EVIL Cameras. Will you go to the dark side?

[john101477]

Safado, There is a small flash on the GF1 tucked on the left of the hotshoe mount. it is a .06 flash as opposed to the .12 of most DSLR's but I suppose having a small flash as opposed to no flash at all :REOutShootinghunter

 

[Lost Canadian]

X2

I know about 80 pro photogs and none of them are looking at this or any other m43. plain and simple, it will not take the same quality image, nor does it have many of the features of a pro level camera.

I know for sure there are "pro's" here working with 4/3rd's systems, and if you flip through the pages of the Overland Journal I bet you'll see more than a few shots taken with 4/3rds cameras.:ylsmoke:

Honestly, up to ISO 800 I doubt there are many people who can see a difference. Heck I have trouble sometimes telling the difference between shots I take with my D700 and my G9 if I' shooting close to base ISO. (See below) If not for the slightly different aspect ratio I may never know. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one that's with you, and there is no question smaller camera's are certainly more accessible not to mention more discrete. These new, what I consider modern day rangefinders, are what a lot of people have been asking for for a long long time, and it is partly why they are selling. Really good IQ in a small package. I know if I was primarily an urban/steet life shooter I would certainly be all over one of these.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Not sure I follow you?

There was a time when small and simple was one of the major tools of trade, then camera's began to morph into these big complicated things. There are still a lot of people however who want small and simple with an image quality that can match it's bigger brethren, and that's where these guys come in. They have, most of, if not all the IQ of the bigger guys in a neat little package. The simple fact that they are flying off shelves is a clear indicator that there was a big void in the market, one that is just now starting to be adequately filled.

 

[john101477]

I know for sure there are "pro's" here working with 4/3rd's systems, and if you flip through the pages of the Overland Journal I bet you'll see more than a few shots taken with 4/3rds cameras.:ylsmoke:

Doubtful, the image quality is not as sharp

, up to ISO 800 I doubt there are many people who can see a difference.

Those people have never blown an image up to 20x30 where it is very noticeable what differences there are. i often sell images of this size and my images have to be spot on to sell. M43 can be blown up but the images will look out of focus because the image is not as sharp as it should be and as sharp as a DSLR will be.

I have trouble sometimes telling the difference between shots I take with my D700 and my G9 if I' shooting close to base ISO. (See below) If not for the slightly different aspect ratio I may never know.

hmmm I wonder why you never see m43 on the side lines at sporting events. wait, i know, because the image quality is not as good!!!

the saying goes, the best camera is the one that's with you, and there is no question smaller camera's are certainly more accessible not to mention more discrete.

Not so discrete with a zoom lens or anything beyond a 50mm.

These new, what I consider modern day rangefinders, are what a lot of people have been asking for for a long long time, and it is partly why they are selling. Really good IQ in a small package. I know if I was primarily an urban/steet life shooter I would certainly be all over one of these.

really good IQ, is still not as good as DSLR IQ.
What you seem to be failing to realize is that even though the body may be slimmer, the lens or lenses that you will have to carry will be the same as what DSLR's use as will still be to big to carry in your pocket. so they took 1/2 inch off the body, who cares, they also sacrificed function and image quality in doing so.

 

[Superu]

As the saying goes, the best camera is the one that's with you, and there is no question smaller camera's are certainly more accessible not to mention more discrete.

Great point. I've captured many memorable shots with my Pentax Optios S4 that travels with me in a felt lined Altoids tin! I still love my Olympus E-500 and get a lot of use from it, but for those impulse shots, it's sometimes just a lot easier to crack open the tin.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Doubtful, the image quality is not as sharp..(snip)

John come on now, your arguments are paper thin. Fact is there are people here using 4/3rds camera's making wonderful images, and some of those pictures have been published in the O.J. Just ask the publisher if you need more proof.

No you won't see many GF1's on the sidelines, but you don't see many medium and large format camera's on the sidelines either, should we discount them as well? There are different tools for different jobs. The reason you don't see rangefinder type camera's on the sideline has nothing to do with their IQ.

