Why 4/3rds?

[digiguy]

I'm thinking of changing systems and I keep hearing of why the Olympus platform has lots of great qualities - but from what I can see it lacks in AF, lens selection, noise, and cost (have you seen how much those uberlenses cost). As the 4/3rds platform is supposed to do away with the limitations of the old guard I'm not sure what is in it for me? A serious question by the way - I'm really interested to know what benefits there are.

[Paul Shields]

Try it and see. It can be expensive (though the E-1 can be picked up for peanuts). The thing with 4:3rds is that it's all about the 'round' - once you see the big picture (pun intended) then you can see what advantages it has.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by digiguy

I'm thinking of changing systems and I keep hearing of why the Olympus platform has lots of great qualities - but from what I can see it lacks in AF, lens selection, noise, and cost (have you seen how much those uberlenses cost). As the 4/3rds platform is supposed to do away with the limitations of the old guard I'm not sure what is in it for me? A serious question by the way - I'm really interested to know what benefits there are.

.

I can tell you why I jumped to 4/3rds, but the first question you really have to ask yourself is why do you want to change systems. Is this because of the thrill of a new technological gadget or because the current equipment you have doesn't seem to do it for you as a photographic tool? As a ummm advanced (?) amateur photographer (?) that started from a geeky background of "let's capture 3d reality in a pocket scanner" called the Olympus 320DL and way later on the Canon Elph S100, either answer is fine- but make sure you know why you do this or prepare to waste time and money.

I jumped to 4/3rds almost by accident. I wanted a DSLR and Olympus was the first to introduce a camera for $999 USD, that would be eight megapixels, and I liked the idea of a self-cleaning sensor. Little did I know about some particular lens advantages (quality, low chromatic aberrations, sharp even at the lens kit 'low level', no backfocusing issues, smaller in the telephoto range).

That being said, the 4/3rd system that Olympus has in my opinion has at times offered outsanding value (the E-500 with the dual lens kit in particular), the lenses even the lens kit are pretty darn good in quality (probably also a result of the 4/3rds design itself, not just the lens), for the most part has excellent jpeg color reproduction and options and extra details like the proven self cleaning system for the sensor.

The other advantage is that the lenses int he ultra zoom category are smaller that the Canon/Nikon counterparts with similar characteristics. I have seen the equivalent on Canon of the 50-200mm and I really don't want to carry that

To be frank in the end, all current camera brands have something to offer and it comes down to what exactly are your pet peeves when using a digital camera, to make a final choice. As for me I like Olympu's interface, the fact I can carry my entire camera + 3 lenses in a small camera bag along with my flash, the fact I have so many options to tweak jpegs (I try to shoot jpegs and get the results 'camera ready' with some exceptions where I shoot raw). And since I have the e-330 I have to say I absolutely love Live View.

I would say unless you have clear concrete reasons why you don't want your current system anymore, and you are interested in photography- not the pursuit of technology for the thrill of it- keep what you have, and learn to use what you've got. You will save money and improve the real part of the equation that will solve your problems- if that is the case.

- Raist

Update: this post has been updated 3 times since I posted it... forgot to mention a couple of things

[cyclohexane]

I'm thinking of changing systems

Why? What are you shooting that your existing kit can't handle? Read what Raist said first.

[Mr. Pickles]

I like the 4/3 system lens selection actually. My current comparable 4/3 system was purchased with the same money my old Canon system was sold for. Therefore, I don't see that it is expensive.

My E-1 auto focuses, so I assume you mean it isn't fast. A Canon 30D or 5D doesn't focus as fast as a MkIIn whatever it is called either.

Noise is an over rated and too often used bash of the Olympus system. Does it have noise? Yes. Does it retain detail? Yes. There is a post in here about the E-400 noise that is worth looking at.

How is the dust in your 5D?

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

How is the dust in your 5D?

...maybe you should change your sig in

Lurker, Canon-basher and trouble-maker...



Max@Home

[Mr. Pickles]

No. They have a 5D, wondered what advantages the 4/3 system has, and dust is one. Paul used to have a 5D and complains about the dust it had. He didn't get called out to change his sig to be a Canon basher.



I don't just bash Canon. I could bash any of them, and they are all worthy tools. I mean Canon folk get more camels

[Paul Shields]

Oh dear, I hope we're not getting into brand bashing (rule nbr 1 on the Camel - no brand bashing ).

The 5D I had did accumulate dust, though as I've said on this forum now and again it wasn't that major a problem (the specks in the viewfinder were much more of an annoyance). It's still not something I miss having to deal with though...

