Author Topic: 'Canon Not Interested In Micro Four Thirds' (Read 2133 times)

adash · « **Reply #25 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:00:23 PM »

Quote

We saw several technology breakthroughs lately which will render it (the mirror) useless very soon.

You should probably learn to read before you write, Panther. And, please, take a look at the gallery, there are quite a few sports events, pictured with E-Px.

Panther · « **Reply #26 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:14:28 PM »

Quote from: adash on July 30, 2010, 11:00:23 PM

You should probably learn to read before you write, Panther.

Thanks for the kind words!

adash · « **Reply #27 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:17:03 PM »

Making the other party repeat itself because you did not read something already written is very irritating. And yes, this is kind compared to what I meant to write at first. Please go on.

popo · « **Reply #28 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:48:35 PM »

Quote from: adash on July 30, 2010, 10:08:32 PM

I don't have a DSLR. I find it basically pointless. Advantages of DSLR over E-P1 might be:
- An additional point of contact at the eyebrow for better stability. That is easily offset by IS;

Unless the DSLR lens or body has IS too, so you still get a potential stability advantage on DSLR there. I did find a technique to return some of that to E-P1, which is to use the camera with strap round my neck, held tight.

Quote

- Faster AF. E-P1 focuses quickly enough, and my Zenit 12xp is a pure manual focus fun. No point in having a dslr again, since they don't come with focusing aids anymore.

For single shots of stationary or slow moving subjects, the E-P1 is now about as fast as an entry level DSLR. The E-P1 is still total fail for fast moving subjects and continuous AF. To me, that is the biggest weakness of m4/3 cameras. If you really want different manual focusing screens you can change them in many DSLRs, some more easily than others. Personally I rarely use MF in the field, other than for extreme macro where AF simply doesn't work.

Quote

- Better high ISO performance due to the larger sensor. This is becoming more and more of an urban legend;

The difference might not be big, but it is still there, and always will be there. It may not be the most significant limit to image quality so is of limited value taken in isolation.

Quote

So, the idea is that the mirror had it's great time with film machines. Now it is becoming pointless. We saw several technology breakthroughs lately which will render it useless very soon.

Partially agree, but it will be up to the new technologies and implementations to arrive and show they are as good as claimed. The rumoured Sony A33 and A55 are interesting as fixed mirror designs, and the Fuji main sensor phase AF sounds like a dream, but as of yet I've not seen or heard any independent comment on its real world performance.

The above may sound a bit negative to m4/3. I have an E-P1 and love it, but it is not and will not be a DSLR replacement to me. They all have their uses. In fact, I also have an ultra compact for those times when I consider the E-P1 too large to carry! No one camera can do everything, yet. EVIL in general has a good chance of taking over the lowest end DSLRs, but for now I think the performance difference is too great for them to challenge mid range or higher models. We haven't seen the revolution yet.

lisandra · « **Reply #29 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:57:31 PM »

Quote from: Panther on July 30, 2010, 10:19:44 PM

Quote from: adash on July 30, 2010, 10:08:32 PM
I don't have a DSLR. I find it basically pointless. Advantages of DSLR over E-P1 might be:
- An additional point of contact at the eyebrow for better stability. That is easily offset by IS;
- Faster AF. E-P1 focuses quickly enough, and my Zenit 12xp is a pure manual focus fun. No point in having a dslr again, since they don't come with focusing aids anymore.
- Better high ISO performance due to the larger sensor. This is becoming more and more of an urban legend;
- Better manual control. This is controversial, since lower-class DSLRs don't come with many and many buttons and dials. Latest lenses don't have aperture lenses either. Both m4/3 and major DSLR brands. Full manual control is however implemented in my Zenit and many more film SLRs.
So, the idea is that the mirror had it's great time with film machines. Now it is becoming pointless. We saw several technology breakthroughs lately which will render it useless very soon.

