Micro Four Thirds (DMC-G3)???

jriggy · « **on:** 25 Oct 2011, 05:58 pm »

Any opinions on Micro Four thirds technology?

I was thinking of getting the Panasonic DMC G3... This would be used for photographing art, then for vacations and just fun around the house and neighborhood stuff...

I am not a serious photographer or anything but I do need to take good quality pics of art on occasion...
The smaller size of the G3 (and its bells and whistles) do appeal to me but is there anything else I should consider? -- or will an amateur just wanting a good all around easy to transport camera be happy with this one...

Any thoughts?

Jason

charmerci · « **Reply #1 on:** 27 Oct 2011, 08:12 pm »

Just looking at it on amazon.com, it sure looks like a winner. If I had the money, I'd get one myself.

jriggy · « **Reply #2 on:** 1 Nov 2011, 01:32 pm »

Thanks for the response.

Yea, pretty good customer reviews on Amazon... I wanted to make sure there was not something a more seasoned photographer would notice or know, that I would not. Or if there was something else I should consider.
It is alot of money.

JohnR · « **Reply #3 on:** 1 Nov 2011, 01:41 pm »

I haven't looked into it in any detail lately, but your questions are pretty open-ended. I've come to realize that the size of a camera is not really that significant, within reason of course. If you want to do a job, you pick the tool to do the job, not try to make the right tool fit into some notion of what might be convenient.

toxteth ogrady · « **Reply #4 on:** 1 Nov 2011, 02:45 pm »

Based on what you'll be shooting I'd be surprised if micro four thirds wasn't a perfect fit. I've been shooting with an Olympus EP-2 and the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 lens for the last year and really enjoy the form factor and quality of images. The biggest trade off is the lack of dynamic range due to the smaller sensor, so detail in the shadows and highlights does suffer a bit when compared to cameras with larger sensors. Also, low light shooting is mediocre but that may be improved with newer cameras like the one you mention. For what it's worth, I was a Leica user for 20 years and the Olympus is the most enjoyable camera I've used since dumping my M4P. I say go for it. Buy used or buy a package deal to save some money.

low.pfile · « **Reply #5 on:** 1 Nov 2011, 03:48 pm »

Jason,

My opinion of micro four thirds technology is that is not really a unique technology, but rather a size format for the imaging sensor and lens mount standard. This MFT format is really about the application of this sensor size--smaller than the consumer DSLR sensor size (APS-C) with a lens mount standard to provide a compact interchangeable lens system.

Your question doesn't really call out to me that you need an interchangeable lens system, just "good images." The G3 is a nice camera...you could just get the G3 kit (a 14-42 lens, which is effectively a 28-84mm view) Though note that this would be a shorter zoom range than your typical Point and Shoot which tend to be 28-120ish on average.

Since, you will need to carry the G3 in a bag or around your neck, so you could also look into the larger sensor Nikon(d5100) Canon(t3) and Pentax (K-r) cameras with the kit lens. Turn the dial to AUTO and click away. These compact DSLRs will be slightly larger/heavier than the MFT, but at a lower cost.

There are more compact solutions to get general photos and easier to carry around,\ such as higher level Point and shoot (with built in lens, of course) like the Canon G12, Nikon P7000, etc. You can get a cross section of image samples for nearly every camera taken by a range of users using the Camera Finder at Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/cameras/brands/

I'll add that many people do not consider that there is an advantage to smaller sensors of point and shoot cameras: inherent deep focus. Nope, not a technical term. I just made it up. It means that more will be in focus at various distances for a specific aperture (say f/2.0) on a P&S then would be on a MFT or DSLR also set the same aperture. This is very useful for general people, group and vacation shots, which is the majority of what non-photography oriented people photograph.

I am just a longtime photography geek. I currently use 2 different P&Ss, a MFT, and 2 DSLRs for all different purposes. Like JohnR said, the right tool for the job should be the consideration.

Good luck.

chip · « **Reply #6 on:** 1 Nov 2011, 04:10 pm »

Also look at what he posted when I asked about that same camera - http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=99092.20

jriggy · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Nov 2011, 03:04 pm »

Hi Guys,

Sorry for taking a bit to return here... Thanks so much for all the great info! I have alot to think about.
John is right, I need to think a little more about the job at hand and weigh my options.

Just to clarify chip, the G3 and the GF3 are different cameras.

I will have some time this week end to do a little research and may return with a couple questions...

Thanks again for the links and information. Especially low.pfile for taking the time!

Jason

viggen · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Nov 2011, 11:25 pm »

Micro 4/3 have 2x focal multiplier. Too high for me.

low.pfile · « **Reply #9 on:** 17 Nov 2011, 12:08 am »

viggen, yep it's 2x.

my mainstay lens on my GF2 is 20mm, which is 40mm of course.

the zooms are appropriately designed to result in 28-90mm. using 35mm lens (the standard 35mm film FOV) adapters sort of defeat the purpose to me of a small camera system so I agree trying to leverage existing 35mm format lenses on m4.3 is not ideal.

navi · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Nov 2011, 06:43 am »

I'm not a fan of small sensors: small sensor + high pixel count= high noise.

low.pfile · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Nov 2011, 06:47 am »

navi, the m4/3 sensor is not that small [as posted by Jon L http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=99092.msg997201#msg997201]. Sure there is noise but it's manageable though it sure isn't a full frame sensor.

bunnyma357 · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Nov 2011, 07:00 am »

Quote from: low.pfile on 1 Nov 2011, 03:48 pm

...deep focus. Nope, not a technical term. I just made it up. It means that more will be in focus at various distances for a specific aperture (say f/2.0) on a P&S then would be on a MFT or DSLR also set the same aperture.

