4/3rds gone?

[}{B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm waiting for them to bring out the 4/3rds equivalent of either a 35mm or 28mm prime lens. Either of those would tempt me to also buy the 25mm (50mm) pancake lens and the 50mm (100mm) macro to go on my E1. Zoom lenses are convenient but they make it too heavy and bulky to carry round for long periods.

[Wiggi]

Of the seven companies, Fujifilm, Kodak, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic, Sanyo and Sigma, which were 2007 in the 4/3 consortium, only Olympus offers 4/3 cameras.

 

And if you believe the rumors, the next Olympus SLR model will be the last.

[kanzlr]

well I think there is just much more money to be made in the micro 4/3 market.

however, I do consider a small 4/3 SLR + a nice Zuiko Tele for my wildlife photography that I quit when I switched over to the M system. 4/3 is a godsend for tele work, with their superb lenses and high pixel density. Same goes for macro.

[elansprint72]

Yeah, but like I was saying earlier, I'm sort of planning for the next move up. By "move up" I mean something equal to a big Nikon or Canon body with R lens adapters.

 

I'm not a big rangefinder fan -for my own concentration / comfort reasons- otherwise, I would just buy an M9.

 

I like the feel of an SLR. That's the reason I started the thread.

 

I'm a few months ahead of you and share your opinions. I'm done with rangefinders; a long time ago, actually. I bought a D700 last year and I still cannot believe how good it is; I borrowed a Nikon D3 for a week-end and, honestly, I would not bother with it. The D700 basically has the guts of the D3 in a smaller box (it still weighs a ton), the quality from the full frame sensor is outstanding, as are the lenses.

Even if I owned some R lenses I would not be arsed with buying adaptors and using them manually (that's like going back to the 1950s), can all those professional Nikon users be wrong over the last 40 years?

 

Someone will be along soon rambling about Leica glass footprints or fingerprints but, as there is no sign of a "Leica R solution" they are stuck with huge negative equity and would say that, wouldn't they?

 

The auto-focus on the D700 is breath-taking (I shoot motor-sports and find the lock-on facility unbelievable), previously I could be heard grumbling about auto-focus as an unwanted/unneeded gimmick; boy was I wrong.

 

So, my advice, try a D700 (or Canon equiv) it sounds like you need one.

 

btw; I'm still using, every week, a Digilux2, a V-Lux1 and a C-Lux2, when/where the situation dictates.

[tobey bilek]

Small sensor cams are fine if your expectations are not too high, ie ISO 800, or 11x14 prints. But if you just want a tuck away camera for parties and family vacation snaps, it should serve you well.

 

Just understand it can not compete with larger sensors no matter how many MP they stuff on it.

[sfage]

I got myself an E620 last Nov, and I love it.

It is as light as my D2, handles well and the images are good.

What else do you want?

 

I was thinking of the 24 inch printer I am about to buy.

 

Know what I mean?

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pete is wrong about not using R glass on a D700. The difference between using Leica and Nikon lenses is completely obvious on screen and in print.

 

Yes, there are compromises, but if one uses a camera to make the best possible photographs you can, then IMHO, they are worth making.

 

Nikon using pros mostly use them for different purposes than me, so their choice of lenses is valid for them.

 

I don't see a D700 as an alternative to a 4/3 camera though...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lct]

The choice is not 4/3 or full frame of course but 4/3 is a tempting alternative to small sensor cameras i feel. At a cost though.

[ziggurat]

If your requirements allow you to keep the Digilux 3 on 100 ISO, and you do not push it beyond its comfort zone - well lit subjects - it is possible to create high quality 300 dpi A1 prints via Genuine Fractals.

 

The file has to be worth printing in the first place and you have to get your work flow right. But after that no problems.

 

It's not a bad idea to try and get this working before moving on to larger and more forgiving formats.

 

Oh, and for now I still prefer the look of the Dig 3 files to the 5D McToo, and its a bit lighter and smaller.

 

Regards

Johnny

[lct]

I have no experience of the Digilux 3 but it is bigger than some APS and even full frame (M9) bodies i believe so it could not find any place in my camera bags i'm afraid.

[Paolo.Battista]

Well, I own Digilux 3, E3 and E1. I use the Pana-Leica 14-50 Elmarit for wide angle landscape work and when I need autofocus, otherwise I use my R lenses (from 35 mm up to the 280 APO-Telyt-R - non modular).

 

I agree with kanzlr, 4/3 is very good for tele work until FF sensors will have the same pixel density (an E3 sensor has a pixel density of a FF sensor of about 36 megapixels). The large viewfinder of the E3 is quite good for working with R tele lenses.

 

But apart from that, it has a real image quality that matches very well with R lenses. I own Nikon bodies too, I adapted R lenses to Nikon via Leitax, but the results cannot match those from E3 or E1 as far as cromatic ad tonal rendering. Yes tou can do a huge PS work on NIkon's raw files in order to correct these issues, but I feel that Nikon (Sony) sensors tend to hide the very finest tonality that can be obtained from R lenses. The results often are less tridimensional than those obtained from the 4/3 sensors.

