Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MFT from a FF user's perspective
#1
Hi everyone,
 
I know some people are considering MFT to complement their FF kit. If it's your case or if you are just curious, you may be interested in reading what I wrote below.
 
I own a D800 plus a rather large collection of lenses, from 17mm to 500mm with everything in between. I'm extremely happy with the IQ, fairly happy with the handling (I used to own a Pentax K5 which IMO has much better ergonomics than anything else I've ever tried) and not very happy with AF reliability.
 
Originally, I wanted to get a super cheap MFT body to try out the system because I wanted a small camera for occasional snapshots on my way to work or when I was going somewhere and didn't want to lug my D800 around. I was also curious to see how AF accuracy would fare in terms of accuracy/reliability compared to DSLRs. I had read AF is always spot on, but I wanted to see for myself. Another requirement was that I wanted a camera that would fit in my short's pocket with a lens attached. Oh, and it had to have a viewfinder.
 
So I settled on a lowly Panasonic G3 because it was on sale, brand new, for $230. At that price, it wasn't very risky. I also purchased a 14mm f2.5 on ebay for something like $170. Again, nothing much to lose.
 
To my surprise I liked that combo a lot. It was very compact while being competent enough in most situations (when DR wasn't too demanding). But what surprised me the most was how fun it was to use! I would carry it everywhere. At that point I truly understood the meaning of  "the best camera is the one you have with you". This statement couldn't be more true.
 
More and more, I'd take my G3 instead of my D800, simply because it was so small, light and fun to use.
 
Around the same time, my dad made the switch from Pentax (K20) to MFT, buying an E-PL5 with the following lenses: Oly 12-50, Pana 20mm and Pana 100-300. So I got the opportunity to try new lenses. It's just impressive how small they are and I really enjoyed using the 20mm. Such a great performer given its size.
 
Then came around the holidays. I was going on a kite surfing trip to the Caribbean. I own the Sigma 50-500 which is a great lens paired to my D800... but given I was already travelling with all my kitesurfing gear, I needed something more compact and light. I took my G3 and my dad lent me his 12-50 + 100-300. It was a revelation! I found the IQ to be good enough for most of my needs. I was very happy with the shots I got from the G3 + 100-300 @ 300mm wide-open. While not matching the D800 (obviously...), I came to realize that real-life differences are much smaller than what the graphs (dxomark for instance) suggest. The one thing a bit lacking was DR, but I know it's been improved dramatically in the the last crop of MFT sensors.
 
In the last months, I bought additional lenses to complement my 14mm: Pana 25 f1.4 (awesome even wide-open), Oly 45 f1.8 (same), Oly 40-150 (for 100 euros used!). That last one surprised me most: given its low price the IQ is truly impressive, even at 150mm and it's so tiny.
 
The thing is, MFT has easily reached "good enough" IQ for me (using the latest crop of sensors), even at high ISO (up to 3200). Mind you, I seldom use my D800 these days. Most of the time, I don't want to lug my D800 kit around, so instead I grab my G3 plus the trio (14, 25, 45). Despite the G3 sensor being outdated compared to the one in the OM-D, I still grab my G3 in place of my D800! I never thought I would favor my MFT gear over my FF kit. Well... it happened.
 
Funny how things turn out. My dad's E-PL5's IQ is really good for 95% of my needs... I think we have reached very high IQ standards and it's very very difficult to distinguish between cameras' output regardless of the format, except perhaps under exceptionally challenging conditions.
 
What I forgot to mention is AF accuracy (or the lack-of) with DSLRs: this is one of the main reasons I would never consider going back to traditional mirror DSLRs. I find it so liberating to know my photo will be sharp and the focus will be exactly were I wanted it to be, regardless of the lens or lighting conditions. This is probably why I enjoy my G3 so much: no more AF frustrations!
 
We often hear that you loose 2 stops of depth of field compared to FF. This is very true and I was the first one to mention this fact. However, I realized that situations where I truly need shallow DOF are fairly rare and the 45mm at f1.8 gives me enough DOF in most situations.  The same can be said about the Pana 24mm @ 1.4. Although it only equals a 50mm f2.8 FF lens, it's enough in most cases. The one thing one can't have with MFT is shallow DOF with somewhat wide angle lenses. Instead you have to use longer lenses. Given my usage it's actually not a problem and I don't miss it. Of course, depending on your needs, that may not be true. Objectively, I think that situations where critically shallow DOF is needed with shorter focal lengths is fairly rare.
 
From my point of view (I'm no pro), carrying a big backpack full of FF lenses doesn't justify the IQ difference over the convenience MFT provides. In the real world, as long as I don't print a 3 by 2 meter billboard, I find the difference in IQ between FF and MFT to be insignificant. Of course, your mileage may vary.
 
