Why all the anti M 4/3 bias?

[clockwork247]

Just about everything I own is considered by many to be the poor cousins of equivalent superior products, be it cars, cameras, tools, whatever. The funny thing is that all of these seem to perform as well as, if not better, than the so-called superior products. 'Superior' products often get their status due to marketing, not necessarily because they are inherently superior.

truth to be told, with m4/3 you can't really go wide without some serious planing/gear. you also don't have the radio flash system of canon/nikon. Or the fully flip out screen of sony. The flash thing is a serious issue if you're doing any sort of stuff outdoor, indoor is easier to deal with because we'll rarely need HSS indoor, but out door where it's run and gun trying to kill the ambient light, you might run into some issue.

and this is the only small camera body with IBIS, if you really want to go small, the sony NEX is there, I have the NEX 5 sitting next to my P-EM2, and there's not much different in size. high end NEX use sony alpha flash system, the odin is there but it's very very expensive. Best system right now bars none is sony, if you have a ton of spare cash, they have some of the best lens and if you're willing to drop some serious dough, the radio flash system by odin is on par with canon.

 

[OzRay]

truth to be told, with m4/3 you can't really go wide without some serious planing/gear. you also don't have the radio flash system of canon/nikon. Or the fully flip out screen of sony. The flash thing is a serious issue if you're doing any sort of stuff outdoor, indoor is easier to deal with because we'll rarely need HSS indoor, but out door where it's run and gun trying to kill the ambient light, you might run into some issue.

and this is the only small camera body with IBIS, if you really want to go small, the sony NEX is there, I have the NEX 5 sitting next to my P-EM2, and there's not much different in size. high end NEX use sony alpha flash system, the odin is there but it's very very expensive. Best system right now bars none is sony, if you have a ton of spare cash, they have some of the best lens and if you're willing to drop some serious dough, the radio flash system by odin is on par with canon.

I would think 7-8mm (14-16mm FF equiv) is pretty wide. Full flip out screen - Meh! Nikon I understand uses the same optical wireless system as does Olympus, but serious remote flash users will go for things like Pocket Wizards. Sony the best? I think that may generate some debate.

 

[RT_Panther]

Who says..one has to dump their FF gear to appreciate MFT? Why not use both?

And there you go!
Life has a lot more grey matter than black & white. :smile:

 

[silver92b]

I don't think there is any more bias against M43 among the DSLR crowd than vise-versa. Gotta be realistic. Full frame has definite advantages in IQ and DOF. Also you can crop away and get beautiful images. My friend with his Sony compact FF camera with a single, non-interchangeable 35mm lens can get sharper images of very far away objects than I can with a 300mm tele on my EM5 or EP5 or GX7. The depth of field is also much better controlled.

Now, if you want to take excellent photos with a compact but very advanced and capable system, the M43 cameras are by far superior. The IQ of the M43 cameras is as good or better than most other camera formats and you can easily carry a camera body and several lenses much easier than one huge, heavy FF body with a single zoom lens. Also, the price of FF digital cameras is much higher than the best M43 (with the possible exception of the Sony A7).

All the people who waste time and emotions castigating other people's choices are just making noise. No point in getting upset about it. I ignore such stuff and concentrate in enjoying what I have and admiring and considering getting other formats as well.

 

[craigcullum]

This is just my personal experience on this as someone who just spend 2 years pretending I needed a D800 to take good landscape shots, it really is a fear thing. We love to pretend we are better than we really are, that we need FF cameras, the fastest lenses as it is the equipment we use that are holding us back.

With hindsight, I realise that I just sucked. Now I know that my gear is just a tool to be used, they all have pro's and cons. My m43 is perfect. It's the car/truck analogy, we all get by just fine with a car and it really is just the few that need a truck. In my eyes there are only a few circumstances where we need FF or a big DSLR, printing bigger than A2 (and this can be argued), requiring extreme low light performance or very accurate AF tracking and extreme use of Flash, when you need that get the truck.

 

[OzRay]

I don't think there is any more bias against M43 among the DSLR crowd than vise-versa. Gotta be realistic. Full frame has definite advantages in IQ and DOF. Also you can crop away and get beautiful images. My friend with his Sony compact FF camera with a single, non-interchangeable 35mm lens can get sharper images of very far away objects than I can with a 300mm tele on my EM5 or EP5 or GX7. The depth of field is also much better controlled.

Are you suggesting that an A7 or A7r with a 35mm lens, via cropping, can achieve a more detailed and sharper result of a distant subject than you can with a 300mm (600mm Sony equiv) and m4/3 camera? If so, Sony users can clearly make do with maybe one or two lenses and cover every possible subject on the planet. And for off-planet work, they may only need a 100mm or so lens.

