Micro 4/3 vs. DSLR (1 Viewer)

I'm sure there's been a post similar to this before, but I'll bring it up again. Is there any dividing line between the two? (MFT vs. DSLR). I'm relatively new to the idea, but I know they have a larger sensor (than my superzoom), are fairly lightweight, has a 2x crop factor, etc. I've read that they aren't particularly good in low light and have a slow focusing system. Both of these could be drawbacks to my purchase, if I do decide to take the MFT path.

Should I just stick with my Fujifilm superzoom, or change to a different bridge-camera, like the HS50? Weight isn't a huge problem (of course, the lighter the better B ), and the price isn't really either- if necessary I'll wait a bit and save up, or wait for the price to drop. I really want higher picture quality (than my superzoom), and for that I'm not sure which would be best.

Are there MFT any that you would suggest? The biggest factor is probably how fast the focusing is. I've been looking at the Panasonic G series, but I'm open to anything. (If possible, could you attach any sample pictures so I can see what I'm getting into?) Thanks

EDIT: Now that I see there are only two pages to the MFT forum, and that there is not a post similar to this :eek!:

Rapala,
I will be up front: I may be biased because I have a m4/3 and no dSLR.

I switched away from my old superzoom (pana fz18) because I was appalled by not being able to go beyond iso 400 and having just visited the rainforest in Costa Rica that was just not enough. For comparison, if well lighted otherwise, I can salvage decent photos out of iso 3200 on my GH2, and the newest top models can go higher (all of the OMD and the newest panas as well). I do not know if you have a similar experience that push you away from superzooms?

Difference m4/3 and dSLR? Well, m4/3 is a mirrorless line of cameras, dSLR's by definition has a mirror. That, combined with the smaller sensor means that cameras and especially lenses can be smaller for m4/3 than for dSLR. However, that is less true for long, fast tele lenses than for smaller lenses, which is a reason for the tele lenses available for m4/3 being relatively slow. Another difference due to the smaller sensor is a larger depth of field at the same F-number -- as a birding photographer, I would say the more the merrier.

AF used to be much faster in dSLR. Reality is that for single shot AF, no, not really anymore -- unless you go to the very top cameras from for example canon and nikon. Where the dSLR generally still have an advantage is in AF tracking (important for e.g., birds in flight). Where the dSLR have a disadvantage is AF accuracy, due to the split of AF on one chip and the recording of the image on another sensor, which leads to the problems with "back-focusing" or "Front-focusing" that you will not experience in m4/3.

Low light performance: that is an Achilles heel for all cameras, and I am not sure AF in low light is better in entry level dSLR than in m4/3. Likewise for use of high iso. The top models of dSLR has much larger sensors and therefore does have an advantage regarding how clean an image you can get in high iso situations.

Biggest drawback for m4/3 as someone interested in birds: limited choice of longer lenses. I am wishing someone would make something like the Canon L100-400 for m4/3 - but maybe I would end up feeling it would be too heavy as well.

Photos: the last several hundred of my photos are with the GH2/Pana 100-300 combo. At a field of view corresponding to 600 mm, some of them could probably have benefitted from more solid support but by habit I only do handheld photos. There are several others with m4/3, for example Ammadoux. Take a look at the panasonic and olympus sections.

Pana vs olympus: only the last 1-2 years have oly come out with a camera that realistically can be used for bird photography in my mind, the OMD models (no EVF, not for me). If I were to switch right now I don't know if I would go that way or with one of the newer Panas. I am curious to see if the latest tricks built into the GH4 will lead to improvement in tracking AF.

Hope this helps
Niels

It depends on what you want from your next camera, what are you looking to upgrade or better than the camera you have now?

For me as an example. I have a bridge Sony HX300 now. What i want from my next camera is to have better crops (larger sensor), remote control (built in wifi), great video (no to little focus hunting), large buffer (long continuous pictures without a beak or slow down) and something that the lens will be usable in the next camera purchase years ahead. For me it would be a Canon 70d as it has all the upgrades i want plus the future of dslr is a safer buy today than a niche MFT way, there is no proven MFT market in years ahead. Honestly to me MFT is a niche which is really why it is called a advanced point and shoot.

My impression is that the only canon models that can video half as good as the pana GH models are the EOS C, which starts at $5000?

Niels

IMHO it is all in the lenses and speed of autofocus
I have both systems and for me for bird images the DSLR is faster, my flexible and has a better IQ and UI.

