[Leica] M4/3 format ascendant

[pklein at threshinc.com (Peter Klein)]

I'm with Larry on this one.  And while I'm happy to see Kyle is finding 
micro 4/3 to be good enough for him some of the time, he is a little 
late to the m-4/3 party.  He is using a first-generation m-4/3 camera, 
as is Nathan (there's very little IQ difference between the 1 and 2 
series Panasonics).

I used such a camera for several years: the original Panasonic G1. It 
was just barely adequate in IQ except in broad daylight.  But as I had 
two frozen shoulders in succession, it was a godsend. There is a world 
of difference between those first m-4/3 cameras and the recent 
offerings.  The current Olympus EM-1 and the E-M5 are indeed almost 
indistinguishable from APS-C in most practical use. If you pixel-peep, 
you probably will find a bit more noise at 100% at ISO 1600 and above. 
But this is IMHO compensated for by the prime lenses, which are superb 
in all areas except distortion, and software takes care of that.

Dpreview has stated, and I agree, that to really get a meaningful 
improvement in image quality from the best current m-4/3 cameras, you 
really have to go full-frame, with all the size and weight penalty that 
this entails. Using Micro 4/3 means that your subject is still 
photogenic even if it is much more than six feet from the car (apologies 
to Edward Weston).

Like Nathan, I still prefer my Leica M8 when it's suitable. But 
ironically, I often turn to the Oly E-M5 for low light, because it's 
just plain better. I'd like to have an RF for those conditions, but the 
$7,000-$8,000 cost makes that highly problematical.

--Peter

 > Hi Larry,
 >
 > I use both MFT and APS-C in the Leica M and Fuji X flavors. I will 
say that
 > there is a difference between MFT and APS-C, at least as implemented 
in my
 > cameras. When the light is good, MFT is fine which is why I use it when
 > cycling--weight is at a premium in the handlebar bag. But once the 
sun goes
 > down it is no contest: the Fuji wins by a big margin. Admittedly, it 
may be
 > that my MFT camera, a Panasonic GF2, is a bit long in the tooth and 
newer
 > models have better-performing sensors.
 >
 > Anyway, for what I need it: a light camera I take with me when 
cycling and
 > still get good photos--the GF2 is brilliant.
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Nathan
 >
 > On 25 Feb 2014, at 02:17, lrzeitlin at aol.com wrote:
 >
 > > Over a year ago when I was still a consultant to Kodak I mentioned 
that
 > > the optical engineering manager assured me that it was almost 
impossible
 > > to differentiate pictures taken with APS-C and Micro 4/3 formats. 
This was
 > > from the guys who developed the sensor for the M8 and worked on the 
M9. He
 > > told me that the reason that many manufacturers didn't adopt the M4/3
 > > format was that it required signing up for the entire package, lens
 > > mounts, image distance, etc. as well as format size. You had to 
join the
 > > club. Only a few major manufacturers including Olympus, Panasonic and
 > > Leica opted to do so. APS-C required no such commitment. My post was
 > > received with great disinterest on the LUG. The blather about full 
frame
 > > and legacy lenses continued. It's a new world guys. Smaller cameras 
are
 > > the wave of the future. Goodbye to Speed Graphics, Rolleis, even 
Leicas.
 > > iPhones rule.
 > > Larry Z
 > > - - -?
 > > Jim is absolutely right when he says:?
 > > "Already M4/3 is very hard to distinguish from APS-C for
 > > most applications. And the fact remains that larger sensors mean larger
 > > lenses. Neither of the top 2 manufacturers of APS-C DSLRs has ever 
made a
 > > serious attempt at a high quality lens line for their cop sensor 
cameras.
 > > I'm talking about a full range of high speed primes and fast zooms, 
so if
 > > the users of APS-C cameras want really good glass, they're forced 
into the
 > > full frame lines. Only the m4/3 consortium have made a serious 
attempt at a
 > > complete system with premium glass optimized for the smaller 
sensor. The
 > > jewel-like Olympus 12mm f/1.8, the 75mm f/1.8, Panasonic 8mm 
fisheye and
 > > 7-14 are the result. Extremely compact lenses of extremely high optical
 > > quality."
 > >