Full-frame DLSR and Micro 4/3s are complementary systems for me.

__________________
Kindest,
Dave
www.xdayv.com

GH3 | G3 | GX1 | 7-14 | 12-35 | 35-100 | 20 | 45
Nikon FX | Leica MM

Agree.

Lightning fast, dead-accurate S-AF suits me just fine, with no front/back focus issues, no need for lens adjustment, and less mis-focus in the dark.

f/0.95 on Micro Four-Thirds is about as shallow as I need.

Micro Four-Thirds bodies go up to 9.5fps with AF, even faster with fixed focus. I don't need a buffer that can carry that kind of burst on forever. That's a lot more photos than I need in a second of shooting! o_o Even shooting sports, that one opportunity for a shot only comes along every 5 minutes tops for most games, and the average for my job is more like one shot every 5-15 minutes. I would never use up a fraction of the buffer I have, nevermind wanting for more! I use my camera for taking photographs, not movies.

I like setting information I can actually see through the viewfinder even with my glasses on. Something I have never gotten from any DSLR, pro-grade or less, but now have with the EVF.

I don't miss my electric toothbrush, either. ;) It served me well enough when I used it, but I've never once felt that I "needed" an electric.

I know what you're getting at, but "need" is too strong of a word. Every system, every lens, and every body is better suited for one job over another, but there are few if any jobs which "require" a DSLR which could not be done nearly as easily with a Non-Reflex system (of which there are now many). There were times in the past when a DSLR felt like a necessity, but that was before many other options existed with a digital sensor, when the choice looked more like: Rangefinders, DSLRs, and Medium Format.

A "need" would be more like, "I need xxx W of strobe light power with softboxes at least xx inches in size", or "I need a sturdy tripod to get the exposure time I need", or "I need a telephoto lens with xx mm focal length and capable of at least an f/xx aperture", or "I need a backdrop at least xx feet wide and seamless, long enough to place my model/product at least xx feet from the back", or "I need at least xx number of speedlights to create the spread I'm looking for". I can't imagine a situation where I would, as a photographer, "need" a DSLR because I couldn't do my job with a high-end Non-Reflex camera.

Granted, if you're sticking only to native lenses then there are certain needs which absolutely CAN'T be met by non-reflex systems like m4/3... yet. m4/3 is coming closest to a complete lineup of anyone though. If you can't use manual focus and require a fast telephoto then perhaps you do "need" a DSLR, but that will change once we have more lenses.

__________________
Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

cyclopsphoto.ca

We all shoot differently with different camera requirements:

"Lightning fast, dead-accurate S-AF suits me just fine, with no front/back focus issues, no need for lens adjustment, and less mis-focus in the dark."

I sorely miss a viable Continuous Auto Focus. µ4/3 lack of viable C-AF makes shooting action much harder and with less consistant results than with a dSLR.

"Micro Four-Thirds bodies go up to 9.5fps with AF, even faster with fixed focus. I don't need a buffer that can carry that kind of burst on forever. That's a lot more photos than I need in a second of shooting! o_o Even shooting sports, that one opportunity for a shot only comes along every 5 minutes tops for most games, and the average for my job is more like one shot every 5-15 minutes. I would never use up a fraction of the buffer I have, nevermind wanting for more! I use my camera for taking photographs, not movies."

The OM-D can only deliver 4.5 FPS with AF, 9 FPS without AF (fixed). I see buffers like money, one can never have enough (within reason, lol). Having shot a ton of sports, I discovered that in nearly every contest, I had to wait for my buffer to unload. (I shoot 1D's for sports.) I always thought an external, plug-in buffer would be ideal and do the trick I needed.

I used my camera for taking photos, not movies also ... I shoot a lot of action and with action comes the need for a lot of buffer.

"f/0.95 on Micro Four-Thirds is about as shallow as I need."

f/.95 is great for shallow DOF. To bad it only comes on two manual focus lens one a normal focal length the other slightly wide. I'd be very happy with f/2 on wide, very wide, long and very long auto focus lens. As of now, there aren't any native lenses fitting these parameters.

"I like setting information I can actually see through the viewfinder even with my glasses on. Something I have never gotten from any DSLR, pro-grade or less, but now have with the EVF."

The EVF is a two edged sword, it is wonderful for displaying information and it is great for showing you live view of your settings ... but the dSLR optical viewfinder is a better tool for action photography.

