Should i go for m4/3 or DSLR cameras?


Status
Not open for further replies.

rwhite

New Member
Aug 21, 2009
543
0
0
#1
I'm getting a serious camera for my hobby and sometimes required projects. I have around 2-3k budget. At 1st i was interested in m4/3 cameras, such as the latest Ep-2, but getting it with Panny 17mm and another lenses (around 2.3k+), i can get a good DSLR cameras such as D90 or 50D with 1 good lens.

I like the portability of m4/3 cameras, but tempted to invest in lenses for DSLR in the future.

My projects mainly in shooting exterior buildings, landscapes.

Good advices needed, thank you

haiiz... this is 2nd post, 1st post at wrong sections, sorry....
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#2
The m4/3 will not match the DSLR in terms of final IQ output, or at least I was told by one Engineer.

The answer is easy: Ask yourself what is the conceivable highest/most critical final output requirements of your projects and you will have your answer.
 

rwhite

New Member
Aug 21, 2009
543
0
0
#3
The m4/3 will not match the DSLR in terms of final IQ output, or at least I was told by one Engineer.

The answer is easy: Ask yourself what is the conceivable highest/most critical final output requirements of your projects and you will have your answer.
I think both fits my requirement for the projects :)
 

Elessar

New Member
Apr 18, 2007
251
1
0
#4
if you are really s-e-r-i-o-u-s you can consider a second hand full frame dslr (eg a 5d). you would also have a larger range of ultra wide lenses to choose from if you are into landscapes/buildings, etc. however the cam would be heavy. the m4/3 scores very highly on portability, but the 2x crop means you have limited choices for uwa lenses.
 

Jul 26, 2002
1,376
0
0
Woodlands
#5
The m4/3 will not match the DSLR in terms of final IQ output, or at least I was told by one Engineer.

The answer is easy: Ask yourself what is the conceivable highest/most critical final output requirements of your projects and you will have your answer.
Just curious but why would m4/3 not match up to a DSLR in IQ? As far as I can tell, it uses the exact same sensor as that of the 4/3 DSLRs.

Elessar said:
if you are really s-e-r-i-o-u-s you can consider a second hand full frame dslr (eg a 5d). you would also have a larger range of ultra wide lenses to choose from if you are into landscapes/buildings, etc. however the cam would be heavy. the m4/3 scores very highly on portability, but the 2x crop means you have limited choices for uwa lenses.
Olympus will be releasing the 9-18 (equiv. to 18-36) lens early next year and the Panasonic 7-14 (equiv. 14-28) is already available. IIRC, a Fisheye is also in the line up from Olympus.
 

Last edited:

wildcat

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2004
3,269
1
38
Bedok
#6
The m4/3 has served me well (I used a Panasonic G1 for more than a year). You should ask this question in the m4/3 community, to understand what are the pros and cons of a m4/3 system.

Judging by what you need, I'd say a m4/3 should fit your requirements well. One reason I moved to the Dark Side is the low-light capabilities of m4/3 systems are not as good as some of the mainstream DSLRs like Nikon. But there are plenty of pros that have been discussed thoroughly in m4/3 forum already

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=617890 is a good place to start.

I never regretted getting my G1. I would have regretted not getting my G1.
Same same, but different ;p
 

wildcat

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2004
3,269
1
38
Bedok
#7
Just curious but why would m4/3 not match up to a DSLR in IQ? As far as I can tell, it uses the exact same sensor as that of the 4/3 DSLRs.
Really?

A FF is 36 x 24 mm (8.64 cm²)
A Nikon DX is 23.6 x 15.8 mm (3.72 cm²)
Canon uses 22.2 x 14.8 mm (3.28 cm²)
Any 4/3 including the E3 uses 18.00 x 13.50 mm (2.43 cm²).

Different manufacturers... so even if talking about FF, Canon and Nikon are not same same leh.
 

An drew

Senior Member
May 27, 2005
3,920
9
38
#8
Really?

A FF is 36 x 24 mm (8.64 cm²)
A Nikon DX is 23.6 x 15.8 mm (3.72 cm²)
Canon uses 22.2 x 14.8 mm (3.28 cm²)
Any 4/3 including the E3 uses 18.00 x 13.50 mm (2.43 cm²).

Different manufacturers... so even if talking about FF, Canon and Nikon are not same same leh.
FF is the same for Nikon and Canon at 36 x 24 (D700, 5D2) with perhaps minor differences (D3X 25.9 x 24). Crop is different.

I think a m4/3 camera can perform as well as the other major brands except for a little more noise since the sensor is smaller. m4/3 can definitely be considered but if you are tempted to invest in lenses for DSLR in the future then get a DSLR.
 

Elessar

New Member
Apr 18, 2007
251
1
0
#9
Olympus will be releasing the 9-18 (equiv. to 18-36) lens early next year and the Panasonic 7-14 (equiv. 14-28) is already available. IIRC, a Fisheye is also in the line up from Olympus.
yes, but......compared to the vast availability of good 2nd hand canikonsonypentaxsigmatamrontokina lenses already out there you can really pick and choose according to your budget and needs.....

btw if your photos are only meant for the web or small print sizes, then sensor size is not really an issue. m4/3 is fine.
 

