Please make my head stop spinning.

Discussion in 'Photography Board' started by sabrinadv1, Jan 30, 2013.

  1. jimim

    jimim DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,310
    Thanks for all the great info. I agree that micro is a very hard group to understand. It's deff an interesting piece of equipment though. I really would love to buy one to play with but there r so many other things I want for my slr right now like a larger airport travel bag and new "forever" tripod and some more glass of course.

    Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. Pea-n-Me

    Pea-n-Me DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    22,924
    People get the terminology confused. I often see the sensors referred to as "micro four third sensors", when in fact they are 4:3 sensors in either the dSLR or mirrorless/micro four thirds lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system

    What is "slightly smaller" is the lens mount. Micro 4:3 lens mounts are 6mm smaller in diameter than on the 4:3 dSLRs, hence the need for an adaptor, although the digitally-designed lenses will work the same way.

    It's actually pretty simple technology, really. It's just that most people aren't very familiar with it. And there are now a lot of m4:3 camera choices, which have evolved as improvements were sought. More and more lens choices as well.

    Read more: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/

    Micro four third Gold Standard, the Olympus O-MD EM-5, voted Best Camera of 2012 by dpreview.com users:

    http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/
     
  4. nigelp

    nigelp Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    130
    I wonder what the advice would be if the dslr the OP has was a Nikon or Canon?

    Is the perception that the dslr in question is a pentax there fore it is inferior? therefore getting a micro4/3rds is a better option?

    I own a pentax and thought about going for smaller size /weight but didn't want to lose quality, depth of field, high iso. Yes I can get the equivalent in a smaller body but I would have to pay more than what my pentax cost!

    The K-x is a light weight dslr and one of the smaller ones. 123 x 92 x 68 mm for the Pentax compared with say Olym e-Pen3 122 x 69 x 34 mm

    Buying in to a new system will still leave you with the problem of having to buy new lenses eventually.
     
  5. Pea-n-Me

    Pea-n-Me DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    22,924
    I don't think so. Most of us on this thread are in the 4:3 camp and so are used to being the "other" after Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax. In other words, we're even lower! :rotfl2: so no worries there.

    I think, on this thread, it's more about making a choice because the OP wants something smaller yet still capable:
    It seems to be something a lot of folks are re-evaluating for themselves these days as technology improves and more user-friendly and smaller options become available. I think the Op and others are just tossing around the options because she specifically asked about the PEN. Many others are curious about this as well, but there is still some negativity out there that exists - as you no doubt are familiar with yourself - that we're trying to help clear up a bit.

    The thing is, we know darn right well that good images come not so much from the camera itself, but from the person behind the lens (although having a decent piece of equipment helps, of course). And micro four thirds is decent equipment, and very worthy of consideration for those looking for what the OP is looking for.
     
  6. JoeDif

    JoeDif DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,383
    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.
     
  7. photo_chick

    photo_chick Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,960
    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.
     
  8. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,468
    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.
     
  9. JoeDif

    JoeDif DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,383

    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.
     
  10. Pea-n-Me

    Pea-n-Me DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    22,924
    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.
     
  11. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,468
    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.
     
  12. Pea-n-Me

    Pea-n-Me DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    22,924
    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.

     
  13. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,468
    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.
     
  14. nigelp

    nigelp Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    130
    "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.
     
  15. Pea-n-Me

    Pea-n-Me DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    22,924
    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".
     
  16. sabrinadv1

    sabrinadv1 Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    406
    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 :lovestruc. 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 :laughing:), 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 :rotfl:), 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.
     
  17. jewood1234

    jewood1234 Earning My Ears

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    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!!
     
  18. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,468
    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.
     
  19. Pea-n-Me

    Pea-n-Me DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    22,924
    Sabrina, congrats on making your decision. Happy shooting! :goodvibes

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

Share This Page