4/3 (Four thirds) system- why?

dinneenp

Hi,
I've been reading a bit about 4/3 (four thirds) systems (sony NEX 5, Panasonic DMC-L10, Olympus E5 etc):
Why would someone buy one?
(I could be very wrong in some of my assumptions, please correct me)

1. They are much better than a compact but not as good as a dSLR for low light, IQ etc.
2. Unless you have the kit lens on they're quiet large in size. Even with kit/small lens on it won't fit in a pocket.
3. They are as expensive (or close to) as dSLRs (why is the d lowercase and teh rest uppercase?) prices for body & lenses.
4. There's not as big a range of lenses available as for dSLRS (even if they are more interchangable)
5. A lot of them don't have viewfinders.

I can understand why someone would buy one over a compact but if you're going to do that why not just buy a small bodied dSLR (Pentax K-X or similar)? I know it's smaller but still not pocketable.
I'm sure there's loads of reasons I haven't thought of, please enlighten me!

Cheers,
Pa.

Ghost Train

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
I've been reading a bit about 4/3 (four thirds) systems (sony NEX 5, Panasonic DMC-L10, Olympus E5 etc):
Why would someone buy one?
(I could be very wrong in some of my assumptions, please correct me)

1. They are much better than a compact but not as good as a dSLR for low light, IQ etc.
2. Unless you have the kit lens on they're quiet large in size. Even with kit/small lens on it won't fit in a pocket.
3. They are as expensive (or close to) as dSLRs (why is the d lowercase and teh rest uppercase?) prices for body & lenses.
4. There's not as big a range of lenses available as for dSLRS (even if they are more interchangable)
5. A lot of them don't have viewfinders.

I can understand why someone would buy one over a compact but if you're going to do that why not just buy a small bodied dSLR (Pentax K-X or similar)? I know it's smaller but still not pocketable.
I'm sure there's loads of reasons I haven't thought of, please enlighten me!

Cheers,
Pa.

They don't look like dslrs so don't stand out too much, they're smaller and lighter which for some people is a big thing.

Don't have one (but have something similar), for me the choice would probably be down to having that balance between a smallish camera with decent image/lens quality

Morrisseeee

I have the Oly E510, altho it hasn't seen much use in the last few months
Advantages:
Small camera
Small lenses
Overall light package
Quality of camera (sensor) and lenses are very good
I got a few adapters, so I can use different brands of lenses, eg. Pentax, old Olympus, Nikon, hense I can scour eBaaay for older, cheaper (but high quality) glass
Great camera to start off with

Disadavantages:
ISO (if you want ISO power, forget about it)
Quantity of 2nd hand gear (eg. compared to Canon), hense pricier

nilhg

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
I've been reading a bit about 4/3 (four thirds) systems (sony NEX 5, Panasonic DMC-L10, Olympus E5 etc):
Why would someone buy one?
(I could be very wrong in some of my assumptions, please correct me)

1. They are much better than a compact but not as good as a dSLR for low light, IQ etc.
2. Unless you have the kit lens on they're quiet large in size. Even with kit/small lens on it won't fit in a pocket.
3. They are as expensive (or close to) as dSLRs (why is the d lowercase and teh rest uppercase?) prices for body & lenses.
4. There's not as big a range of lenses available as for dSLRS (even if they are more interchangable)
5. A lot of them don't have viewfinders.

I can understand why someone would buy one over a compact but if you're going to do that why not just buy a small bodied dSLR (Pentax K-X or similar)? I know it's smaller but still not pocketable.
I'm sure there's loads of reasons I haven't thought of, please enlighten me!

Cheers,
Pa.

I think you're mixing up your systems, 4/3 system cameras (E5, E30, E620 and some of the Panasonic models) are normal DSLRs like the Nkons or Canons.

The Nex 5, Panasonic G models, Olympus Pens and Samsung NX10 are the newer mirror less CSC (compact system cameras) as many seem to be calling them. The Oly and panny CSCs are micro 4/3 which is a standardised system the other make use their own manufacturers proprietary systems.

Some of these models use exactly the same sensor as their "proper" DSLR big brothers, image quality should be and is exactly the same if using the same lens.

Most of the rest of your points come down to them being new systems, availability of lenses and other accessories should improve as time goes on, remember though because of the way they are made it's often possible to use old manual focus lenses with an adaptor.

dinneenp

thanks, I am indeed mixing up my systems. It's CSC I mean.

Thecageyone

Some people just like the x2 crop factor. Telephoto lenses can reach a lot further on 4/3 models. Your average 200mm becomes a 400mm straight off.

dinneenp

Good 'Mirrorless shootout' here

hopelessOne

I have the Sony NEX-5 and since you asked me for my comments by email, here they are:

- The NEX is a world above the small 3 year old Panasonic compact which is our "change-bag camera" and yet I use it in all the same situations: out-and-about with the family in town, walking down the lane or beach, minor family gathering, visiting parents etc. These are not situations where I normally carry an SLR.

- I have the NEX with the 18-55 kit lens. It doesn't fit in my jeans pocket but then no compact camera does. It *does* fit in my waterproof jacket and fleece pockets and slips easily enough into a bag. I often keep it in the central console of the car with the CDs or when out walking I can sling it across me unobtrusively. I don't use a case for it as the construction is quite robust and the lens is all metal.

