Please make my head stop spinning.

[photo_chick]

Originally Posted by JoeDif

Nope, my only beef was the continued use of the phrase "DSLR quality image". I'm not quite sure what that means. The reference was that the PEN cameras were good but didn't quite reach the level of DSLR quality.

That is not a term I like either. Mainly because so much of what constitutes image quality is dependent upon more than just the DSLR designation. First there's the photographer. Then there's the quality of the glass, which can vary from craptastic to phenomenal, and then you have the age of the camera which can make a huge difference. There are point and shoots today that can easily outperform older DSLR's. An entry level DSLR with high end glass can produce better image quality than a full frame with entry level glass. And any camera in the hands of a photographer who knows what they're doing can produce better images than the fanciest camera in the hands of someone who doesn't.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by photo_chick

That is not a term I like either. Mainly because so much of what constitutes image quality is dependent upon more than just the DSLR designation. First there's the photographer. Then there's the quality of the glass, which can vary from craptastic to phenomenal, and then you have the age of the camera which can make a huge difference. There are point and shoots today that can easily outperform older DSLR's. An entry level DSLR with high end glass can produce better image quality than a full frame with entry level glass. And any camera in the hands of a photographer who knows what they're doing can produce better images than the fanciest camera in the hands of someone who doesn't.

I agree with everything you just said. And I'm guilty of using the term "dSLR-quality" as a substitute for APS-C sensor size. (I think more people understand what I'm referring to for dSLR quality).

And unquestionably.. there are new "small sensor" cameras that can easily out perform an older, larger sensor.
Unquestionably, image quality is dependent on the glass, on the skill of the photographer.
And unquestionably, 4/3s cameras can produce top notch photos.

But also unquestionably -- Where all else is equal (the glass, the skill of the photographer, the age of the technology. the age and quality of the processor), a larger sensor produces higher image quality than a small sensor. A full-frame has the potential to out-perform a crop-body, has the potential to out-perform a 4/3s, etc, etc.

OP indicated several different desires --- Stay within a small budget, better quality photos (through better lenses), and get something more compact.

So my point to OP, if getting something more compact was a top priority, then the 4/3s was a great choice. BUT... based on the desire to stay within a tight budget and also invest in lenses... and already owning a great camera body.. Whether it might be wiser to stick with what she has. I wasn't suggesting that her photographs would take a big step backwards if she switched to a 4/3s.... but the switch wouldn't be a step forwards. So with limited funds, and with already owning a great camera body, how much of a priority was downsizing.

[JoeDif]

Originally Posted by photo_chick

That is not a term I like either. Mainly because so much of what constitutes image quality is dependent upon more than just the DSLR designation. First there's the photographer. Then there's the quality of the glass, which can vary from craptastic to phenomenal, and then you have the age of the camera which can make a huge difference. There are point and shoots today that can easily outperform older DSLR's. An entry level DSLR with high end glass can produce better image quality than a full frame with entry level glass. And any camera in the hands of a photographer who knows what they're doing can produce better images than the fanciest camera in the hands of someone who doesn't.

Exactly!!! I recently viewed some images from the Olympus XZ-2, their newest high end P&S, taken by one of the Olympus Visionary photographers, that looked absolutely amazing. Put any good camera in a great photographers hands and you will usually get results way above average.

[Pea-n-Me]

Originally Posted by havoc315

I wasn't suggesting that her photographs would take a big step backwards if she switched to a 4/3s.... but the switch wouldn't be a step forwards.

Isn't part of getting good images, to you, using a camera you enjoy, and actually having it with you when the need arises? Or is it just all about the specs for you? Because really, it's both. You can't say images won't be a step forward unless you're talking just specs. Maybe they'd move very far forward if she grew as a photographer with a camera she enjoyed using more.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by Pea-n-Me

Isn't part of getting good images, to you, using a camera you enjoy, and actually having it with you? When the need arises? Or is it just all about the specs for you? Because really, it's both.

Absolutely! I'm a strong advocate of that, and that's why I love my RX100.

BUT -- budgets aren't unlimited. OP indicated a tight budget. If you look at any statement I made, I never suggested she shouldn't consider a 4/3s --- I said she should weigh HOW important downsizing was, versus her other desires.
It was implicit in the original post, that she wanted to upgrade her photography with better lenses. So I questioned what she most hoped to achieve. On a tight budget, with a desire for new lenses, was she better off spending about $250 on a whole new camera system, when $250 could buy some pretty good glass for her current system. I suggested she weight just *how* important downsizing was to her.

You make it sound like I told her, "you should never consider a 4/3s.. they are junk" --- I never said anything remotely approaching that.

[Pea-n-Me]

Originally Posted by havoc315

It was implicit in the original post, that she wanted to upgrade her photography with better lenses. So I questioned what she most hoped to achieve. On a tight budget, with a desire for new lenses, was she better off spending about $250 on a whole new camera system, when $250 could buy some pretty good glass for her current system. I suggested she weight just *how* important downsizing was to her.

That's not how I read it. She started off by saying she was thinking about getting a 4:3 camera (understood to be m4:3) and explicitly said she wanted something smaller and lighter than her Pentax. She said she'd been researching for days and was questioning more the difference between m4:3 choices (the E-PL2, the E-PL1 and the Panasonics) than keeping the K-X and buying new lenses. She also indicated she was interested in the NEX but couldn't afford it. Clearly, she seemed to really be wanting to make the move to mirrorless.