Last edited:

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#10
it is about
- prioritisation
- expectations and needs.

for portability and decent quality, m4/3 is a good consideration (i'm considering one).

for value, quality and versatilibility, DSLR is good. u can easily get a 2nd hand not-the-latest model and get it very cheaply and shoot just as well.

however, good lens do weigh the DSLR down even further. you do not automatically get better image quality with a DSLR

portable m4/3 lens is not that many. they have a smaller support base and is more eager to increase the base by keep changing, and may not support backward compatibility. it is a big sum to pay but may or may not last you for that long.
 

Last edited:

rwhite

New Member
Aug 21, 2009
543
0
0
#11
Hey guys, thank you for the invaluable comments :D

Yes, i do worried about the low light conditions for the m4/3 cameras but i dun think i will shoot indoor or night scenes so often.

I have 2 friends, 1 is a Canon user and he let me tried his 30D camera, i like Canon interfaces, very easy to use, comfortable to hold.

Another friend is a Nikon user, tried his D90, a bit big and heavy, but he told me "Canon are made from engineers, Nikon are made from photographers" hahaha... quite funny.

I'm open on buying a 2nd hand DSLR or even m4/3 cameras, i just need to research more on them.... hmm...

Currently looking at Pen 1, 50D, D90... any cameras you guys can recommend within my budget is deeply appreciated.

thank you again guys ;)
 

Last edited:
Jul 26, 2002
1,376
0
0
Woodlands
#12
it is about
- prioritisation
- expectations and needs.

for portability and decent quality, m4/3 is a good consideration (i'm considering one).

for value, quality and versatilibility, DSLR is good. u can easily get a 2nd hand not-the-latest model and get it very cheaply and shoot just as well.

however, good lens do weigh the DSLR down even further. you do not automatically get better image quality with a DSLR

portable m4/3 lens is not that many. they have a smaller support base and is more eager to increase the base by keep changing, and may not support backward compatibility. it is a big sum to pay but may or may not last you for that long.
There is no backward compatibility issue with m4/3 or 4/3 because there are no "backward" or legacy lenses to support in the first place. You buy a m4/3 or 4/3 lens now and it'll still be usable with any m4/3 or 4/3 camera in the future.
 

orson

New Member
Dec 13, 2009
55
0
0
#13
i was kinda putoff by the high price of the m4/3 kits compared to the dslr. specially with all your comments about the superior performance of the latter. so is the price premium because of the m4/3 portability? is it worth the $$$?
 

Fragment

New Member
Oct 25, 2008
692
0
0
#14
There is no backward compatibility issue with m4/3 or 4/3 because there are no "backward" or legacy lenses to support in the first place. You buy a m4/3 or 4/3 lens now and it'll still be usable with any m4/3 or 4/3 camera in the future.
m4/3 body can use 4/3 lens.

4/3 body cannot use m4/3 lens.
 

dorts

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2007
2,203
1
38
SG
#15
i was kinda putoff by the high price of the m4/3 kits compared to the dslr. specially with all your comments about the superior performance of the latter. so is the price premium because of the m4/3 portability? is it worth the $$$?
If you are not willing to pay for the m4/3, try the E-620. :)
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#16
There is no backward compatibility issue with m4/3 or 4/3 because there are no "backward" or legacy lenses to support in the first place. You buy a m4/3 or 4/3 lens now and it'll still be usable with any m4/3 or 4/3 camera in the future.
compatibility is not all about lens. there are other accessories such as the electronic viewfinder.
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#17
i was kinda putoff by the high price of the m4/3 kits compared to the dslr. specially with all your comments about the superior performance of the latter. so is the price premium because of the m4/3 portability? is it worth the $$$?
to some, leica is worth the $. to some, they won't pay that kind of money. so whether worthy or not really depend on certain things.

the portability may be impt for those who carry a smaller bag, who want to carry the camera everywhere without burdening the shoulder, who want to be less conspicuous in their approach, and who do not want to be viewed with high expectations or be criminally harassed by security guards.

to some, the form factor and design is impt. they pay for it as a fashion statement - whether or not they justify otherwise is another matter.
 

rwhite

New Member
Aug 21, 2009
543
0
0
#18
to some, leica is worth the $. to some, they won't pay that kind of money. so whether worthy or not really depend on certain things.

the portability may be impt for those who carry a smaller bag, who want to carry the camera everywhere without burdening the shoulder, who want to be less conspicuous in their approach, and who do not want to be viewed with high expectations or be criminally harassed by security guards.

to some, the form factor and design is impt. they pay for it as a fashion statement - whether or not they justify otherwise is another matter.
I always kenna harrased by security guards!!! :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
Done a few projects with my photgrapher, 1 DSLR, 1 tripod, hor seh liao, havent shoot already kenna stop. Then i told them it's not against the law to shoot the buildings, especially outside their premises, they just told me to go away, LOL :bsmilie::bsmilie:
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,353
8
38
sing
#19
Imagine putting yourself in a fictional imaginary cage.
As you learn more in the hobby, the cage gets too small and prevents you from growing.
That imaginary cage is .....(better not say or else other people get angry)

Then again, you could buy both.
There are some advantages such as small size to the other choice.

But by and large, for those of us who already have legacy lenses from the 35mm SLR film cameras, it is no contest. I want to use them. And if I can afford it -- at FULL FRAME meaning the 35mm frame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Because if you have a high-end expensive 20mm wide angle lens you want to take landscapes with it. You do not want to end up with a 40mm focal length and a 2x factor.
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom