Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Why Micro-4-3rds?
From: ken at (Ken Iisaka)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:34:49 -0700
References: <> <> <>

To me, it's a terrific combination of the size / image quality / price /
ease of use.  Hardly larger than many high-end PS cameras, particularly
combined with the excellent (but of course not Leica quality) Panny 20mm
which is just about the only lens I use now with my EP-1.

The image quality certainly doesn't match that of my M8, but just about
equal to most consumer-level DSLRs at a similar price point.

If I want to bring a camera in my coat pocket, it's my EP-1 with a Panny
If I want to bring a camera slung over my shoulder, it's my M8 with a
Summilux ASPH 35mm.
If I want to bring a camera with a few lenses, it's my M8 and my Billingham
Leica bag.

For the type of photography I do, I rarely see a need for a DSLR.  The live
view feature of the EP-1 is actually an advantage compared to DSLR, IMHO.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Vince Passaro <passaro.vince at>wrote:

> You guys are only fanning the flames, man. He's gonna come over that
> hilltop
> like a lion now.
> What you're essentially saying is: this is a totally effing great --
> stupendous -- step up from point and shoot digital pocket cameras, why it's
> so well done, it's almost if you close one eye just about as good as a good
> APS-C.
> Which is true.
> What Mark is saying is: this is not a serious camera because no amount of
> features or good technology can overcome its sensor size issues and if
> you're serious as an artist or a professional you should be talking about
> something else.
> Which is probably also true.
> Though, to do justice to the camera and to artists in general, a serious
> artist can make something lasting out of a stick and a rock. So the m4/3
> cameras are at least good enough to make very good pictures with. Just not
> at big enough size/high enough res to pass muster professionally.
> I still expect to hear screams and broken bones in the dark of night
> however.
> Vince
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM, David Rodgers <drodgers at
> >wrote:
> > I bought a GF-1 because it seemed the most economical way for me to be
> > able to use some of my existing lenses -- which quite frankly were
> > gathering dust -- as well as replace a 5-year old Fuji P&S.
> >
> > Micro Four Thirds is better than I anticipated and it has rekindled my
> > interest in photography. I'm sure an EP-2 would have done the same.
> >
> > The image quality from micro Four Thirds format is pretty darn good.
> > Where it's lacking, compared to an FX format camera like the D700 is the
> > low light capability. Still, Micro Four Thirds is OK at 1600 and really
> > good at 400-800. Thus light gathering capability isn't a strength (OTOH,
> > after years of shooting Tri_X, it isn't necessarily a weakness either).
> >
> > Resolution is excellent for such small sized cameras. Image quality is
> > closer to an APS-C camera than a P&S, but camera size is closer to a P&S
> > than an APS-C camera.
> >
> > On top of all that there seems to be a lot of R&D surrounding the format
> > right now. That's resulting in good optics, good camera features, and
> > generally more options from which to choose.
> >
> > Dave R
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See for more information
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Ken Iisaka
first name at last name dot org or com

In reply to: Message from r.s.taylor at (Richard Taylor) ([Leica] Why Micro-4-3rds?)
Message from drodgers at (David Rodgers) ([Leica] Why Micro-4-3rds?)
Message from passaro.vince at (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] Why Micro-4-3rds?)