4/3 cameras- what are advantages & disadvantages compared to DSLR?

dinneenp

Hi,
(as previously mentioned in another thread) I'm planning on upgrading from Panasonic FZ28 to a dslr (maybe a Nikon D40, cheap and cheerful-my budget is 'limited, €400). A few people suggested a 4/3 camera.

Can anyone tell me-

• what exactly is a 4/3 camera in laymans terms?
• advantages & disadvantages compared to DSLR (smaller, lighter)
• can you get same lens as a DSLR (macro, tele etc)
• are lens a lot more expensive (since 4/3 cameras are newer)
• anything else of note.
• Which would you buy and why?

Thanks,
Pa.

Borderfox

Smaller sensor this translates to smaller everything (lens/body) it also doubles you focal length so a 300mm lens will look like a 600mm lens. As everything else there are good points and bad points

VisionaryP

I was an avid Olympus user for years. It's a fantastic system, and I still believe that Olympus lenses are second to none - even Canon L glass. In fact I still shoot with it for personal use, but have switched to Canon for my pro stuff.

Where the Olympus bodies (I have e500, e520 and E3) let me down was how they handled low light situations. The high ISO performance just didn't cut it for dark interiors, which is something essential for me. As an outdoor and studio camera system though, I found Olympus 4/3 to be superb.

Borderfox

For some of the glass they had the likes a 70-200 zoom which was f2!! and the 300mm f2.8 was the full frame equivalent of 600mm f2.8!! if as said above the high iso performance was better then they would rule a lot of roost's

VisionaryP

Borderfox wrote: »

For some of the glass they had the likes a 70-200 zoom which was f2!! and the 300mm f2.8 was the full frame equivalent of 600mm f2.8!! if as said above the high iso performance was better then they would rule a lot of roost's

Yep. The trio of f2s, the 14-35 (24-70 equiv), the 35-100 (70-200 equiv) and the 50mm macro (100mm equiv) are all sensational lenses. I just so happens I have all 3 for sale on adverts.ie too!

Also, the camera bodies are a lot more robust than the competition, generally. I never once had to clean my E3's sensor in 2 years.

OP, to answer your question about 4/3rds in laymans terms... it's to do with the aspect ratio. For every 4 inches a photo is long, it's 3 inches high. Canon, Nikon and the 35mm equivs have a 3/2 ratio. In short, 3/2 produces a wider ratio than 4/3. A bit like weidescreen to old tv format.

bullpost

Its worth pointing out that there are some great bargains to be had with 4/3 DSLR kits.
The following one comes bundled with twin lens and the quality of olympus kit lens is generally highly regarded compared to kit lens supplied with the top two (canon/nikon):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-E-450-Digital-14-42mm-40-150mm/dp/B0024NK5DS/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1267195111&sr=8-13

duffarama

dinneenp wrote: »

• what exactly is a 4/3 camera in laymans terms?
• advantages & disadvantages compared to DSLR (smaller, lighter)
• can you get same lens as a DSLR (macro, tele etc)
• are lens a lot more expensive (since 4/3 cameras are newer)
• anything else of note.
• Which would you buy and why?

1. It's just a different, slightly smaller sensor camera system which originally had a group of people involved. Namely, Olympus, Kodak, Panasonic and I think Fuji.

2. Smaller, lighter bodies, smaller lighter lenses with larger apertures (generally)

3. Same lens choice as most competing systems, no native tilt/shift lenses though.

4. I don't know, I've never compared the cost across formats. As far as I'm aware you'll get a wider aperture lens for less than the equivalent, but I can't be sure. The glass is superb though.

5. The 2x crop is great for landscapes and street shooting. Not so good if you're looking for subject isolation, this depends on the lens as always. It is possible!

6. The E620 is probably the best camera they have available in terms of features and price and size http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/page31.asp

ozymandius

VisionaryP wrote: »

OP, to answer your question about 4/3rds in laymans terms... it's to do with the aspect ratio. For every 4 inches a photo is long, it's 3 inches high. Canon, Nikon and the 35mm equivs have a 3/2 ratio. In short, 3/2 produces a wider ratio than 4/3. A bit like weidescreen to old tv format.

Strictly speaking - pedantically even - the 4/3 refers to the equivalent size of old vidicon* tubes of 4/3" (1.33 inches) diameter. The diagonal dimension of the actual sensor area is under an inch. 4/3 sensors are, as said already, usually 4:3 aspect ratio. A throw-back to the TV applications of the vidicons.

* for the youths, a vidicon tube is what TV cameras had before CCD sensors.

cnocbui

One feature of the four thirds eco system is that the lenses are interchangeable between brands, so you can use a Leica lens on your Olympus and vice-versa.