When I start to see an overwhelming large number of E-P1s at major sporting events & news events (out numbering DSLRs), then I might take your comment into consideration....But right now I apologize but I can't.....

maybe not precisely with PENS, but technology is unavoidable , it'll happen. Screen resolution is gonna go even higher and pretty soon refresh rates on electronic view finders are gonna be the same as looking at a mirror, even at night. Noise is gonna get lower and lower, just look at the difference between the E p1 and the EPL1. Processors are gonna get faster and as we say goodbye to mechanical shutters, global shutters will break the 10fps mark easily. M4/3 are babies still and look at all the fuzz they're causing.
And it's funny you should mention it, a couple of days ago I found out the photographer of my local city newspaper (friend of mine, we took a cs4 workshop together) is using a gh1 for most of the prints, switching to his 7d only when shooting sports. I get what you're saying, I do, but change is inevitable...

lisandra · « **Reply #30 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:59:51 PM »

and geez people, take it easy...

Panther · « **Reply #31 on:** July 31, 2010, 04:54:19 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on July 30, 2010, 11:59:51 PM

and geez people, take it easy...

Good song by the Eagles....

cosinaphile · « **Reply #32 on:** July 31, 2010, 06:15:04 AM »

reality is a wonderful thing , everyone who has spent time with an ep1\2 L
or panny gf1 etc knows its focus speed its dynamic range and their personalities as picture taking machines , i sometimes wish focus speed was a little faster but due to the elegant size of my ep1 and gf1 and their ability to mount and use legacy glass with great success if forgive the things about them i wish were better,
its said the best camera is the one you have with you, for me lugging around a d80 is a chore with 3 or 4 lenses , so much so that it was left home much of the time when its need wasn't specifically known ...this led to many missed shooting opportunities, because of micro 4\3 i carry a camera with a decent sized sensor every where i go , its a rare day its not with me along with 18,24,50 pentax 110 and some other lens or 2

no camera is perfect but the things an slr does better than my micro 4\3 cameras is a small set of things. i know shooters who swear by their leica digitals , they fall short of a good dslr at a sporting event too
[many use prefocus and do great sports shots!] they love their fine machines limitations , baseplate ,and mf only, be damned ....

i know people who shoot film who do awewsome work and have digital workflow
there is no one way to shoot it , deep down we all know the truth of that

voyager · « **Reply #33 on:** July 31, 2010, 12:30:08 PM »

Ok first off, the tone of this conversation is starting to make me uncomfortable. Personal attacks, whether by members or mods, won't be tolerated anymore. People are going to start getting put in time-outs if they want to act like children.

Now, to our conversation. It's much easier for some aspects of photography to use cameras with mirrors. Not only for the purpose of it being faster and currently allowing faster fps and focusing, but because using a viewfinder on a traditional DSLR can be much easier for things like sports. Just a few days ago I was at a Baseball game and I wanted to get some photos of my favorite player. Naturally I got the best ones that I probably could because I was using my DSLR and I could use the viewfinder for tracking the player as he ran and getting a great set of shots of him hitting the ball. That being said, some aspects of photography are much better for cameras such as the PEN. Street photography has never been easy with a DSLR before.

Panther · « **Reply #34 on:** July 31, 2010, 01:54:55 PM »

Quote from: voyager on July 31, 2010, 12:30:08 PM

Now, to our conversation. It's much easier for some aspects of photography to use cameras with mirrors. Not only for the purpose of it being faster and currently allowing faster fps and focusing, but because using a viewfinder on a traditional DSLR can be much easier for things like sports.

Interesting that you posted this because when I was out shooting with my PEN digital earlier today, I was thinking how much more better it would be if I got the view finder for it....

voyager · « **Reply #35 on:** July 31, 2010, 01:56:15 PM »

I really honestly don't like using the LCD as much as I thought it wouldn't bother me. I'm just too used to using the viewfinder.

Panther · « **Reply #36 on:** August 01, 2010, 06:47:48 AM »

Quote from: voyager on July 31, 2010, 01:56:15 PM

I really honestly don't like using the LCD as much as I thought it wouldn't bother me. I'm just too used to using the viewfinder.

