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: jsmith342 at gmail.com (Jeffery Smith)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:43:05 -0500
References: <F4592F71-4FA4-48E9-B48C-640B335739D1@comcast.net> <DC4B73A4105FCE4FAE0CEF799BF84B36052E9B32@case-email.casefoods.com> <r2g19b6d42d1004151315h3c7ab6c6qc40f717c728ec84d@mail.gmail.com>

I don't know about totally effing great, but I have seen a lot of good 
images taken with these cameras. Good enough to put slide film out of 
business. And the camera can be carried around without a lot of fuss with no 
need to fill one's pockets with film. It looks enough like a cheap camera 
that one won't likely get mugged for it (it's safer to just steal one's 
sister's point and shoot to buy a rock of crack). 

Have you seen the results of a raw image from one of these little cameras? 
It could just make a believer out of you.

Jeffery


On Apr 15, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Vince Passaro 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 
> casefarms.com>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 http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



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