the focus, but in real world use it seems fine to me.

Anyway, we're digressing somewhat from the original point and straying into an area that's been done to death. We'll be talking about DoF equivalence next...

 

[woof woof]

I have never really understood this fascination with photographing kids running around...

I haven't photographed children for a while now but the last time I did it was indoors with my 5D and 50mm f1.4, ISO 1600, 1/160 and f3.2. The reason for using f3.2 was that I was struggling to get adequate DoF and trying to achieve a decent shutter speed whilst keeping the ISO down... we all know that it's a struggle to balance these things... I actually think that a smaller format system can have advantages in situations like this as you can get the same framing from a wider lens and take advantage of the slightly deeper DoF to use a lower ISO and/or higher shutter speed.

 

[arad85]

I'll just post these to show quite clearly, there is no appreciable difference....

 

[ernesto]

Anyway, we're digressing somewhat from the original point and straying into an area that's been done to death.

Agreed, I will walk away from this thread - struggling to deal with the weight of my bag full of DSLR gear as I go

 

[Soulman]

Sorry my fault for moving it off topic.

I wasn't having a go just saying I don't find pics of my kids running around that interesting, I prefer it when they sliw down and become distracted by something, at that point I often get more interesting images that didn't need quick af.

My gripe with MFT is EVF's, I much prefer optical viewfinders which none of them have.