1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

NYT article on micro 4/3 (E-PL2 and GF2)

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by fin azvandi, Apr 7, 2011.

  1. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    South Bend, IN
    David Pogue of the New York Times discusses the :43: system and the E-PL2 and GF2 in today's State of the Art article. His conclusion: "These miniature Micro Four-Thirds cameras cost as much as a real S.L.R., and they teem with compromises. Still, if the world craves a solution to the small camera/big sensor challenge, these models offer some novel solutions to the puzzle."

    It's a little odd that he didn't point out one of the greatest features of these cameras IMHO - their ability to accept legacy lenses.
     
  2. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Its no surprise... typical consumer is not interested in legacy lenses.
     
  3. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    Jason
    He also assumes that the NEX has better image quality because of the larger sensor. In RAW, the sony really does trump the mFT offerings. But in jpeg, the sony applies way to much noise reduction. His points are valid. There are compromises.
     
  4. linkedit

    linkedit Mu-43 Top Veteran

    649
    Aug 6, 2010
    New Jersey, USA
    Honestly I like my E-PL1 but aside from the camera being more pocketable and the price, image wise it really isn't better than something like a 5D Mk2.

    I'm hoping that the X100 spurs companies to seize on that trend because I would LOVE to see something like the X100 but with interchangeable lenses. Or an E-P3 with the same viewfinder as the Fuji.
     
  5. wildcat

    wildcat Mu-43 Regular

    48
    Apr 7, 2011
    Used/Refurb price is another advantage

    For the budget-conscious, you can get a 12 MP, large sensor, interchangeable lens camera for $370 w/ kit lens that's less than 2 years old refurbed for $370 (E-P1). If you want to just use legacy lenses, you can get a body used at KEH for $240.

    Comparable DSLRs are going to cost you $500+, won't shoot video, and won't accept legacy lens as easily.

    Yes, there will be some shortfalls, but for hobbyists like me, this was finally a way to get into interchangeable, full-manual digital at an acceptable price point, thanks to my legacy lenses and the value available in the used/refurbed market.
     
  6. sherlock

    sherlock Mu-43 Regular

    83
    Mar 31, 2011
    Of course, but on price alone, would you expect it to be?

    I think Pogue's article, whilst bordering towards the negative, was generally correct. I think he should have touched on the size, cost & system benefits vs. an entry level SLR, and the AF, low-light & handling performance vs. an entry level SLR.
     
  7. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I don't think the E-PL1 was intended to compete against a full frame DSLR much less the level market which the 5D MK2 plays in.
     
  8. fastcar888

    fastcar888 Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Apr 2, 2011
    Florida
    In my opinion Pogue underestimates the final quality of the MFT photo, the importance of less weight, less bulk (miniaturization) , post photo software impact, the ability to take movies better than an iphone, the ability to download images to wireless phones, usability of lenses between Micro Four Third manufactures and the fact the market is segmented into those coming from a point and shoot and others from the DSLR super camera world. Two different groups of photographers merging.

    The ultimate answer is not going to be larger and heavier. It is going to be smaller and lighter. When all is said and done, it is about results. As I see it, his judgment is from a technicians perspective. MFT equipment delivers. It represents solid value. A real issue is that many beginners are convinced they need a DSLR as an entry camera. Years of marketing have them convinced. Not so.

    I am not going back.
     
  9. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    I think that Pogue is writing exactly what we all know and like about :43:, albeit from the skewed point of view of someone despising everything not built like a DSLR upfront.

    In a sense, the very little amount of criticisms in his paper is in itself a testimony to the excellence of :43:, because in spite of his latent animosity, he found no shortcoming he could clinch on to truly bash the system.

    A very good paper, coming from the 'other side' of the photography world, I'd say.

    Cheers,
     
  10. Bokeh Diem

    Bokeh Diem Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 14, 2010
    Toronto
    What he fails to mention is how far these systems have come in three years. Given that alone, what can we expect in the next three years, compared to the technically stagnant full frame market? I would like to have this conversation with him then. Meanwhile market share keeps on building and the legacy lenses, and even the Leica D's in the original 4/3rd format, keep on getting more expensive. Someone must know something he doesn't.

    Yes, which compromise do I like more?.. small, adaptable, highly useable, laterally expanding systems, on and on.... oh yeah, and gorgeous too.
     