- The operation of the camera is much easier for non-technical users to understand (as it looks and works just like a compact) but I can pick it up and adjust the aperture, ISO and exposure to match my vision of the image. Many prospective parents buy SLRs because they've been sold on getting good photos yet they'll never really get into photography or take the camera out of Auto / Program mode. My advice to these people is wholeheartedly to buy a CSC: you'll get better images than a compact camera and you'll capture more memories than with an SLR because you'll actually take the camera with you.

- yes, perhaps you can buy an entry-level SLR for the same price (or cheaper) but just because it's an SLR doesn't make it the better camera. You also need to take into account who is using it and why

- who cares about viewfinders (seriously, it's a vanishing small percentage of the total camera-buying public)? If you can't imagine not using a viewfinder then you are not the target market! I'm happy to switch between viewfinders and liveview cameras as the situation dictates. Plus, with the liveview you get consumer friendly features like face-detection and visual indication of depth-of-field

- The image quality is fantastic. I had to upgrade my SLR (a200) after seeing what the sensor in the NEX could do. I recently took family photos at ISO3200 (dark rooms, north-facing windows, dull day) and I'm delighted with them. They won't win awards but I've captured some family moments which the compact camera wouldn't have managed and the SLR would have been totally inappropriate for.

- And, as others have noted, the NEX is not a micro four-thirds camera but uses exactly the same size sensor as the non-full frame SLRs (1.5x crop, APS-C size).

- If you're looking for some real disadvantages of CSC: AF speed and lens selection. The AF (which is pretty good on the NEX) just doesn't compare with the speed or accuracy of an SLR, particularly in poor light. Lens selection is limited but so too are their usefulness: long zooms aren't very practical so what we really want is fast standard-wide angle zoom and some sharp compact primes. Basically, you won't find too many wildlife photographers wielding CSC's.
The NEX seems to have a huge range of third-party adapters for manual lenses though: I've seen photos with the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 and various Leica lenses on the NEX that have blown me away and there seems to be a burgeoning sector of old-school photographers buying the NEX as a way of using their old lenses.

- Oh, and did I mention the NEX is fun?

** sorry for the braindump

cnocbui

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
I've been reading a bit about 4/3 (four thirds) systems (sony NEX 5, Panasonic DMC-L10, Olympus E5 etc):
Why would someone buy one?
Cheers,
Pa.

There are two flavours of 4/3 - the old guard that have the conventional mirror and optical viewfinder, while still tending to be smaller than most conventional DSLRs and the new wave Micro 4/3 cameras which are a lot smaller due to ditching the mirror and viewfinder prism.



For anyone who travels by air and has lugged a DSLR system, the advantages of a smaller system are fairly compelling and are not to be sneezed at.

The Olympus E5 is one of the few weather sealed cameras available and there are even some weather sealed lenses to suit. That alone would make it worth considering for some, reviews suggesting it is also one of the best DSLRs made would be added incentive.

My next camera will likely be a Micro 4/3 one or possibly even the new Olympus XZ-1 which will have many people asking 'why get a DSLR' and I predict is going to be a really hot seller:





Japan is a very Photography enthusiastic nation. Sales of micro 4/3 cameras have really taken off there and are growing very rapidly, as is evident by recent sales figures:



There has always been a segment of the market that doesn't need or want to lug around gear intended for professionals. In the context of 35mm film there was always a place for smaller bodied systems of quality, hence the popularity of Leicas and the Olympus Pens. Then along came the Olympus OM-1 which showed you didn't need a brick to do the job.

The aesthetic of small size, high performance will always be attractive to a good many people who understand that the most significant variable in photography is the photographer, not the equipment.

dinneenp

I think this is right but just want to verify:
Two Sony NEX lenses:
E 16mm F2.8
E 18 - 55mm F3.5 - 5.6 OSS

for these lenses if comparing to a dslr it'd be 32mm f2.8 and 36-110mm?

I didn't realise the that sensor is so big so micro 4/3s and the NEX should be better for low light (if not great in high ISO) and much better quality than a compact.

hopelessOne

dinneenp wrote: »

I think this is right but just want to verify:
Two Sony NEX lenses:
E 16mm F2.8
E 18 - 55mm F3.5 - 5.6 OSS

for these lenses if comparing to a dslr it'd be 32mm f2.8 and 36-110mm?

I didn't realise the that sensor is so big so micro 4/3s and the NEX should be better for low light (if not great in high ISO) and much better quality than a compact.

No the crop factor for the NEX is 1.5 so...

16mm x 1.5 = 24mm (i.e., the 16mm lens on the NEX is like a 24mm lens on a 35mm full frame SLR)

and the 18-55 is 27-82 (35mm full frame equivalent)

By far the majority of consumer DSLRs have the same sensor size as the NEX so there is no difference in how the lenses behave.

dinneenp

this quote from DPreivew:
Despite having sensors 50% larger than the Micro Four Thirds format, the Sony NEX cameras are smaller and thinner than either the Panasonic GF1 or Olympus E-PL1 compared here.

So this would be one big reason for choosing a NEX over the Micro 4/3 offerings I presume.
I'm liking the idea of it more and more, espically as we have a compact at home. Think I'll call into a store and check them out properly.