"I don't miss my electric toothbrush, either. ;)"

I wish my toothbrush had viable C-AF with a EVF that could keep up with it.

Gary

__________________
"Everywhere you look there are photographs, it is up to us photogs to see them."- Gary Ayala
My Snaps are Here: Unsharp At Any Speed
Critiquing my images is welcomed and greatly appreciated.

I don't think this a DSLR/non-DSLR problem. The Nikon V1 and J1 have excellent C-AF. The Olympus E-3 and E-5 most definitely do not.

Fact is Canon and Nikon have spent a lot of time and effort figuring out how to do effective C-AF, and everybody else, especially Olympus and Panasonic, have lagged quite badly.

DH

And that's really what it boils down to, is that you should be using the system or systems which best suit your needs... and every system is a mish-mash of strengths and weaknesses. No system will have all the strengths you want, but each will have varying degrees of preference towards one style of shooting over another.

To make a whole bunch of "generalized statements", one could say that an Olympus m4/3 system is better suited to portraits while a Canon DSLR system is better suited to sports... Maybe you do a bit of both... maybe even a little more sports than portrait... but if you can only have one system maybe you would still prefer it to be something smaller because there is always the issue of carrying. Or maybe your camera never goes in the bag and always stays in your hand, so you're more concerned about having a more comfortable grip than compact transport. Small size and weight is certainly not an advantage to everyone in every situation, just like better C-AF is not an advantage to everyone in every situation. That's why we have so many choices, to find the best one which suits our needs. Even within the same "type" of camera, we have so many choices. Like DH pointed out, if C-AF is your prime necessity than maybe Olympus should not be your brand, even if you're shooting DSLRs (ie, like the E-5). Or perhaps weather-proofing in both body and lens selection is your main concern, in which case Olympus should be your #1 choice in DSLRs.

Of course all strengths and weaknesses could be answered by endless multiple systems. You could have a Leica rangefinder, an Olympus m4/3, a Fuji X-Pro, a Canon DSLR, an Olympus DSLR, a Leica S2, a Hasselblad Medium Format, and so on... but where would it ever end? Eventually we all have to draw the line somewhere, and for each of us that line is going to end up in a different place.

Many of us using Micro Four-Thirds enjoy the compact size and overall versatility as our prime advantages and selling points. So if anyone's going to stick with "one system to do it all", then it's most likely to be a Micro Four-Thirds user. It makes more sense for a DSLR user to add a compact m4/3 system than it does for an m4/3 user to add a bulky DSLR system, when both are so similar in capabilities.

__________________
Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

cyclopsphoto.ca

That is the main point. All I want from a camera is a good set of controls and features, a good sensor, and a good set of well built manual focus lenses. Autofocus is something I would rather not have adding complexity to the system, but only Leica offers me its lack and I am not willing to pay that much for a rangefinder :)

__________________
[photo blog][flickr]

Which m43 body can shot 9.5 fps with AF?

The EM5 can only do 9fps, and that's with focus locked.

I've been using Nikon SLR and Nikon DSLRs as a serious enthusiast since 1973. I had a good representation of Nikon f-mount glass, including five mint Nikon AIS lenses and a few Voigtlanders. I'm a firm believer that the camera that's with you is the best camera for you. Last August, I bought a ZX-1 to always have a camera with me. I liked it so much I wanted its "big brother" ... an E-PL3. I liked the PL3 so much that I wanted its "daddy" and bought an E-P2. The P2 has become one of my all-time favorite cameras as I rediscovered how much fun photography can be. My D5000-based Nikon system sat on the shelf. I'd take it down occasionally to shoot a few frames but wondered what I ever saw in it. I finally gave most of my Nikon system to my son to supplement the Nikon gear that I've given him over the years. I kept my AIS and Voigtlander lenses to use on the P-2 via a Voigtlander adapter. Over the past year I've acquired the standard kit of Olympus and Panasonic MFT lenses.

The initial appeal of the Olympus PEN cameras was their low weight and bulk compared to the Nikon system, but I have since come to love the awesome Oly customization, a "live view" that actually works, and a credible capability when using manual focus (the manual focus capabilities on the Nikon DSLRs were almost worthless). The fit and finish on the Olympus PENs are also impeccable compared to the plastic Nikon bodies.

Not looking back! I view photography as "painting with light and shadows". The Olympus "live view" suits this style. Holding out on buying an OM-D until I see what the next PEN lineup looks like.

Be sure to give me a shout when the photogs at the Olympics all go m4/3.