 

[OzRay]

This is just my personal experience on this as someone who just spend 2 years pretending I needed a D800 to take good landscape shots, it really is a fear thing. We love to pretend we are better than we really are, that we need FF cameras, the fastest lenses as it is the equipment we use that are holding us back.

With hindsight, I realise that I just sucked. Now I know that my gear is just a tool to be used, they all have pro's and cons. My m43 is perfect. It's the car/truck analogy, we all get by just fine with a car and it really is just the few that need a truck. In my eyes there are only a few circumstances where we need FF or a big DSLR, printing bigger than A2 (and this can be argued), requiring extreme low light performance or very accurate AF tracking and extreme use of Flash, when you need that get the truck.

Nail hit on head! So many people who demand what in their eyes is the best, are usually not able to make the best of the 'best'. Using your car analogy, how many well to do buy a Ferrari or the like, and crash it on their first drive, because they simply can't drive? Lots of posing, but when the rubber hits the road, it's the brick wall that brings them back to reality.

 

[Luckypenguin]

Are you suggesting that an A7 or A7r with a 35mm lens, via cropping, can achieve a more detailed and sharper result of a distant subject than you can with a 300mm (600mm Sony equiv) and m4/3 camera? If so, Sony users can clearly make do with maybe one or two lenses and cover every possible subject on the planet. And for off-planet work, they may only need a 100mm or so lens.

Indeed.

Cropping an image from a 135 format sensor just gives you a...cropped sensor, with the same depth-of-field properties of a smaller sensor. Cropping an image from a Sony RX1 (with a fixed focal length 35mm lens) to give the same angle-of-view as a 600mm lens will leave you with a resolution of about 0.1mp.

 

[RT_Panther]

This is just my personal experience on this as someone who just spend 2 years pretending I needed a D800 to take good landscape shots, it really is a fear thing. We love to pretend we are better than we really are, that we need FF cameras, the fastest lenses as it is the equipment we use that are holding us back.

With hindsight, I realise that I just sucked. Now I know that my gear is just a tool to be used, they all have pro's and cons. My m43 is perfect. It's the car/truck analogy, we all get by just fine with a car and it really is just the few that need a truck. In my eyes there are only a few circumstances where we need FF or a big DSLR, printing bigger than A2 (and this can be argued), requiring extreme low light performance or very accurate AF tracking and extreme use of Flash, when you need that get the truck.

This could easily also apply to:
- Pentax Q
- EOS M
- Fuji X
- Nikon 1
- Ricoh GXR
- Sony NEX

 

[Photorebel]

There is no question my Canon 6D..outperformed M 4/3rds….when it came to low noise, high ISO. The 6D could easily handle 8000 ISO with low noise. My EM1…is so much fun to shoot with, and I take it with me more. In my world, the camera I take with me, outperforms a camera sitting at home in my bag, every time.
I started this thread, because I have a couple of friends..who seem to think the micro 4/3rds system is not for serious photography, and just an expensive point and shoot, and yet, they have never shot with with the OM or any other mirror less system.
I have encouraged them to try it, but to date, they have not. They have a bias against the system. I'm not trying to get them to dump FF, I'm just saying..the m 4/3rds..system is a viable system, and is starting to be used for more and more professional work.
What defines a professional camera? It's a camera..used by a professional photographer. Whether it's a point and shoot, or medium format with digital back.

 

[OzRay]

Professionals never dismiss camera gear out of hand, if it's delivering results, then it's a satisfactory tool of the trade. Only amateurs get wound up about equipment.

 

[RT_Panther]

Only amateurs get wound up about equipment.

Lots of responses in this thread....:tongue::tongue:

 

[bye]

There is no question my Canon 6D..outperformed M 4/3rds….when it came to low noise, high ISO. The 6D could easily handle 8000 ISO with low noise. My EM1…is so much fun to shoot with, and I take it with me more. In my world, the camera I take with me, outperforms a camera sitting at home in my bag, every time.
I started this thread, because I have a couple of friends..who seem to think the micro 4/3rds system is not for serious photography, and just an expensive point and shoot, and yet, they have never shot with with the OM or any other mirror less system.
I have encouraged them to try it, but to date, they have not. They have a bias against the system. I'm not trying to get them to dump FF, I'm just saying..the m 4/3rds..system is a viable system, and is starting to be used for more and more professional work.
What defines a professional camera? It's a camera..used by a professional photographer. Whether it's a point and shoot, or medium format with digital back.

The Canon 6D only outperforms a m43 camera if it even gets out of the gate. More often than not, most of these photographers usually stay at home or their gear. A camera is just a tool, like painter to a brush, canvas and oil. That's all. Whether it be FF, APS-C, m43, Nikon 1 etc.. make no difference. What's important if you can take photos. At the end of the day, a camera is a tool to take pictures and how that's done is you're own business. I don't think I like someone telling me what sort of tool I need to create my craft, nor I will tell someone else's to consider my views and biases on systems. We all know that we all have free will choices; to choose whichever tool that suits us best. I use Nikon for work and Olympus for play. Yeeeha!