Actually "deep focus" was the term used to describe the unusually deep depth of field in films such as Citizen Kane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_focus

I looked at MFT cameras, and didn't like the image as much when compared to a Canon APS-C, Panasonic looks a little more "real" Canon looks a little more "romantic". I like the larger sensor with the shallow depth of field and the warmer color bias of the Canon's.

MFT is very popular with video people, as it doesn't have the aliasing and moire problems of the Canons, and from what I understand you can adapt almost any lens to MFT.

Where I work all of the video editors bought Canons, all of the Graphics guys bought Panasonics.

Jim C

low.pfile · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Nov 2011, 07:19 am »

RE "deep focus" term... that's cool Jim. I had no idea. I just wanted to convey the opposite of shallow focus.

Yeah, I think most lenses can be used with m4/3 cameras with the appropriate adapter (as low as $25) but autofocus won't work for lenses from other formats. some are using all sorts of legacy and even video lenses for their large apertures and low cost. Essentially turns it into a manual control (digital) camera though.

ed

listening to Band of Horses - Everything all the time
^^ I miss this feature from the old AudioCircle format

Steven Stone · « **Reply #14 on:** 18 Nov 2011, 04:14 pm »

As for 4/3 "being too small an image capture area" I regularly make 13 x 19 prints that compare favorably with what I used to get from 2/1/4 negatives and transparencies.

I just completed shooting a cover for TAS using the G3.

Jon L · « **Reply #15 on:** 18 Nov 2011, 06:51 pm »

Personally, there are simply way too many interesting mirrorless cameras with larger sensors on the way to get too excited about micro 4/3.

For example, the leadked info on the new Fuji X mirrorless (somewhere between Fuji X100 and X10) is very interesting:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/and-here-it-is-the-first-nex-7-competitor-the-fuji-x-leaked/

Sony NEX-7 is just confirmed to have resumed production after the Thai floods, and the long-awaited Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens and Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 are all due in a few weeks.
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666375271

NEX-5N is available now at a sweet price.

Samsung NX200 with APS-C sensor appears much improved from previous NX versions.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx200/

Then there are rumors of Canon mirrorless. Here's hoping Canon does not fumble like Nikon just did with their Nikon 1 series.

Atlplasma · « **Reply #16 on:** 19 Nov 2011, 01:38 am »

So what is a mirror less sensor? Is there a good place to read about them?

Jon L · « **Reply #17 on:** 20 Nov 2011, 06:09 pm »

Quote from: Atlplasma on 19 Nov 2011, 01:38 am

So what is a mirror less sensor? Is there a good place to read about them?

This is a good place to start for info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera

toxteth ogrady · « **Reply #18 on:** 20 Nov 2011, 08:39 pm »

Ahh, the quest for the latest and greatest. An expensive lesson to learn for anyone purchasing high end digital gear. For some, there's no use in even taking images unless they have the latest and greatest, only to find the camera 'unworthy' as a serious photographic tool once it's successor comes along the next year or two.

Yes, you can wait for the new nimbus 2000 and all its remarkable specs. Then of course, you could always wait a bit for the truly groundbreaking nimbus 3000 or 4000. But what of the rumors of the Nimbus 5000 with its specs that make every camera and format that came before it obsolete?

These kinds of amateur photographers and their quests for larger sensors and unnecessary gizmos remind me of the 'testchartographers' 20 years ago with kodachromes in hand. They would spend thousands of dollars on Leica and Zeiss lenses only to shoot test charts and flowers so they could proclaim how sharp their lenses were.

It's quite silly really, because unless you're a professional the sensors that are available in the micro 4/3 equipment available_right now_far surpass the needs of your typical photo enthusiast.

Take a look at what a micro 4/3 camera can do in capable hands. The results can be pretty spectacular. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/02/16/the-panasonic-14mm-2-5-micro-43-lens-review-by-steve-huff/

Jon L · « **Reply #19 on:** 21 Nov 2011, 02:07 am »

Quote from: toxteth ogrady on 20 Nov 2011, 08:39 pm

Take a look at what a micro 4/3 camera can do in capable hands. The results can be pretty spectacular.

I agree with most of what you said. The question really is this, though: if one were to buy a camera next month, one must still decide which to buy based on something. Personally, the decreasing price differential these days between serious micro 4/3 and good APS-C like NEX-5N makes me lean towards the latter.

Great photographers can take great photos with pretty much anything, as I have seen some fantastic iPhone photo's. But take that same great photographer and hand him a nice full frame camera...