  11. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    It's harsh but I have to agree with his specification of the problems of the format. OTOH, it's clear that size is not that important to him so he has no appreciation for the major advantage of m43. It's also a backhand acknowledgement of the approach since he is now taking it seriously.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. harrysue

    harrysue Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 12, 2011
    The slide show was pretty informative, especially the shots showing the difference in W/B between Pannie and Oly JPG's. I didn't know they could be that far apart. At the same time, the shots were a good cheer leading effort for M43. He explained DOF for the newbies. I feel it was a good column, unless you work for Sony.
     
  13. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    It is the new york times, they are off allot on understanding the rest of the world. Asia is drives the world photography development. And mirrorless and compact is what people want. It makes for great image and compact size for travel. And the NYT missed that part. Almost 2 billion of the world population is in Asia. And they are the most vital market for the camera companies. And they will give them what that market demands.

    Also his has miss the point that mirrorless has come down in price form when they first came out. Epl-1 is a 400 dollar camera now. And less then some compacts.

    So on the electronic fronts, the NYT just missed the boat and have been left a decade behind the photography world.
     
  14. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    Not too complimentary except for his final paragraph where he sort of says size matters. I usually agree with David Pogue but I think he was quite harsh. He did point out the sore points about high ISO but failed to mention some of the best features such as lens selection legacy and M4/3.
     
  15. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    The thing with high iso, how often do you really want to shot pass 1600. I shoot allot of high iso stuff. But I really do you want to shoot at 3200 or 6400 if you do not need to.
     
  16. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    If you can get good ISO at over 1600 it opens up a whole opportunity of shooting out doors in the evenings at acceptable shutter speeds. If you can shoot at high ISO it makes for better 400 and 800 too. I have walked around cities at night with a Nikon D3 or Nikon D700 shooting things I could barely see with my own eyes. If I can get low noise at high ISO I will gladly take it.

     
  17. Jimboh

    Jimboh Mu-43 Regular

    75
    Sep 17, 2010
    Florida
    I think he missed two major points:
    1) While deciding Canon/Nikon, I read thread after thread where shooters left their DSLR's home and missed the shot due to hassle of size/weight. Some confessed to shooting with camera phones. So what's the point of buying all this stuff if yo're not going to use it? I tend to carry my m4/3 a lot more than any other camera.

    Second: I think people need to look at the final product they intend to produce before making judgement on their kit. I shoot 1200 ISO 8x10's w/ my GH-1 and am perfectly happy with the quality. But I am not auditioning for Nat Geo either.

    For me , most everything goes to the web, photoframe or big screen tv, and even stuff unacceptable in print looks fine in these mediums. So really folks, if you're not shooting MPIX 13x19's or on assignment for Nat Geo, do you really need all the bulk/weight of full frame DSLR?? i think that's what is being missed by the writer.
     
  18. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    That is FF, big difference between aps-c and m4/3. And the difference between the FF system and M4/3 is that FF is 2500 dollars just to get into the front door. Where that is a whole m4/3 system.

    If you compare aps-c to m4/3 there is only really 1 stop of iso difference between them. High end of aps-c is 6400, pass that it is next to useless, and with m4/3 3200 it the top end.

    NYT wants to talk about cost of the system, you are really look at aps-c and4/3 not FF.

    Now 4/3 does have it's disadvantages, DR is not as good as the aps-c. And longer exposures are more demanding on the 4/3 sensor. But the target market of m4/3 and mirrorless are not looking for FF level of IQ and performance. But rather a good system that will give them compact system with good image quality that no compact digicam can produce.

     
  19. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    Nikon just announced the D5100 16.2 MP APS-C sensor goes up to ISO 28,600 in extended range but has a usable range at 6400. While I'm sure one wouldn't want to shoot there but I bet ISO 6400 has less noise than any current M4/3 at 1600. $799 body $899 USD with basic lens.

    I'm not saying that I agree with Pogue but am saying M4/3 needs to improve high ISO and Dynamic Range to be fully accepted into the photo major league.

     
  20. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    Have you seen any of the current sony sensor aps-c it is a fine sensor, but 6400 is the realistic top iso. Look at all the k-5 and d7000 with the same senor. So your point that you really do not want to shoot at 6400 and take away 1 stop of iso. It leaves you at 3200iso, that is about were you want to stop with 4/3 at 3200. The e-5 can shoot at 6400 but you really do not, and all the aps-c can shoot at 12800 or 25600, but you do not want to.