As someone who's played a bit with both systems, they really do both have benefits, some of which are mutually exclusive. The Oly (speaking of the E-1) has great handling and excellent construction, way beyond the 5D in my opinion. The 5D has excellent low noise qualities in the high ISO range, though it's clear that the camera is doing a very nice job of substituting the noise and (in my eyes) produces a sort of veneer over the image.

I'd love a merger between the two if I were do design my ideal DSLR. I do prefer the 4:3rd for the quality of the lenses. Canon make amazing lenses too and I'd love something like the 85L f/1.2 in 4:3rds mount, but I suspect that's impracticable. I'd also agree that Canon AF (and the USM lens motor technology) is way better than on the Olympus at least as far as speed goes. I prefer the type of detail I see from an Olympus shot though - even if empirically it isn't as detailed...

Anyway, to the OP I'd follow Raist's advice and think long and hard about switching. The grass always appears that more verdant on the other side but that ain't necessarily so. Enjoy what you have. They're all more than good enough in the end.

[digiguy]

Thanks for the advice. I do agree with it up to a point, but sometimes I need to move on to something different to satisfy my gear sluttery LOL . I think I'll hang out for PMA and see what happens then...

[TonyK]

Oh the gear demons. They do raise their heads and howl at times.

I had an Oly E-10 and while a wonderful camera, did not match my shooting style, especially at a higher ISO setting. Nothing wrong with the camera. Everything wrong with how I wanted to shoot with it. When I played within the rules for the Oly CCD I got beautiful images. Stray outside the lines and I was rewarded with noise that bothered me to no end.

As Mr. Pickles says, noise is over-rated and I learned that lesson. Look for image quaility. What we see on screen bears little to the print when speaking about noise.

Take care,

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by digiguy

Thanks for the advice. I do agree with it up to a point, but sometimes I need to move on to something different to satisfy my gear sluttery LOL . I think I'll hang out for PMA and see what happens then...

Gear gluttery is fine (in my case I call it electronics gadgetry geekery ) from my view as long as you accept that's what it is, you have the cash and it's not "I want to have better photographs by changing gear." It's this last one the dangerous one. At least, speaking for myself, that's what I tell myself nowadays

- Raist

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Raist3d

Gear gluttery is fine (in my case I call it electronics gadgetry geekery ) from my view as long as you accept that's what it is, you have the cash and it's not "I want to have better photographs by changing gear."* It's this last one the dangerous one. At least, speaking for myself, that's what I tell myself nowadays

Im not entirely sure what I'd do if I had 'lots of cash'. It would take a lot for me to move away from 4:3rds - and the biggun lenses will absorb lots of my excess cash anyway . I think you need to look beyond the technology a bit in this game - the digital revolution is very much on-going. Best not to look at all the new developments and just get on with enjoying the hobby/profession/pain of photography.

[LJBD]

Everybody has their own particular needs.

I mainly shoot landscapes, and I walk to them.

So the effective focal length mutiplier matters a lot to me - it just about halves the weight of stuff I need to carry.

I shoot in dust and sand, and I've never had to clean a sensor.

The lens range, although limited, contains a comprehensive integrated set of fastish medium priced very sharp zooms (plus a macro and fisheye) - I have the full set and they delight me.

The handling is excellent.

LiveView (which is waiting for me at home, in the form of an unopened E330) is unique.

The AF never lies - true, it is none too quick, but when it says it has locked, it has locked.

In return for all that I put up with slightly more noise (really lower ISO), rather cramped viewfinders, and the irritation that I can't satisfy my gear lust with a new uber-cam yet.

Other people will have different needs.

[digiguy]

Is that the E-1 you're talking about Louis? One thing that would bug me is the really small viewfinder. I guess with liveview it's not a problem, but I still like to manually focus now and again as some situations just demand it. How's that work with the smaller viewfinder?

[LJBD]

No, I've GOT an E1, but my GF uses it (she likes it lots). I can't get on with the old fashioned review facilities (I actually LIKE digital photography as opposed to film). I use an E500. The E500 viewfinder is hopeless for MF, so I don't. The E1 is fine for MF, but I don't feel the need. The E330 SHOULD be good - because you can zoom into an area at 10X magnification and focus with the backscreen, but how useful that is I'll let you know when I get home to Portugal at the weekend...

One virtue of the E500 - it is now old and scruffy and worth a tiny fraction of the lens bag. Waterproof like the E1 is all very well, but not caring if you wreck it is even better! I've soaked and hammered my E500 far more comprehensively than I would *dare* do with an £n,000 camera, however tough it was SUPPOSED to be