Panasonic/Leica also.Hi, welcome to ClubSnap.
IIRC, only Olympus uses the 4/3 system now. Most of the cameras uses 1.5 crop. All cameras have their strength & weaknesses. You want want to go to the shop to try out the different cameras and see which is more comfy in your hands. Of course budget plays a part too.
Panasonic/Leica also.
There are certain pros and cons in using the 4/3 system. Being a smaller format than even APS-C, the cameras and lenses can be made smaller and lighter but at the expense of sensor noise. To achieve a comparable resolution, the precision of the lenses would have to be higher also. So even though the cameras and lenses may be smaller, it will not automatically mean that they are cheaper.
And this is an example of the unacceptably deep DOF that some people are lamenting about... taken with a 4/3 Olympus DSLR and a 'slow' prime lens at f/2.0
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/image/76127155.jpg
It is also a function of the focal length. Try getting that kind of DOF with a 50mm prime lens without resorting to f/2.0. The other consideration is the sharpness of the lens wide opened. A lot of prime lenses are just not that sharp wide opened and need to be stopped down at least a couple of stops to be sharply focussed thereby negating any advantage of a larger sensor. All the 4/3 prime lenses (Olympus, Sigma, Panasonic) available so far seem to be surprisingly sharp wide opened.DoF is a function of the subject distance also. I won't even need f/2.0 to achieve that kind of DoF if I'm shooting that up close. How about a half body human portrait
It is also a function of the focal length. Try getting that kind of DOF with a 50mm prime lens without resorting to f/2.0. The other consideration is the sharpness of the lens wide opened. A lot of prime lenses are just not that sharp wide opened and need to be stopped down at least a couple of stops to be sharply focussed thereby negating any advantage of a larger sensor. All the 4/3 prime lenses (Olympus, Sigma, Panasonic) available so far seem to be surprisingly sharp wide opened.
Nikon and Canon are about the same. But do post some examples please.You haven't been using Nikon, have you? I shoot mostly at wide open. ;p
Nikon and Canon are about the same. But do post some examples please.
I have shot film using Canon gears like EOS 10 and EOS 5 for many years before switching to digital. It doesn't take a genius to know that full frame sensor is better than cropped sensors. It would however be unfair to compare the image quality of full frame DSLRs with cropped FOV DSLRs as they cost easily 4X more. Would I get 4X the image quality? I think not. If and when I strike lottery or I go professional, I will upgrade to full frame. Till then I'll stick to my 1.6x and 2.0x FOV and improve my photographic skills and techniques from that platform.Well DOF/Bokeh is something that is subjective. Gald you are satisfied with your 4/3rds system. You've so far been using a 1.6X FOV or 2.0X FOV camera. If you have a chance, grab a Olympus OM3 or a Canon 5D. Shoot a few weeks with it and see how different it is. Use both your system side by side. Take 2 frames of each subject with each cam. See for yourself how the perspectives and DOF differs from each system.
Thanks for the samples.If they were, some people won't be bothered to use Nikkor lenses on their EOS bodies. ;p Of course, there are good Canon lenses also but Nikkors are designed to perform at wide open which many 3rd party lenses are not able to claim. Why do you think Nikon's 17-55/2.8 DX cost about $2k while 3rd parties only cost a fraction of that price?
Anyway, to be honest, I would rate Olympus optics ahead of Canon's.
Some examples, bear in mind that the crops are taken from a 12mp DX sized sensor. Most of the time I shoot wide open, I only shoot stop down when I need the DoF.
You can browse through my photobucket gallery for some other tests.
If they were, some people won't be bothered to use Nikkor lenses on their EOS bodies. ;p Of course, there are good Canon lenses also but Nikkors are designed to perform at wide open which many 3rd party lenses are not able to claim. Why do you think Nikon's 17-55/2.8 DX cost about $2k while 3rd parties only cost a fraction of that price?
Anyway, to be honest, I would rate Olympus optics ahead of Canon's.
Thanks for the samples.
Many lenses are actually sharp in the centre but soft at the edge especially wide opened though.
The fact that lenses like Nikon 17-55mm f2.8Dx is so expensive is actually quite funny to me as people don't blink an eye when they go all out to buy such lenses and then others would scream bloody murder when they hear that Olympus ZD lenses can cost $1.6k to $2.6k for super high (pro) grade and high grade lenses which are critically acclaimed and pin-sharp. :dunno:
It is also a function of the focal length. Try getting that kind of DOF with a 50mm prime lens without resorting to f/2.0. The other consideration is the sharpness of the lens wide opened. A lot of prime lenses are just not that sharp wide opened and need to be stopped down at least a couple of stops to be sharply focussed thereby negating any advantage of a larger sensor. All the 4/3 prime lenses (Olympus, Sigma, Panasonic) available so far seem to be surprisingly sharp wide opened.