MFT: the decline of the empire

[Pelao]

If you really don't want to be pedantic, just don't make this story last more. I said the 350D sensor displays half the noise the GF1's in the shadows. That means 2 things: the difference in noise is visible, and the 350D has one extra stop in DR. End of the story.

We seem to be talking past each other. Of course you are correct in the the raw measurement. My assertion is that in real world end-use of the image, it often does not matter. That's my story.

[DarkPenguin]

There is also a non trivial resolution advantage of the panny sensor over the 350d's.  But the DR thing can be a problem.

[neal1740]

I have loved this wondrous discussion. The real meaning to my personal use is how slow contrast detection cameras are in focusing. To me they are all very similar.  I wanted a walk around camera and sold my Gf1 and its lenses and bought a Leica X1 which in my estimation produced better images than the Gf1 Enough said. Neal

[fredjeang]

I have loved this wondrous discussion. The real meaning to my personal use is how slow contrast detection cameras are in focusing. To me they are all very similar.  I wanted a walk around camera and sold my Gf1 and its lenses and bought a Leica X1 which in my estimation produced better images than the Gf1 Enough said. Neal

The other day I passed in front of a shop, and there was this X1. Very tiny...superb image quality. I have to admit that I've been tempted.

[Pelao]

I have loved this wondrous discussion. The real meaning to my personal use is how slow contrast detection cameras are in focusing. To me they are all very similar.  I wanted a walk around camera and sold my Gf1 and its lenses and bought a Leica X1 which in my estimation produced better images than the Gf1 Enough said. Neal

I had an opportunity to play with an X1. Outstanding camera, in my view: this one had a great optical VF. My smaller 'quality' camera is currently a GF1, with which I am very happy. I suppose it's true that with interchangeable lenses it offers more flexibility than the X1, but that's not the big point for me. As this is a secondary camera, I just would not be prepared to spend the amount demanded by the X1. Great camera, but it's advantages are simply not worth the cash.

[tnargs]

.... I made a choice for the Pentax. No regret, can mount without adapter any K mount lenses and as I focus 90% manually, some really serious vintage M primes. IQ in low light is much much better, .....

Pana GH1 would be equal or better than Pentax K7 in low light -- dxomark rates low light performance at 811 for the KX, 772 for the GH1, and 536 for the K7 (identical to the EP1). So the differences claimed in favour of APS-C are exaggerated.

Also, what concerned and disappointed me a lot is that there are not specially silent being mirrorless,

coming....

[tnargs]

For a thread about the survival of m4/3 I think there has been a lot of emphasis on the pocket rangefinder concept of m4/3 and not enough on the small system concept.

I am in the process of choosing my first digital system camera, with no legacy lens issues to consider (as I am not serious about using my Canon FD lenses with adapters).

I pursued the ultra quality approach (FF) and by the time I pack my fantasy desired kit of one body and an ultrawide zoom, 50 prime, 100 prime or macro, and 70-200/300 zoom plus a flash, the kit weighs about 3.5 to 4.0kg, even using f4 zooms.

I then examined APS-C and found the primes are basically FF units anyway and the zooms also tend to be FF unless I accept kit-zoom quality. The weight and size saving was not what I anticipated.

4/3 was close to APS-C, and hence close to FF! Although some lovely lenses on offer, but no size or weight saving worth bragging about.

m4/3 is completely different, offering a kit based on a GH1 that quite frankly blitzes the three above for size and weight while offering excellent quality and ranging from 14mm to 400mm (equivalent), and a total weight of 1300g as a travel kit is very compelling, as I have enough sore shoulder holiday memories from my SLR kit which is, discouragingly, lighter than any of the above 3 DSLR kits (although I am not saying it is equivalent to them, being 1 body 4 primes and a flash). With the above GH1-based m4/3 system, most body/lens combos weigh 500-750g vs 900-2200g for alternative systems with equivalent fields of view. The GH1 sensor matches the leading APS-C sensors (on average), and one could add one of the RF-like bodies for use as an everyday carry-to-work camera, doubling as a spare body or spouse camera on holiday. Hmm!

For the other makers to seriously compete on the above terms, they need to (a) make a new suite of lightweight compact lenses, and ( b ) release something that competes head-to-head (with no material IQ loss) with their own APS-C lines, which even now depend on FF lenses for much of their high quality range. Sony have started (a) but they have not embarked on ( b ), probably wisely, and Canikon may also be wise.