As far as discrete goes let me ask you this, have you shot with a rangefinder? You don't need giant lenses when there's no mirror box. Think Leica M series. Leica lens are tiny compared to most pro level DSLR lenses and yet they are arguably some of the best glass you can buy. And yes rangefinders including these new modern variants that are starting to emerge are considerably smaller then most DSLR's, as are the lenses.

As far as your arguments go I have to say I'm a little surprised. All this coming from a guy who says he uses a D90 to support his family. Using your logic I could argue that you're camera is a toy, not up to the task of making quality images like the big boys, and that a "real" pro wouldn't be caught dead using anything less than a full frame camera. Of course that's all a huge load of BS but I think you get the drift.

 

[john101477]

hahaha Trevor, I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree here. The reason i shoot with a D90 is because in half the situations i shoot in, a full frame would defeat my purpose. being one of the first to buy a D90, with the exception of the 51pt AF in the next up D300, it did not provide me with what I wanted. If I was to buy new today, probably a D300s (the high ISO clarity is awesome). Image wise the D90 takes as good an image as the bigger frame nikons. And yeah Pro's do use the D90 such as Chase Jarvis, although he will say he prefers his D3 for most of his paid assignments.
Besides the fact that the m43 still has things to work out to reach DSLR image quality, the only other thing i am triing to point out is, for those thinking this is a pocket camera, you will be disappointed. Smaller than DSLR - absolutley. Pocket size w/ long lens - no. I have a couple of old range finders, never shoot with them anymore. they are just added to the rest of my collection now.

 

[DrMoab]

I'm curious as to what situation a crop sensor lens would "defeat your purpose"

Lot's of telephoto work? The smaller body, easier to hide?

 

[Lost Canadian]

The reason i shoot with a D90 is because in half the situations i shoot in, a full frame would defeat my purpose.

Huh??? Now we're playing with two rule books, or is this like the story of Goldilocks and the three bears, too big, too small, but APS-C is just right? This hole is getting pretty deep don't you think?

Image wise the D90 takes as good an image as the bigger frame nikons.

It doesn't but it's close. Hey wait, what happened to bigger is better? Have I entered bizarro world? What's happening here?

And yeah Pro's do use the D90 such as Chase Jarvis, although he will say he prefers his D3 for most of his paid assignments.

Chase does one D90 ad for Nikon and we conclude that he uses it as part of his regular arsenal along with his stable of D3x's and the Hasselblad. Sure, why not, I'll buy it. But did you know that Chase has also published a book of images taken with his iphone, and he has had those same images displayed as fine art. Of course the iphone is a far superior piece of photographic equipment compared to say a camera with a 4/3rds sensor.

Anyway, I'm out. This has just gotten silly now.

 

[john101477]

I'm curious as to what situation a crop sensor lens would "defeat your purpose"

Lot's of telephoto work? The smaller body, easier to hide?

yeah I use telephoto a lot. In the same breath though I could say the ultra wide from a full frame would come in handy sometimes as well although at roughly 27mm cropped, my 18-105 does ok. it is just not very fast

Trevor, I see your bound and determined to defend the m43, my last 2 statements you still have no answer to. As for your comment about Jarvis, I flat told ya he does not use the D90 on assignment, but he does use it for his day to day use. The iphone, come on that was a marketing ploy and you well know it.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Trevor, I see your bound and determined to defend the m43, my last 2 statements you still have no answer to. As for your comment about Jarvis, I flat told ya he does not use the D90 on assignment, but he does use it for his day to day use. The iphone, come on that was a marketing ploy and you well know it.

What exactly am I suppose to respond to John? How do you know Chase uses a D90 day to day, or at all, you two best friends? And marketing ploy with the iphone??? Sure. Just more blanket statements you've made without a shred of proof or merit. You're arguments this entire time against the system and a suppossed lack of image quality has revolved around the sensors size, which is an argument that is simply ridiculous. When you said the sensor is too small compared to that of a DSLR, first thing I thought when I read that was "huh?" The sensor size in the micro systems is the same size sensor as is found in all Olympus DSLR cameras. If you're still intent on claiming the image quality of a 4/3rd sensor can't hold up feel free to have a look around here at all the wonderful images created by "Pros" using 4/3rds sized sensors.