Oh and I now enjoy photography much more than before
 
I decided I'll put all of my Nikon FF gear on sale in the next few days and I'll upgrade my G3 to either a GX7 or a E-M1.  Ideally I'd like a E-M1 in a GX7's body.. Oh well, we can't have it all I suppose.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#2
Very interesting report, thanks! 

 

Relating and related to Pentax (which I still use):

1. Your comments about sufficient IQ and DOF mimic how I feel about APS-C vs. FF.  I find the endlessly angst from Pentax users that Pentax does not have FF to be pointless and tiresome.  

2. Your comments about accurate AF mimic mine: I bought a K-01 on sale for $250 and haven't looked back.  The accurate CDAF and P&S style composing on a large screen are wonderful and make that body a joy to use.  I don't really miss squinting through optical or electronic viewfinders and contorting my body to get shots except under very specific conditions.

 

If I changed from Pentax, it would be to NEX or MFT.  Oddly, the only thing that would would sway me to FF is that the price ratios are becoming very good... a {24/2.8+50/1.4+85/1.8} lens combo (or similar) is quite cheap compared to their MFT or APS-C equivalents so that the system (3 lens + body) is getting much closer to the smaller formats.

#3
Quote:What I forgot to mention is AF accuracy (or the lack-of) with DSLRs: this is one of the main reasons I would never consider going back to traditional mirror DSLRs. I find it so liberating to know my photo will be sharp and the focus will be exactly were I wanted it to be, regardless of the lens or lighting conditions. This is probably why I enjoy my G3 so much: no more AF frustrations!
My (limited) experience with the Sony NEX stuff tells me that poor AF accuracy is not an exclusive feature of PDAF-based systems. I really like my NEX-3N because it is so small but a stone-age Pana GF1 or GH1 seems to be already more reliable in this regard.

#4
Quote:Hi everyone,
 
I decided I'll put all of my Nikon FF gear on sale in the next few days and I'll upgrade my G3 to either a GX7 or a E-M1.  Ideally I'd like a E-M1 in a GX7's body.. Oh well, we can't have it all I suppose.
 

Thanks for the nice report. I had a similar experience years ago from APS-C (30D, 40D, + a bunch of high quality lenses) to MFT and never looked back one second. And trust me, I quit it for a less than perfect E-P1 :-).

 

You are enjoying your G3 nicely but let me tell you there is a HUGE improvement on the E-m5, E-P5, E-PM2, E-PL5, E-M1 sensor generation. That extra one stop in DR & noise control we were missing from the beginning.

 

Interestingly, now that honey moon has faded a little, and spending considerable time on flickr, I can point out relatively easily what comes from full frame DSLR. There is still something else than just DOF control & noise control, there is some smoothness to the tones... So you may join me on noticing the difference again too and missing it later :-).

 

If I were you, I'd keep my D800 with just a couple of lenses for unique scenarios (super high res capture + tilt shift ? extra high quality tele? - or any other things missing in MFT)  and would drop the rest in favor of the smaller system.

#5
Quote:Hi everyone,


I know some people are considering MFT to complement their FF kit. If it's your case or if you are just curious, you may be interested in reading what I wrote below.


I own a D800 plus a rather large collection of lenses, from 17mm to 500mm with everything in between. I'm extremely happy with the IQ, fairly happy with the handling (I used to own a Pentax K5 which IMO has much better ergonomics than anything else I've ever tried) and not very happy with AF reliability.


Originally, I wanted to get a super cheap MFT body to try out the system because I wanted a small camera for occasional snapshots on my way to work or when I was going somewhere and didn't want to lug my D800 around. I was also curious to see how AF accuracy would fare in terms of accuracy/reliability compared to DSLRs. I had read AF is always spot on, but I wanted to see for myself. Another requirement was that I wanted a camera that would fit in my short's pocket with a lens attached. Oh, and it had to have a viewfinder.


So I settled on a lowly Panasonic G3 because it was on sale, brand new, for $230. At that price, it wasn't very risky. I also purchased a 14mm f2.5 on ebay for something like $170. Again, nothing much to lose.


To my surprise I liked that combo a lot. It was very compact while being competent enough in most situations (when DR wasn't too demanding). But what surprised me the most was how fun it was to use! I would carry it everywhere. At that point I truly understood the meaning of "the best camera is the one you have with you". This statement couldn't be more true.


More and more, I'd take my G3 instead of my D800, simply because it was so small, light and fun to use.


Around the same time, my dad made the switch from Pentax (K20) to MFT, buying an E-PL5 with the following lenses: Oly 12-50, Pana 20mm and Pana 100-300. So I got the opportunity to try new lenses. It's just impressive how small they are and I really enjoyed using the 20mm. Such a great performer given its size.