You and me both - the LCD is really becoming an @rse pain for me now.....Perhaps we both should have purchased the E-P2 package with viewfinder instead....

voyager · « **Reply #37 on:** August 01, 2010, 12:23:53 PM »

Why don't you just get the EVF for your E-PL1?

Panther · « **Reply #38 on:** August 01, 2010, 12:38:49 PM »

Quote from: voyager on August 01, 2010, 12:23:53 PM

Why don't you just get the EVF for your E-PL1?

A few thoughts have crossed my mind here - they are as follows:

1) Sell my current package (E-PL1 & 14-150ED) and get NEX-5 body, NEX Viewfinder & get NEX 18-200 when it's released
2) Simply get the EVF as you stated
3) Sell current body, get E-P1 body, get EVF

No decision yet...

adash · « **Reply #39 on:** August 01, 2010, 12:41:18 PM »

Quote

3) Sell current body, get E-P1 body, get EVF

E-P1 does not work with an EVF. E-P2 is what you probably mean.

Panther · « **Reply #40 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:00:20 PM »

Quote from: adash on August 01, 2010, 12:41:18 PM

Quote
3) Sell current body, get E-P1 body, get EVF
E-P1 does not work with an EVF. E-P2 is what you probably mean.

Ah...thanks for the info - did not know that.....Boy, this makes the whole Oly situation a bit peculiar.....readjusting then for me it's either...

1) Get EVF for my E-PL1
2) Sell E-PL1 package & get NEX package
3) Sell E-PL1 get E-P2 body & EVF

voyager · « **Reply #41 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:09:45 PM »

If you don't like the E-PL1 then you're not going to like the NEX.

Panther · « **Reply #42 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:35:20 PM »

Quote from: voyager on August 01, 2010, 01:09:45 PM

If you don't like the E-PL1 then you're not going to like the NEX.

Actually,....I like them both

My only "current" issue is that if I had to do it all over again, I probably should've gone with the E-P2 and EVF package...

voyager · « **Reply #43 on:** August 01, 2010, 01:46:33 PM »

I'm curious as to what the E-P2 has that your E-PL1 isn't offering you.

Panther · « **Reply #44 on:** August 01, 2010, 02:13:16 PM »

Quote from: voyager on August 01, 2010, 01:46:33 PM

I'm curious as to what the E-P2 has that your E-PL1 isn't offering you.

Not much from a statistic point of view, I'll agree with you there.....the "P2" is just a tiny bit better in high ISO although the "PL" does have the "instantaneous" video button.....

Realistically,
I've got 2 choices.....EVF or NEX System...

Ace in the hole is BOTH systems......

lisandra · « **Reply #45 on:** August 01, 2010, 04:19:13 PM »

Quote from: Panther on August 01, 2010, 02:13:16 PM

Quote from: voyager on August 01, 2010, 01:46:33 PM
I'm curious as to what the E-P2 has that your E-PL1 isn't offering you.

Not much from a statistic point of view, I'll agree with you there.....the "P2" is just a tiny bit better in high ISO although the "PL" does have the "instantaneous" video button.....

Realistically,
I've got 2 choices.....EVF or NEX System...

Ace in the hole is BOTH systems......

And if you don't mind the jpeg compression, the EPL1 will give you a cleaner high ISO photo. Does anyone disagree?

Panther · « **Reply #46 on:** August 01, 2010, 04:20:01 PM »

Lisa,
I must agree with you in that digital PENS do create excellent JPGs...

lisandra · « **Reply #47 on:** August 02, 2010, 01:12:25 AM »

Quote from: Panther on August 01, 2010, 04:20:01 PM

Lisa,
I must agree with you in that digital PENS do create excellent JPGs...

I think the EPL1 was marketed at the more point and shoot people and that's why the jpegs have so much control over noise. I've seen some fairly large prints of ISO 3200 jpegs with the EPL1 that have floored me on the spot, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna trade my P1 for it. The gain, if any, would be marginal.

Author Topic: 'Canon Not Interested In Micro Four Thirds' (Read 2133 times)

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Panther

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery