Before we let any of our friends spend any of their hard earned money on one of these cameras, would someone please post some good shots taken with the mid range zoom like the 14-45.
Yes, you are right! I do not like these cameras.
Edited to delete the rest of my commentary.
#1. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 0Fri 17-Jun-11 12:46 AM | edited Fri 17-Jun-11 12:48 AM by Covey22
Here's a link to the Image Sample Archive of various native MFT lenses on MU-43.com. Disclaimer: I did conduct a review of the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 for this site, but I was not compensated in any way for it (other than to use a GF-2 and the lens for 30 days on loan from the retailer).
Here's a link directly to the Panasonic 14-45 MFT lens Image Archive. (11 pages - look for work done by the user ~F1L1P, particularly notable)
Here's a link directly to the Olympus 14-42 MFT lens Image Archive.
Here's a link directly to the Panasonic 14-42 MFT lens Image Archive.
#2. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 1Fri 17-Jun-11 10:16 AM | edited Fri 17-Jun-11 10:18 AM by jpFoto
Thanks for the links. I looked at a number of the photos this morning and there are certainly some "keepers." It's difficult to make a judgment on many of them since they are small images and I couldn't find any EXIF data. I also looked at some of the images taken with the 45-200 which was really the culprit in my case. Again, there were some keepers. I'm going to try to find my images and review the EXIF data again.
Once again, I think that the Panasonic 20mm pancake is a stellar lens, and I have no knowledge whatsoever about the Oly system. However, I have followed these threads from time to time and more than one person has reported that they are unhappy with the IQ or have returned the merchandise. If the system works for you, then that is all that is important.
My point is that prospective buyers should proceed with caution, but everyone's expectations are different. I like to print 13x19s and that was not going to be possible with my copies of the equipment that I had purchased.
#3. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 2Fri 17-Jun-11 11:57 AM
Concur. I agree with you that not everyone's expectations will be met with this system. In addition to your cautions, I also offer to prospective buyers that they should really try to locate a brick-and-mortar and handle the system before purchasing. I had the opportunity to do some field-testing with MFT systems that the owners kindly loaned to me or allowed me to use during shooting sessions before making my own purchasing decision. There's nothing like seeing the hardware in operation and trying it out for yourself.
#4. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 3Fri 17-Jun-11 12:43 PM
I found some of my images from my brief experience with the GF-1, and have reviewed the EXIF data in great detail. In all fairness, I have to say that I was expecting too much from the system. The shots that started my war with the camera were taken with the 45-200 at almost 200mm, wide open at F 5.6 and at F 9; and then others with the 14-45 at ISO 800. You have made it very clear in your prior posts that these lenses need to be stopped down to be as you said "serviceable." I guess that I have been spoiled by the pro-glass that you can shoot wide open and walk away with stunning results. I have a few images of my wife taken with the 14-45 at about 30mm, stopped down to about f 6.3, and they are really very nice.
This is my official cease-fire and I admit to being at least partially to blame for the bad results. Everything that you have said is correct, and you have given the proper admonishments to prospective buyers as to what to expect and how to obtain good results.
#6. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 5Fri 17-Jun-11 08:13 PM | edited Fri 17-Jun-11 11:25 PM by jpFoto
Hello again Armando
I have just re-read my last post, and although I have declared a cease-fire and have disposed of all of my powder, I don't want anyone to think that I have completely changed my opinion or endorse the purchase of this cameras system. I acknowledge that you cannot expect a very capable Camry to keep up with a 911. I should not have used the 45-200 at 5.6 and 9, but I need that, and more. I also need (now that I've experienced it) the ability to shoot at ISOs over 400 with acceptable results. I also "need" a lens that will let me get good portraits at f stops under 6.3. These are, in my opinion, serious limitations, but if you can live with them you are going to enjoy the camera and the system.
My disappointment was really with the lenses as opposed to the camera itself. I think that as you lead your flock that you should recommend the best lenses and warn the unknowing about the pitfalls of the others. And, I think that you have been doing just that.
#8. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 6Sat 18-Jun-11 11:56 PM
Again, in the spirit of fairness, I paid about $1,600.00 for the entire four thirds system, including the body and the three lenses, the 20mm, the 14-45, the 45-200 and the Electronic View Finder. I paid more than that for my 24-70. So, how could I possibly expect comparable results? I think that we can all agree that good glass is the most important element when it comes to selecting our equipment. That is probably why the D3100 works for me since I already had the nice glass.
#7. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 5snegron Nikonian since 05th May 2007Fri 17-Jun-11 08:33 PM
I am certain that I am not the most qualified person to post an opinion of the m4/3 system as I have only had the opportunity to shoot with the Olympus E-PL2 (recently returned it for the reasons I outlined in the thread I posted here recently).
I shot with the 14-42 kit lens, but I don't think the lens was the problem. I have had cameras in the past (Nikon D70, etc.) with low-performing sensors; no matter what lens I mounted on it (Nikon 17-55mm 2.8) the low pass filter made the images look smeared. That is the same issue I had with my E-PL2.
Maybe I had a bad copy, I don't know. The battery heating up and the grip becoming loose made me believe that there was definitely a quality control issue with this camera.
Did my negative experience with the E-PL2 taint my enthusiasm for the m4/3 system. Unfortunately yes. My opinion is that there were too many things wrong with the camera I got to be able to trust Olympus. Would Panasonic have been a better choice? Perhaps. The sour taste I was left with after using the E-PL2 however makes me want to think twice before jumping into a small format camera system.
As for trying it out at the store, there are no local stores in my area (or within a 200 mile radius) that sells the E-PL2. I purchased it purely on specs and reviews. If I had had the chance of holding the E-PL2 I would have thought it was a good camera because it felt solid and well built (except for the all-plastic lens). I would have had to take an SD card with me to the store and captured several shots in order to analyze the image-taking capability.
I was expecting performance and image quality of the E-PL2 to be better than my Lumix LX3 point and shoot yet less than my D200. Unfortunately my E-PL2 did not come anywhere near the IQ of my LX3; I could only compare it to my mom's old Nikon Coolpix point and shoot. I don't think I could have gotten a print bigger than 5"x7" with the E-PL2.
Would I recommend an m4/3 system to a friend? I would advise my friend to stay away from the m4/3 system (at least from the Olympus E-PL2) until all the bugs are taken care of. If you want high quality images, look into DX or bigger.
Here is a link to my gallery containing exif info of shots I took with the E-PL2.
#9. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 0
Here's a shot with the GH1 and the 7-14. I'd say it gives my 14-24 a run for it's money. Not all the Panasonic lenses come up to this standard. I have the 45-200 and it's just not there. Never used the 14-45 but what I've heard it's a mediocre kit lens.
Click on this shot to see it at a better resolution.
D3, D200, D70, F6, F3/T, F2AS, FM2N
"The Gods have two ways of dealing harshly with us. The first is to deny us our dreams. The second is to grant them."
Irish playwright Oscar Wilde
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#10. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 9Sun 19-Jun-11 09:12 PM
It is indeed a very nice shot, and if you hadn't provided the EXIF data and had said that you had shot it with your D3 and your 14-24, I would have believed it, but I think that that really is what we have concluded here. You shot the image at 1/30 at F9 with your ISO at 160. Since the lens has a maximum aperture of F4, that is about 2-1/4 stops down. That is approximately what Armando had recommended and what I had agreed would give the best results.
You either have a very steady hand or a very good technique, or both. My attempts at 1/30 are very "iffy." With the 14-24 on my D3100 (or your D3), we could have taken that shot at 1/120 at F4 with the same ISO and we would achieved similar results.
Once again, I don't think that I had started a "fair fight" and I admit it, but I don't think that anyone should even try to win such a fight. If anyone wants a 4/3 system and can live with the limitations then they should "go for it." They are very attractive looking cameras and for most of us, very hard to resist.
And, again, that is a very nice shot.
#11. "RE: 4/3 Cameras" | In response to Reply # 10Larry E30 Nikonian since 27th May 2009Wed 22-Jun-11 01:35 PM | edited Wed 22-Jun-11 01:49 PM by Larry E30
Hi JP and all. Now we all know the good quality of Nikon.(.)!
Recently - my D5000 got stolen...; so I was hoping to replace whole system with;
Panasonic "G",8mm,7-14,14-150,and 100-300mm set-up.
Point being this; I KNOW 4/3'S IS NOT THE QUALITY OF NIKON DX.
(for me-FULL time SWIVEL was key factor)
I'll tell ya this,though,-I also have the Olympus E-PL1,14-50,and 45-150mm.(got my set-up for $600.00)
so small,and the IQ is not bad.
Nikon has Panasonic and Olympus WAY beat in high ISO-low noise.
Really - the camera I want is not made yet - as with most of us.!
From here with the Olympus E-PL1 sys.;
Happy day to all/Larry