I hardly ever use my M43 for birding, in fact now I never do, I have also tried Fuji bridge and the V1 + FT-1 with Nikon long glass - I always go back the the D300/D7100 and Nikon 300mm primes, with the x 1.4TC

as I said just my opinion for "bird and nature" images

I also came from the bridge camera world with a Panasonic FZ18 which I still have and which in good light takes fine pictures. But I wanted better image quality than "bridge" cameras and more portability than a full-frame DSLR. I went first with the Pana G2, then the G3 and now the GX7. All of those take great pictures (with the latest GX7 being the best!) and coupled with the Pana 100-300mm zoom (200-600mm equivalent in 35mm terms) you can start to get some good bird pictures - but you still need to be pretty close to get fine detail. You can now get a G2 or G3 for bargain prices. The good lenses are still not cheap, but that's what you're buying when you buy into the m43 system - the lenses, which you can keep and use on new m43 bodies as they are introduced. Also the Olympus offerings in m43 are outstanding and preferred by many but I do not have any direct experience with them. All m43 cameras allow much more control over all aspects of photography than bridge cameras and as much as most DSLRs, but many also have a "point-and-shoot" mode.

I am very happy with m43 and can't see myself ever going back. Nor will I ever go, let's say, sideways to the heavy, bulky DSLRs. For me, m43 is forward!

Try some reading and post questions in the Micro Four Thirds forum at dpreview.com to get more of a feel for m43.

There is an article at http://www.slrlounge.com/11-key-differences-micro-43-vs-dslr which I think gives a pretty fair summary comparing DSLRs to m43. The m43 technology has advanced so rapidly there are many who are not quite up-to-date on it.

Since the largest lenses for Micro 4/3 is 300mm (with 2x crop factor), equivalent to
600mm, I'm wondering if it would be worth it. I would have to crop it down further to bring in more distant birds. My superzoom camera has about 860mm, and even with a smaller sensor, I'm wondering if MFT and my camera would be about the same quality at the same amount of zoom/crop. I know they make converters to use with larger lenses, but I've also read/heard the focusing is even slower and the picture quality isn't as good. I do know that Pana's 4/3s take very good video, which is a strong point for the MFT, as I would like to take video. But as for the focusing speed would I be better off with a DSLR?

I've just made the switch to m43 from a 7D and I'll be trying it out properly at the weekend. What I'm hoping to find is very good initial focus, great manual focus for birds in bushes, but weak continuous focus for flying birds.
I also expect the quality of all of these things to be above what a bridge camera can achieve simply because the small sensor and lower processing power in bridge cameras means they have to hunt more slowly for focus, but I'm no expert.
I'll be doing some comparisons this week and next, but my reasons for changing are purely size and weight. My DSLR kit was light at only about 1.8kg for camera and body and I was absolutely fine holding it up for photos, but carrying it all day on hikes and even walkarounds with breaks when moving in the car made my shoulder ache. My new kit is under half the weight and I am hoping it will be more than good enough for the amateur photographer/bird watcher that I am.

Very apropos: there was a photographer at a live music event this afternoon, using Canon kit for his stills. For the video he preferred his iphone.

Niels

First of all, great pictures Neils and Ammadoux. I looked into the Olympus EPL5 (what Ammadoux shot with) and found that it had no viewfinder. You can buy external viewfinders for the camera for over $100- which seems like a waste to me, to buy a nice camera and lens and then don't get a viewfinder. Like Neils, no viewfinder, not for me. Then I looked at the rig Graeme S got, and I'm looking to spend around $1,000 or less (on camera+lens), not the (approx.) $2,000 for the EM1. I have been looking at the Pana DMC-G6, G5, G3K, and possibly the GX7 (depending on the prices of them all). I haven't look too far into Olympus, though. I'm still open to suggestions and personal experience. Thanks

EM10 will soon be here, with most of the advantages of the bigger olympus models: http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/slrs/oly_em10

Having said that, the newer pana models definitely also has something going for them. Using yesteryears model will obviously save some money and equally obviously make you think about what you are missing out on.

Niels

I've just tested my new E-M1 with 75-300mm lens quickly and I'm happy with it so far

For focus it is very speedy, but I haven't tried anything flying yet. My feeling is that in reasonably even light, the picture quality is great (more than enough for me and similar to my 7D), but in tough lighting conditions (eg backlit against the sky), the picture quality is definitely worse than the 7D. But then, those photos were never any good on the 7D anyway, they were just catalogue pics.

For non-birding use, I absolutely love this camera and lenses - it is so,so,so much more portable than a 7D, even though it doesn't look all that much smaller when they are side by side.

Nice shot!

Niels

Well, I guess I'm still wondering what separates some of the micro 4/3 cameras. (I have decided on MFT rather than DSLR) They all have a 4/3 sensor, most of them are 16MP, they almost all have a 3" screen, same relative features, two main body types (Slr-type, rangefinder), etc. How can I pick out a camera of a dozen or so that are quite alike (besides the price)? I've compared several cameras at dpreview, and come to this conclusion. I would like a viewfinder, but beyond that there are several that fit the bill. Anything?