No one said the micro 4/3rds systems are a replacement for a pocket camera or a DSLR, what has been said, at least by me, is that this newer system inherits all the image quality of it's bigger brothers but does so in a smaller package. Something that has long been desired by many shooters. I never said these cameras are perfect or without fault, but as far as having the ability to take outstanding photos every bit the equal of a larger DSLR, that they do. You can argue miniscule insignificant differences in IQ with regards to sensors, but you can do that between brands and camera's of an exact nature as well. The fact is the differences between an APS-C sensor and a 4/3rds sensor is practically imperceivable. Heck in October of 2008 there was an interesting article on the L.L that compared the print difference between a point and shoot and a MF back. Read it for yourself, and then come back and continue your argument that there is a "huge" difference in quality between a 4/3rds sensor and that of one traditionally found in DSLR, be it APS-C or full frame.

Last thing I will say John is that I don't know how much experience you have as a photographer but your very first post in this thread read as though you lacked understanding. I'm sure you're a very nice guy, but the fact that you continue to make vague arguments not consistent with the reality of the situation tells me everything I need to know about where you are as a photographer. Claiming to be this or that means squat to me, I will judge you, your work, and your knowledge by what you present to me. So far I have not been convinced of anything that you have presented here. Anyway I'm done, I'm going to go make images.

 

[john101477]

don't get your panties in a bunch youngster, I have been in photography for 8 years, maybe that makes me jaded in my view of the m43 system. making personal attacks on who I talk to is not a way to go. As for my discussion of the APS-C sensor I think I cleared that up and addressed it by post # 21 and have not mentioned it since. Further more here is what DpReview had to say.

DpReview:
As the heart of an extensive interchangeable lens kit the GF1 has a hard time competing with a true SLR or, for that matter, the G1 or (if you want video and have deep pockets) the GH1. It makes little sense when used with long zooms, and the superb viewfinder and flip out screen sported by its siblings make them considerably more versatile shooting tools. But as a second camera - be it as part of an existing Four Thirds/Micro Four Thirds system or as a compliment to a larger APS-C kit - it is incredibly easy to recommend - especially with the 20mm lens.

Crucially, although you get the best results from the GF1 by shooting raw (and you'll need to fiddle with a few parameters to get the most appealing JPEGs), it's a lot, lot easier for novice users to get good pictures out of it than the E-P1. The iAuto mode rarely gets much wrong, with very reliable metering and fast, accurate focus, and its perfectly possible to just point and shoot, if that's all you want from a camera. It might only look like a few milliseconds, but the difference between the autofocus on the GF1 and the Olympus E-P1 feels like night and day when you're trying to get a shot; it's the difference between a transparent user experience and a frustrating one.

and also says this

DpReview:
The GF1's performance was always going to be judged by two measures; the typical mid-range SLRs it competes with on price and the Olympus E-P1, its only direct competitor. And whilst it can't quite keep up with most modern SLRs, it's really not far off (and is sufficiently close for most typical users of this kind of camera). Compared to the E-P1, however, the GF1 feels fast and responsive, particularly when it comes to focus speed, the E-P1's well-documented Achilles Heel.

Unsurprisingly the performance is very similar to the G1, which is no bad thing; not quite as fast as an SLR, but a lot faster than 99% of them when used in live view mode... and a lot snappier than pretty much every compact camera on the market.

 

[Michael Slade]

This thread is not very productive.

This is what I did today instead of read this thread.

I don't go belittling people who shoot smaller than 4x10. I don't know why you are taking it so personally that he does not like that camera...no matter how ridiculous his arguments may be.

 

[DrMoab]

Mr Slade... That photo is bugging me. I swear I have been there but can't put in my head where it is.

Where is it and what were you shooting?

 

[Michael Slade]

Mr Slade... That photo is bugging me. I swear I have been there but can't put in my head where it is.

Where is it and what were you shooting?

It was in the main parking area at ATK. I was there today shooting the final test for the Space Shuttle SRB.

I wanted to do something different, so I included the crowd and spectators in the shot. By the time the motor was fired the cars were 40 feet in front of me and there were about 3-4000 people milling about.