Then came around the holidays. I was going on a kite surfing trip to the Caribbean. I own the Sigma 50-500 which is a great lens paired to my D800... but given I was already travelling with all my kitesurfing gear, I needed something more compact and light. I took my G3 and my dad lent me his 12-50 + 100-300. It was a revelation! I found the IQ to be good enough for most of my needs. I was very happy with the shots I got from the G3 + 100-300 @ 300mm wide-open. While not matching the D800 (obviously...), I came to realize that real-life differences are much smaller than what the graphs (dxomark for instance) suggest. The one thing a bit lacking was DR, but I know it's been improved dramatically in the the last crop of MFT sensors.


In the last months, I bought additional lenses to complement my 14mm: Pana 25 f1.4 (awesome even wide-open), Oly 45 f1.8 (same), Oly 40-150 (for 100 euros used!). That last one surprised me most: given its low price the IQ is truly impressive, even at 150mm and it's so tiny.


The thing is, MFT has easily reached "good enough" IQ for me (using the latest crop of sensors), even at high ISO (up to 3200). Mind you, I seldom use my D800 these days. Most of the time, I don't want to lug my D800 kit around, so instead I grab my G3 plus the trio (14, 25, 45). Despite the G3 sensor being outdated compared to the one in the OM-D, I still grab my G3 in place of my D800! I never thought I would favor my MFT gear over my FF kit. Well... it happened.


Funny how things turn out. My dad's E-PL5's IQ is really good for 95% of my needs... I think we have reached very high IQ standards and it's very very difficult to distinguish between cameras' output regardless of the format, except perhaps under exceptionally challenging conditions.


What I forgot to mention is AF accuracy (or the lack-of) with DSLRs: this is one of the main reasons I would never consider going back to traditional mirror DSLRs. I find it so liberating to know my photo will be sharp and the focus will be exactly were I wanted it to be, regardless of the lens or lighting conditions. This is probably why I enjoy my G3 so much: no more AF frustrations!


We often hear that you loose 2 stops of depth of field compared to FF. This is very true and I was the first one to mention this fact. However, I realized that situations where I truly need shallow DOF are fairly rare and the 45mm at f1.8 gives me enough DOF in most situations. The same can be said about the Pana 24mm @ 1.4. Although it only equals a 50mm f2.8 FF lens, it's enough in most cases. The one thing one can't have with MFT is shallow DOF with somewhat wide angle lenses. Instead you have to use longer lenses. Given my usage it's actually not a problem and I don't miss it. Of course, depending on your needs, that may not be true. Objectively, I think that situations where critically shallow DOF is needed with shorter focal lengths is fairly rare.


From my point of view (I'm no pro), carrying a big backpack full of FF lenses doesn't justify the IQ difference over the convenience MFT provides. In the real world, as long as I don't print a 3 by 2 meter billboard, I find the difference in IQ between FF and MFT to be insignificant. Of course, your mileage may vary.


Oh and I now enjoy photography much more than before


I decided I'll put all of my Nikon FF gear on sale in the next few days and I'll upgrade my G3 to either a GX7 or a E-M1. Ideally I'd like a E-M1 in a GX7's body.. Oh well, we can't have it all I suppose.


Hi


Thanks for the long report. As an early mFT adopter (E-P1) I am not surprised. Whenever I see à Nikon APS SLR I am wondering why people are doing this yo them. I didn't even discuss FF.

Continue to enjoy mFT.


J.
enjoy
#6
I had a d800 too and after a few months with. Fuji x-e1 I bought a sony a7r. After the "honeymoon" with the small equipment, I started to miss the tonal transitions and dynamic range of ff. I just got a second hand omd em5 and now I have the best of both worlds... And a very small bag!
#7
Since this old thread's been resurrected, I'll also say that I've had the opposite experience. After reading all over the internet that MFT and APS-C are good enough these days, I had tried several "crop-sensor" systems in the last couple of years, switching between Olympus/Panasonic, Pentax and Fuji. And I don't know, pictures from smaller sensors look ok when straight out of the camera, but when you start processing them.. they just fall apart. Especially MFT. When I apply moderate contrast adjustments and add some sharpening they become crazily noisy and start to look unnatural even at base ISO 200! APS-C is better, especially Pentax was good with ISO 80, but then again even the very old Canon 5D from 2005 just gives some really nice sharp images at ISO 100 with tones and colors that I haven't seen from smaller formats.

 

It just seems like smaller sensors use some "cheating" in order to not lag too far behind FF, and all that cheating becomes apparent when you start "working" the image, that is post-processing, making tonal/color adjustments etc. Just can't argue with huge sensels I suppose. And I don't even need shallower depth of field, mostly shooting landscapes. They just look better, the small details are lively, the colors are "richer" than anything I've had with APS-C, and MFT always looked "mushy" and "plasticky". The only thing that produced really good images for me was Fuji with 14/2.8, but that's probably the lens' merit.

 

And there's so many FF lenses available including really good yet affordable ones.. I really hated MFT lenses, everyone says there are some "gems" in the line-up but when I try those "gems" they're just mediocre, and I've tried a lot of "highly regarded" primes (except 75/1.8). Original Four Thirds lenses are really good though, Olympus 50/2 is superb, and 12-60 was really good. But again, even with excellent optics small sensors still suck when start post-processing. So I lag around a heavy old 5D for now. Hate its weight and there are some other issues (like sensor dust, no live-view etc), but for me IQ is just significantly better. And that's with affordable primes like 35/2, 50/1.8 and 100/2.

#8
Quote:Since this old thread's been resurrected, I'll also say that I've had the opposite experience. After reading all over the internet that MFT and APS-C are good enough these days, I had tried several "crop-sensor" systems in the last couple of years, switching between Olympus/Panasonic, Pentax and Fuji. And I don't know, pictures from smaller sensors look ok when straight out of the camera, but when you start processing them.. they just fall apart. Especially MFT. When I apply moderate contrast adjustments and add some sharpening they become crazily noisy and start to look unnatural even at base ISO 200! APS-C is better, especially Pentax was good with ISO 80, but then again even the very old Canon 5D from 2005 just gives some really nice sharp images at ISO 100 with tones and colors that I haven't seen from smaller formats.

 

It just seems like smaller sensors use some "cheating" in order to not lag too far behind FF, and all that cheating becomes apparent when you start "working" the image, that is post-processing, making tonal/color adjustments etc. Just can't argue with huge sensels I suppose. And I don't even need shallower depth of field, mostly shooting landscapes. They just look better, the small details are lively, the colors are "richer" than anything I've had with APS-C, and MFT always looked "mushy" and "plasticky". The only thing that produced really good images for me was Fuji with 14/2.8, but that's probably the lens' merit.

 

And there's so many FF lenses available including really good yet affordable ones.. I really hated MFT lenses, everyone says there are some "gems" in the line-up but when I try those "gems" they're just mediocre, and I've tried a lot of "highly regarded" primes (except 75/1.8). Original Four Thirds lenses are really good though, Olympus 50/2 is superb, and 12-60 was really good. But again, even with excellent optics small sensors still suck when start post-processing. So I lag around a heavy old 5D for now. Hate its weight and there are some other issues (like sensor dust, no live-view etc), but for me IQ is just significantly better. And that's with affordable primes like 35/2, 50/1.8 and 100/2.
Your comment is strong on complaints and scant on details. To get the most out of your M43 camera you need to shoot in raw and you need a decent program like Lightroom or Aperture. Some of the older and cheaper programs aren't designed to handle raw photos from M43 cameras so you won't have great results.

 

You've tried the "gems"? The 75mm F1.8 isn't a highly regarded lens, not in my book anyway. In my opinion, none of the Olympus lenses are that great, at least compared to Panasonic's premium offerings. Have you tried the 25mm F1.4 or the 42.5mm F1.2? Those lenses are incredible.
#9
Mahadragon, if somebody uses FF cameras, I'd  think he's not only doing JPGs. In any case, why haven't you asked before guessing about use of RAW or RAW converters? And even if doh had an old, cheap or whatever program (another thing you simply can't know without asking), this does mean there's already an advantage which will remain if someone uses state of the art RAW-conversion.

 

Which of course some of the state of the art converters can't perform: If a manufacturer has to rely on software to correct distorison and vignetting, the user need to rely on the RAW-converter of the manufacturer or hope that somebody can deliver lens profiles.

 

To me it's really simple: In terms of weight and smallness FF can't compete with µ4/3. In terms of IQ the small cameras might be good enough (which doesn't mean "weak") but if their sensors were equal or close to FF, the FF manufacturers would have done something wrong.
#10
Quote:You've tried the "gems"? The 75mm F1.8 isn't a highly regarded lens, not in my book anyway. In my opinion, none of the Olympus lenses are that great, at least compared to Panasonic's premium offerings. Have you tried the 25mm F1.4 or the 42.5mm F1.2? Those lenses are incredible.
 

The 75mm f1.8 isn't a highly regarded lens? You must certainly be the only one to think so. Show me one competent photographer who believes this.

Either you had a bad sample or the best lenses of other systems are crap.

The Pana 25mm is good, but it's not even close to the 75mm, especially wide-open.

I can't speak for the 42.5 which I don't have, but from reviews out there, it seems very close to the 75 in terms of IQ.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)