The wikipedia article is worth a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

i_am_dogboy

Personally I'd pick M4/3 over a DSLR any day. Mostly down to discreteness, and that lovely little Panasonic 20mm prime that came out not too long ago. Also for the M mount adapters.

Size isn't that much of an advantage for most people, because most people use zooms. If you stick with prime lenses the system will be noticably smaller than most DSLRs. Most of the available zooms are collapsible, so they're deceptively small in press photos and the likes, but when extended out and ready to shoot they add quite a bit of thickness to the camera. That might not be a big deal to some, but I like to leave a camera turned on and ready to shoot as I walk about, so lenses with erections just wouldn't cut it for me.

If you're into narrow depth of field, most DSLRs will have something of an advantage over the M4/3 system. With the exception of the Sigma and regular old 4/3 systems. The bigger the capture medium, the narrower the depth of field for a given focal length, so even at f1.7 on the previously mentioned Panasonic prime, your background and subject won't be as distinct as they would on a regular DSLR sensor at the same focal length and aperture.

Anther disadvantage is that there are NO optical viewfinders included with the systems. If you go with primes, and stick with them you can get an accessory viewfinder that's intended for a rangefinder for each and use that for framing, but they're a complete rip off. Other than that, you'll still have to settle for an electronic viewfinder or the screen for focus and composition. But, coming from a compact world the screen and electronic viewfinder-if you get one, will be way better than what you're used to.

Native lens selection isn't great right now, the olympus models have a bit of an advantage in this regard, in that they can auto-focus old school 4/3 lenses better, but those would be mighty big compared to the camera.

If I was to pick a currently available model, I'd go for the Panasonic GF1 myself, and that's completely subjective, all down to how it feels to hold compared to the two existing Olympus, and the size and shape, compared to the older Panasonic models.

But the prospect of an affordable digital system to stick my M mount lenses on is really ****ing tempting to me.

i_am_dogboy

cnocbui wrote: »

One feature of the four thirds eco system is that the lenses are interchangeable between brands, so you can use a Leica lens on your Olympus and vice-versa.

The wikipedia article is worth a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

Yeah, the film-flange distance is really small, so you're guaranteed corner sharpness with most lenses intended for bigger systems. Something old 1/2 frame systems could do as well. And as something of an aside, the new Samsung mirrorless system SHOULD also have this ability, but their physical design hampers that. The size of the opening for the lenses is too small to accommodate the likes of the M mount with adapters.

i_am_dogboy

Seems I misread the title...

Thecageyone

Still in the hunt for my first [cheap] dslr, been eying up an Olympus E-410, can anyone recommend this cam? The one thing I don't like about it is the lack of a nice chunky grip for your right hand. I'm used to having one even on my bridge cam. Minor gripe, but image quality-wise? speed? ease of use? etc ... anyone?

nilhg

Thecageyone wrote: »

Still in the hunt for my first [cheap] dslr, been eying up an Olympus E-410, can anyone recommend this cam? The one thing I don't like about it is the lack of a nice chunky grip for your right hand. I'm used to having one even on my bridge cam. Minor gripe, but image quality-wise? speed? ease of use? etc ... anyone?

I have its bigger brother the E510, the imaging system is exactly the same on both the major difference is the E410 doesn't have IS, I'm still quite happy with it, in decent light the image quality is superb, the weakness is as others have said at high ISO, if you're careful ISO800 is fine but ISO1600 is pushing it.

Click through to my flickr for a look.

Thecageyone

nilhg wrote: »

I have its bigger brother the E510, the imaging system is exactly the same on both the major difference is the E410 doesn't have IS, I'm still quite happy with it, in decent light the image quality is superb, the weakness is as others have said at high ISO, if you're careful ISO800 is fine but ISO1600 is pushing it.

Click through to my flickr for a look.

For some strange reason I can't get into flickr this morning. It's really slow and when it tries to open the page is coming up red

Will have a peek later though. Lack of IS seems to be downers for the E410 around the net, but there's mostly good things said besides. That's why i asked in here, you can't really trust reviewers who review dozens of cameras per week 100% - better to get user views.

The cam I have now has no IS, only time I've found it a problem is obviously hand-held shots at night using slower exposures. But my hands are pretty steady [all night shots in my stream, bar any longer, light trail ones, were hand held] :cool: is it that much better to have it?

I'm not definite on it yet, but I am considering it. Will see what Oly users on Flickr have to say [when it opens for me] too, cheers.

bullpost

It worth looking at the E600. This is a slightly scaled down E-620 but it retains most of the important new features including much improved performance at higher ISO's. Its also got IS and liveview. Its available in PC World for about 400 euros with kit lens and is superb value at this price.