 

[T N Args]

My friend with his Sony compact FF camera with a single, non-interchangeable 35mm lens can get sharper images of very far away objects than I can with a 300mm tele on my EM5 or EP5 or GX7.

I simply disbelieve this. But happy to be disproven with evidence.

We are talking about a very distant object, shot with a Sony RX1R fixed 35mm lens camera, sharper than a 300mm lens on a µ4/3 camera. There would have to be something wrong with the µ4/3 equipment or technique.....

I actually feel like we are experiencing the anti µ4/3 bias in this thread, that is supposed to be the topic of the thread. How ironic!

 

[Photorebel]

. Only amateurs get wound up about equipment.

Not all amateurs, but certainly there are a lot of forum posters..who spend days..arguing over the merits of which camera has a better sensor, or which brick wall looks sharpest with a particular lens, when enlarged 300%, at ISO 10,000. Then there are those, who actually go out and take photographs. I certainly enjoy discussing equipment, but I actually use my equipment to make photographs. I have no brick wall photos to post. Sorry about that.

 

[phigmov]

.

 

[bye]

I don't think there is any more bias against M43 among the DSLR crowd than vise-versa. Gotta be realistic. Full frame has definite advantages in IQ and DOF. Also you can crop away and get beautiful images. My friend with his Sony compact FF camera with a single, non-interchangeable 35mm lens can get sharper images of very far away objects than I can with a 300mm tele on my EM5 or EP5 or GX7. The depth of field is also much better controlled.

Now, if you want to take excellent photos with a compact but very advanced and capable system, the M43 cameras are by far superior. The IQ of the M43 cameras is as good or better than most other camera formats and you can easily carry a camera body and several lenses much easier than one huge, heavy FF body with a single zoom lens. Also, the price of FF digital cameras is much higher than the best M43 (with the possible exception of the Sony A7).

All the people who waste time and emotions castigating other people's choices are just making noise. No point in getting upset about it. I ignore such stuff and concentrate in enjoying what I have and admiring and considering getting other formats as well.

A7r with a 36MP sensor does provide some advantages in IQ and DOF against my E-P5 or the E-PL1. But in order to gain the upper hand in terms of IQ, you need to shoot extra careful with extra care by needing to ensure the mount alignment on the body and lens are perfect or close to, shutter and mirror shock are removed (yes they exist on both A7r and D800/e) by employing anti-shock measures or using mirror lock-up or even shooting multiple frames of the same subject as well as very heavy dampened tripods -- Linhof is a good start just to get tack sharp images. If you start cropping it and then enlarging the final output, you'll see more blur, blur that came from camera movement, subject movement caused by wind blowing the flowers, leaves, grass etc that you would otherwise not see or be obscured if you hadn't cropped and magnify.., Vibration from shutter or mirror on a DSLR and resonance generated from light and medium duty tripods are very real and a problem with sensors approaching medium format. The A7r does not even have IBIS and not all lenses have VR built-in either. I know and see a lot of D800 users gave up using the camera because the requirements getting tack sharp images are simply beyond the patience of these people. They lack discipline and desire to be perfect and you have to be anal about it-- more so than shooting with an E-M1 or M5 or P5. They thought the math with 36MP would work out in their favor. Little do they know what surprises and frustrations they encounter as they tried and failed to achieve perfection.

 

[OzRay]

Not all amateurs, but certainly there are a lot of forum posters..who spend days..arguing over the merits of which camera has a better sensor, or which brick wall looks sharpest with a particular lens, when enlarged 300%, at ISO 10,000. Then there are those, who actually go out and take photographs. I certainly enjoy discussing equipment, but I actually use my equipment to make photographs. I have no brick wall photos to post. Sorry about that.

Certainly not all amateurs, but they all tend to be amateurs. Pros also like discussing equipment, but it's generally about what will make their job easier, faster and more profitable. That extra 2mm sliced off depth of field rarely factors as something of importance.

 

[RDM]

Professionals never dismiss camera gear out of hand, if it's delivering results, then it's a satisfactory tool of the trade. Only amateurs get wound up about equipment.

Umm, yea that's not true.

All my professors were professional photographers plus I know many other professionals. All but three dismissed micro four thirds as junk and the three that don't, concider it a 'neat' amateur system.

 

[OzRay]

Umm, yea that's not true.

All my professors were professional photographers plus I know many other professionals. All but three dismissed micro four thirds as junk and the three that don't, concider it a 'neat' amateur system.

Those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, consult. And those who won't open their eyes, will never see.

People that shoot kid photos at malls in their pre-set studios etc, consider themselves professional photographers.