Originally Posted by sabrinadv1

I am looking at getting a 4/3 camera for my upcoming Disney trip in April. I currently own a Pentax K-X. Due to getting divorced after it was bought I have not bought any additional lenses for it. I want something smaller and lighter to carry around with me in the parks. I have been doing research for days and I can't make up my mind. I thought I had narrowed it down to the Olympus Pen E-pl2, but then I found a kit at Adorama for the E-PL1 that includes the underwater housing for a very reasonable amount of money for both items. I have looked at the Panasonics and really like them too. I have noticed that everywhere seems to recommend the Sony's but I can't afford them. My thought was to go with the older E-pl2 or E-pl1 so that I could afford to buy another lens or two to go with it. One of the biggest draws for me on this trip is the Flower and Garden festival at Epcot. Is there really that much of a difference in the size of the pen's to my K-X? Should I just buy another lens for it? See my head is all over the place Photography is just a hobby for me but I would like to get good shots and not feel like I wasted all my time taking shots that weren't worth taking.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by Pea-n-Me

That's not how I read it. She started off by saying she was thinking about getting a 4:3 camera (understood to be m4:3) and explicitly said she wanted something smaller and lighter than her Pentax. She said she'd been researching for days and was questioning more the difference between m4:3 choices (the E-PL2, the E-PL1 and the Panasonics) than keeping the K-X and buying new lenses. She also indicated she was interested in the NEX but couldn't afford it. Clearly, she seemed to really be wanting to make the move to mirrorless.

That's how you read it, but then you missed half of what she said:
Immediately after her initial post, she posted:

"I understand that the shot quality is more about my abilities than the camera . I just can't decide if buying the smaller camera is worth it or if I should just buy new lenses for the camera I already have."


And this was really the key question I was responding to. She wasn't just saying, "I want to go smaller in my budget" --- She was saying, "I'm considering whether it is worth spending my limited budget on a smaller camera, or sticking with my current camera and upgrading the glass"
I basically asked her, buying new lenses is very different than downsizing, and asked what she hoped to achieve.

For whatever reason, you chose only to focus on her statements about considering downsizing. You chose to ignore her other explicit and implicit statements on her other considerations and options. You weren't the only person, every poster ignored her question about getting lenses instead.

What followed were my responses that if downsizing is the top priority, the 4/3s was a great option. But if there are other considerations, need to consider best bang for the buck.

[nigelp]

"I want something smaller and lighter to carry around with me in the parks."

To be honest, I think your mind is partially made up - size is more important to you.

Sell the K-x to fund your purchase and go out and enjoy the Flower and Garden festival.

[Pea-n-Me]

Originally Posted by havoc315

That's how you read it, but then you missed half of what she said:
Immediately after her initial post, she posted:

"I understand that the shot quality is more about my abilities than the camera . I just can't decide if buying the smaller camera is worth it or if I should just buy new lenses for the camera I already have."

And this was really the key question I was responding to. She wasn't just saying, "I want to go smaller in my budget" --- She was saying, "I'm considering whether it is worth spending my limited budget on a smaller camera, or sticking with my current camera and upgrading the glass"
I basically asked her, buying new lenses is very different than downsizing, and asked what she hoped to achieve.

For whatever reason, you chose only to focus on her statements about considering downsizing. You chose to ignore her other explicit and implicit statements on her other considerations and options. You weren't the only person, every poster ignored her question about getting lenses instead.

What followed were my responses that if downsizing is the top priority, the 4/3s was a great option. But if there are other considerations, need to consider best bang for the buck.

I didn't miss it.

Originally Posted by sabrinadv1

I have been to a few stores. I can't find any of the cameras that I am considering in stock. I understand the shot quality is more about my abilities than the camera . I just can't decide if buying the smaller camera is worth it or if I should just buy new lenses for the camera I already have. Plus there are so many choices to comb through.

Once again we interpreted it differently. You saw the word "quality" and your technology radar went off. I saw it and took in the meaning of "it's more about the photographer than the camera".

[sabrinadv1]

Sorry for all of the confusion but at the time I was confused. I was trying to weigh my options and comb through the endless amount of information on the web. Who else better to come to for advise than the Dis . I have decided that I really do have a great camera that isn't huge and that I already know and love. I may have come off as not knowing anything about my camera of photography but I have taken a couple of photography classes at a local college. The first one was a film class dark room and all it was awesome. I do know the basics but I do not have a lot of experience. Also, between a divorce, getting remarried, school (I am an EMT in real life ), and three boys, I have not had the time or money to expand my equipment or knowledge. This will be the first vacation in a couple of years and I am really excited about taking my camera for the first time. My biggest fear is I am going to get to Disney and tire of lugging my camera around. That is why I was considering the smaller camera. I think at this point better glass is more important. We will be there for six nights and I just want to wonder around aimlessly and take pics at my leisure. I am going to invest in a good bag (which I have three boys to help carry ), a couple of lenses at least, a flash, and maybe even a gorillapod. I am sure I will not take all of it everyday, but I want the option. Thanks for help. I think the smaller cameras will grow leaps and bounds in the next few years, and I will wait until my current camera is way behind the curve before I get another.

[jewood1234]

Sounds like a smart idea! Have fun at WDW.

At the rate that new m43 cameras are rolling out you won't even recognize them in a few years!!

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by Pea-n-Me

I didn't miss it.

Once again we interpreted it differently. You saw the word "quality" and your technology radar went off. I saw it and took in the meaning of "it's more about the photographer than the camera".

False. None of my answers were heavily tech, until you decided to launch an uncalled for attack against me.
And I didn't focus on "quality".. I focused on the op actually asking, "is it worth it??"

You jumped on which 4/3s, while I actually answered the question.

[Pea-n-Me]

Sabrina, congrats on making your decision. Happy shooting!

Hopefully your question helped others learn more about m4:3.