The "Only m43 could do the job!" thread

[pheaukus]

Here is a another take on both the 'size/weight' and 'extreme outdoors' advantages:

All by Scott Rinckenberger

Chase Jarvis TECH: Scott’s personal Olympus Pen E-P2 Camera Kit

Chase Jarvis TECH: Scott's Olympus Pen E-P2 Camera Kit | Chase Jarvis Blog

Chase Jarvis TECH: Scott's Olympus Pen E-P2 Camera Kit | Chase Jarvis Blog

[pheaukus]

Originally Posted by kevinparis

In this particular situation, a crowded bar in low light, the size advantages of micro 4/3 came into play. [...] Add to that acceptable high ISO and a relatively quiet shutter and you have a very capable package for this kind of work.

The recent posts I see a parallel: they all have a human and intimate component. Family and human interest, nature at human limits, human masses cramped indoors.

I wish I could call the shutter of my PL3 quiet... !CLUNKKK!

[RT_Panther]

I'd guess that images captured with the M. Zuiko 75mm ƒ1.8 (150mm equivalent) would fall into the "Only m43" category.

Anything else IMHO is subjective as Krugorg stated...

[pheaukus]

Originally Posted by RT_Panther

M. Zuiko 75mm ƒ1.8 (150mm equivalent) would fall into the "Only m43" category.

Anything else IMHO is subjective as Krugorg stated...

Indeed the mentioned advantages are not technical per se. But then again, there was no request for generalizations. I like that even though subjective, all statements are of the works/won't work (for me) kind. One could say they are based on real-world experiences where many parameters play a role, most of which cannot be calculated.

On the technical side however, and this really surprises me, is there no other system or camera with a lens like the 75mm 1.8? Wow.

[landshark]

The IBIS in the OM-D is the only thing

[CUB]

It is easy to quote examples where the weight and bulk of a DSLR would deter you from carrying it, or could possibly intimidate the subject. That these are good reasons for choosing m4/3 is undeniable.

However, the choice available is not restricted only to DSLR and m4/3. People can use a similar justification for choosing a compact P&S or a compact system camera that is smaller then m4/3, such as Nikon's 1 Series or even the Pentax Q. All of these are not only easier to carry than DSLRs, and less intimidating, but they are actually better than m4/3 in these two respects. Some of them are truly pocketable, something that isn't actually true of m4/3 unless you have particularly large pockets.

If a reasonably large sensor is a priority, there are p&s digicams like the Canon G1 X and the Sony RX100. The G1X has a sensor that is slightly larger than m4/3 and the RX100 shares its sensor size (although not its pixel count) with the Nikon 1 Series. Both give excellent results that are for almost all purposes indistinguishable from m4/3.

So if anyone is going to truthfully claim that "Only m43 could do the job!" they have to try just a little harder than merely saying "My DSLR was too heavy/bulky/intimidating for this shot" when a smaller (but still high IQ) P&S could have done the job equally well and be truly pocketable too.

[jloden]

Originally Posted by CUB

So if anyone is going to truthfully claim that "Only m43 could do the job!" they have to try just a little harder than merely saying "My DSLR was too heavy/bulky/intimidating for this shot" when a smaller (but still high IQ) P&S could have done the job equally well and be truly pocketable too.

This is true for some circumstances, to be sure. What I personally don't see in other offerings aside from m4/3 is a compact, high IQ, interchangeable lens camera system complete with a wide array of quality lenses. Other CSCs have different appeal (larger sensors, or focus peaking on NEX for example). They may even have some individually great lenses, but to date no one else has the wide array available on m4/3.

Note that I'm not a rabid m4/3 fan; I'm invested heavily in the system to be sure, but I'm more than happy to use and enjoy other systems. I currently own an X100 and a Canon S95 in addition to my m4/3 gear, and I've looked strongly at the X-Pro1, Sony NEX, Samsung's offerings, and Canon & Nikon DSLRs. What's kept me happily using m4/3 is the combination of all of the above features.

[jnewell]

I've posted in a few other threads about things my DSLRs will do that the m4/3 gear won't, but this is a great opportunity to put the shoe on the other foot.

Later this month, I'm going to be travelling overseas to an event where there are limitations on the size of photo equipment and practical limitations on what I will be able to carry (both venue limitations and personal, physical limitations ). So, here is a case where if my choice was DSLR kit or nothing, I'd either wind up with nothing or with gear that was limited enough that it really wouldn't address the photo needs I'll be having. So let me say:

To address Cub's point, I'll have an LX5 in my bag, too, and my wife will no doubt have here P&S superzoom, but I can tell you that for a variety of different reasons they would not produce pictures that will be as pleasing as the m4/3 choice will do.

[WoodWorks]

It may be a bit of a stretch to say that only a µ4/3 camera could have made this shot possible. But I know I never would have hauled a full-frame DSLR out to the place from where I took it, nor bothered with a P&S.

I was on a week-long, springtime motorcycle trip through Death Valley and the SoCal deserts with minimal gear when a local in Lone Pine alerted me to this arch up in the nearby Alabama Hills. He gave me only the vaguest of directions, and let me know that I'd be hoofing it over rough terrain (in stiff motorcycle boots) for about an hour to get there. So I decided to take only my GH2 and 20mm f/1.7 lens, which I could pocket in my motorcycle jacket.

After much cross-country scrambling at sunrise through washes and clambering over boulders, I eventually found the spot. But I had to lie down in a prone position across a boulder and hold my camera well below me to capture Mt. Whitney in the center of the arch. The GH2's articulating screen made the shot possible.

So yes, the pocketabilty, light weight, articulating screen, and excellent lens made it not only possible to take this photo, but I never would have gone out there with a big, heavy DSLR, nor a cheap P&S camera. Only a µ4/3 system made it worthwhile for me.

David

[pheaukus]

Originally Posted by CUB

If a reasonably large sensor is a priority, there are p&s digicams like the Canon G1 X and the Sony RX100. The G1X has a sensor that is slightly larger than m4/3 and the RX100 shares its sensor size (although not its pixel count) with the Nikon 1 Series. Both give excellent results that are for almost all purposes indistinguishable from m4/3.

I'm pretty sure all sensor size gaps will be filled with both systems and compacts soon

Originally Posted by CUB

So if anyone is going to truthfully claim that "Only m43 could do the job!" they have to try just a little harder

Looking at the range of cameras currently available, my uneducated guess is that that can be said for every camera choice except for extreme niche applications (Hubble Telescope e.a.). Hence the focus of this thread is on personal choices of individuals.

/ and in fact, posters put their opinion in perspective