 

So, after trying both Nikon and 4/3 bodies, for my own way to shoot and for my own taste, I'm keeping the 4/3 ones. Yes, I would like a Kodak sensor like that from M9 on a R body, but until it will not available, I will stick with my actual bodies. Anyway, the M9's Kodak sensor isn't that much better than the E3's sensor as far as high ISO performance is concearned. But since I try to stick up to 800 ISO, that's not a big problem.

[thomasl.se]

Someone will be along soon rambling about Leica glass footprints or fingerprints but, as there is no sign of a "Leica R solution" they are stuck with huge negative equity and would say that, wouldn't they?

I find my 80-R beyond ramble-worthy in those departments. Bought it a few weeks ago, and don't really mind being "stuck" with it.

 

Thomas

[Wiggi]

well I think there is just much more money to be made in the micro 4/3 market.

 

I also think so. The micro 4/3 is a crossbreeding of a compact camera and a SLR. It is ideal for users, who rise from the compact segment and want a camera system with a bigger sensor and changable lenses.

[biglouis]

I don't think m4/3rds is quite as shabby as some people in this thread think. This is just a quick selection of the results from my GF-1, some of which include the fantastic 'Leica' branded Panasonic 45/2.8 Macro, or with my Leica M lenses mounted. You judge for yourself.

 

I'm definitely waiting for Photokina before making any decisions about cameras as there are rumours of new 4/3rds and m4/3rds bodies.

 

LouisB

[elansprint72]

Pete is wrong about not using R glass on a D700. The difference between using Leica and Nikon lenses is completely obvious on screen and in print.

 

Yes, there are compromises, but if one uses a camera to make the best possible photographs you can, then IMHO, they are worth making.

 

Nikon using pros mostly use them for different purposes than me, so their choice of lenses is valid for them.

 

 

How many folks would go out and buy a D700 body then go out and buy R lenses?

 

Nobody.

 

If the difference is "completely obvious" surely there would be a very long line of folks doing this?

 

I hope that the D700 is only a stop-gap solution for your bag of expensive glass; however, having had access to some of the top-end Nikon pro lenses recently I have been bowled over. I'm talking about 7k GBP for a 400mm lens here, not the cheapies that I own. They are in a class above optically and technologically.

[sfage]

 

How many folks would go out and buy a D700 body then go out and buy R lenses?

 

Nobody.

 

If the difference is "completely obvious" surely there would be a very long line of folks doing this?

 

I hope that the D700 is only a stop-gap solution for your bag of expensive glass; however, having had access to some of the top-end Nikon pro lenses recently I have been bowled over. I'm talking about 7k GBP for a 400mm lens here, not the cheapies that I own. They are in a class above optically and technologically.

 

Yeah, but we shoot different things. I have absolutely no use for a zoom lens. "Generally" one meter is far away for me.

 

I don't "do" birds and coyotes. Robert Bateman can have all that crap. He does anyway. When I can convince some putz to pay me 1400 bucks for my 7000th print (read: "poster") of a gopher and a squirrel, maybe I'll rethink things.

 

I love guys that walk around downtown with a big honkin' zoom lens. "Waiting for that heard of wildabeast to come flying thorough here, there, "Elmer dancing with the stars?" Or, number two (Turkish euphemism) "Small man, big dog."

 

Dude, don't get all "uppity".

 

On top of that, I'm not interested in buying new glass. I am happy with what I have. It does what I want it to do, I always know what I will get.

[deep]

Actually, the 4/3 format is clever and has many theoretical advantages over larger "carry-over" formats for most people in most real-life situations (some of which have been pointed out above). The disadvantages have been rapidly disappearing over the last three years as sensor technology improves. We live in a world where we are absolutely spoilt for choice and, truth is, no one system is perfect for every use. Of course, theorists are always quick to point out what's wrong with 4/3 but it's mostly smoke. The 4/3 system is well-sorted, capable and contains some absolute bargains in terms of camera bodies and lenses.

 

I wonder if all this "small-format" bashing will stop when Canon and Nikon release their smaller-format systems?

 

From the information revealed, looks like Olympus have just revealed an excellent camera, their best ever. 4/3 is far from gone!

 

Don

[lct]

...How many folks would go out and buy a D700 body then go out and buy R lenses?...Nobody...

Can't speak for Nikonians but i bought my 5D with no Canon lenses at all. I only use Leica and Oly glass with it and i still buy R lenses for it yes. Next move will be the 'R solution' if any or Zeiss lenses for the same Canon body. FWIW.

[lct]

... The disadvantages have been rapidly disappearing over the last three years as sensor technology improves...

Technology improves for APS and FF as well. Now APS bodies like Sonys or the last Samsung are hardly bigger than 4/3's so the size advantage of the latters tends to disappear in anything else than telephoto IMHO.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[deep]

Technology improves for APS and FF as well. Now APS bodies like Sonys or the last Samsung are hardly bigger than 4/3's so the size advantage of the latters tends to disappear in anything else than telephoto IMHO.

 

Size is one small part of the equation...

 

Don