The way I have seen the reviews, there is a definite difference in sensor generation between some and another. What that means is basically better performance at higher iso for some of the later models. Those models that DPReview have looked at, there will be sample images taken at different iso values available for study.

Niels

My research brought me to either the Olympus E-M1 or E-M10. Both have modern sensors so good ISO performance, with only two interesting differences for me: the more expensive one has weather sealing (actually, not too interesting) and can, supposedly, track moving birds. Apparently it's by far the best for this.
Apart from that, they all seem competitively priced, with the E-M10 looking like a bargain if you feel like the E-M1 is too much of a stretch.

By the way, another key separation for a DSLR is the battery life, which was fine for up to 2 days on location. My M43 seems like half a day in comparison, so I need to buy more batteries. This is not an issue, but adds to the cost.

Depending on where you go 2 batteries would be expected to last the stay -- at least that is what I find with my GH2

It is really difficult to compare sensors when not having both models in your own hands. I feel that GH4 might be the best yet, but I am not really able to prove that using reviews -- at least not yet. Personally, I am hoping it will not be too long before that performance (for stills only, not including the Video improvements) makes it into the next G-series camera.

Niels

njlarsen said:

My impression is that the only canon models that can video half as good as the pana GH models are the EOS C, which starts at $5000?

Niels

Click to expand...

The Panny GH stuff is amazing for the features/options for the video, For example the data rate or Mbps you can record video at. The reality is are you really going to use that? Indie film makers sure but someone who does not want to edit for hours and just wants to shoot great video for sharing online those features are useless.

The reality of it is this is the best feature MFT really has over DSLRs but it comes at a heavy price you pay for quality of photographs you get from a MFT. Before anyone says "my MFT takes great pictures" I will say so can a modern smart phone, even with a scope..and for distance it will be a lot easier to use. The size of the smaller MFT bodies really is not all that small after a lens is attached and going with a smaller body can hurt hand held use by making it to unbalanced with a long lens, which is why most super zoom point and shoots have much larger bodies. Price on good MFT is horribly expensive, on the Olympus E-M1 body price you can walk out with a 70D and two great lens included. BTW the DSLR lens market has huge third party support so you even get more options and even modern kit lens have Superior optics to what is on the market for MFT.

Problem for DSLR video is the focusing DSLRs they use, it is amazing for pictures but it jerks and always hunts in videos. The 70D does video super smooth almost camcorder like.

I have played with lots of cameras as part of my job. I like the MFT stuff but I see it as a niche that most likely won't be around as long as dSLR stuff will. The main reason why we have MFT stuff is because people these days have amazing cameras on their phone. The camera market is taking a huge hit from it so camera makers are trying different stuff to sell to these people. Canon is banking off the low end DSLR stuff, it is why they have 4-5 models at entry level prices. MFT is called a advanced point and shoot, it is a little better than a point and shoot and has some features like changeable lens from the DSLR market. Lots of pos and cell phone makers today are putting in larger sensors, in fact we are getting into a sensor size war now just like the megapixel war before. Eventually the sensors are going to come close or maybe even up to a 2x MFT stuff and at that point the MFT market will be dead and all the MFT gear today like the lens will be useless. Question to me is how fast is it going to happen? that depends on how aggressive point and shoot and smartphone makers are, but the smartphone market moves super fast so in 5-7 years I can see MFT being dead. In 5-7 years if you buy a good DSLR today (d7100,70d,etc) you will be looking to upgrade the body but you will have lots of lens to use with your future camera.

I'm not so convinced the m43 format will go away that quickly, since it will be cheaper to manufacture for a while yet and some companies have invested a lot in it. Who knows.

Anyway, although everyone talks about size, for me the main advantage of m43 is the weight (I'm not interested in video). I know I'm trading the portability with inertia-induced stability, but if I wanted bulky stability I'd use a tripod, no question. Instead I'll take low weight, image stabilisation and a fast shutter speed and enjoy myself.

M43 fits in an important niche, which is high quality pictures in a device that can be carried anywhere, in my opinion.

On the grounds that 35mm was not regarded as a 'professional' size film by many for over 20 years (too small, inadequate quality images etc.) I think I will just see what happens.

I'm still using dedicated camcorders for video, its less hassle and gets me good quality output that is relatively straightforward to edit and output to blu-ray or dvd.

As for deciding between M4/3 or conventional dslr it is simply based on glass for me, all things being equal I use M 4/3. As the range of decent glass for M4/3 increases, I have been using it more. If nothing else it is easier to lug around and a little camera bag is a less tempting target for thieves.

I did start playing with a Nikon D5200 a few months ago, just to see if a bigger format with more pixels could tempt me. It didn't light any fires for me, so I think that I will stick with my 4/3 - M4/3 mix for a bit longer.