Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: If Size Really Matters, What's the Meaning of Micro-4/3 Now?

Saturday, July 31, 2010

If Size Really Matters, What's the Meaning of Micro-4/3 Now?



My NEX is actually smaller than my Girl Friend.. Some people claim that the NEX standard kit lens is much larger. But actually, as you can see from the above, it is just similar in size (and weight as well, actually). And then some Oly guys say that the Oly 14-42mm E-PL kit lens is much smaller. Yes, but it is just retracted when it is needed to be small and the lens must be unretracted before it can be used for shooting!

I think I shall not use my Girl Friend anymore, unless I have no other camera in hands. The noise performance of my GF at ISO 400 is not much better than that of my NEX at ISO 1600, not even to mention that the NEX has slightly higher effective resolution. If I just need the 2X crop, I do believe that better results can always be obtained by cropping. Slightly crop the 1.5X pictures to get the 2X is not difficult. And, if I just adapt the same lens (say, a Pentax one), I get no extra resolution at all for what the lens could give me.

Besides, I don't like the colour response of the GF neither, so does not with my NEX anyway (which I find it to be somehow more acceptable). If I put my Pentax primes on the GF, the colour response of the pics are better, but still the results are not very good. In fact, I like the colour response of my Pentax combos most, and then followed by my 5D with L lenses. The NEX comes next and the last is the Pana.

Furthermore, the noise handling and noise structure of the NEX is the most mature, the K-x is not better but the GF is worst. When the GF pics are pixel peeped and viewed in pixel level, it is not difficult to see those P&S like noise reduction and sharpening, even at the ISO 100! Too bad..

So, after all, that's what I think and here comes my question: What's the meaning/value of the micro-4/3 system now if the current Sony IDLCs (and also the Samsung NX EVILs), both of which are with APS-C sized sensors, are made just as small and the size/weight differences are almost negligible??

With similar or just the same functionality (say, including the video capability), IQ wise the APS-C should do better. The video recording functions of the NEX and the GF are similar, say, for the continuous AF tracking and its speed and smoothness. But the NEX' recorded videos are obviously less noisy than the GF, especially when the videos are taken indoor. The NEX in fact wins all micro-4/3 ILDCs hands down as long as noise performance is concerned, no matter for still pictures and videos, and with a slightly higher resolution and output, too. The NX10 could and should do better, but unfortunately Samsung has been unable to do it better. Why? In fact, the NX10 cannot out-perform much its micro-4/3 competitors and the video function is weak, e.g., there is no usable continuous AF under movie mode. And, the higher ISO noise/details are not better than the Panas and Olys, I would say one stop advantage at most, from my own practical experiences and measurbations on others' samples.



Next, above is the comparison picture I took and posted last time, for my red NEX against my red Casio card-size Exlim S10 P&S (which is my baseline DC which is just better than the cameraphone). You can see the body of the NEX is actually made quite compact. If the "large" APS-C sensor and size is considered, the camera body is indeed very small and it is truly compact!



So, how about to compare the NEX with the traditional APS-C DSLRs. The K-x is one of those smallest DSLRs here. But the difference in size (and weight also) is obvious. In particular, the K-x is much thicker, so does when it is compared against the smaller MZ DSLRs of Pentax back to the old film days.



Well, how about the difference to the Full Frame DSLRs then. From the above photo, I think I need not to say anything more. Well, the lens attached is that smallest and lightest EF lens already, i.e., the cheapo EF 50/1.8II. Canon, why you just can't make smaller lenses of yours?? :-( And, you never made any pancake? :-o


Read Also:-


Sony NEX-5 and NEX-3 Hands-on Impressions / Quick Review

Can Pentax DSLRs be Made Thinner?

Samsung NX10 Second Impressions and ISO Check

NX10 Brief Hands-on Impressions

My K-Mount EVIL is Here!

When Girl Friend Meets Wives! ;-D

Summary Matrix for Equipment Tests and Reviews

Comments (37)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Barbarosa's avatar

Barbarosa · 766 weeks ago

NEX is most ugliest camera on market, something like camera with huge tumor, when lens are attached
i don' know how good is balance in hand but i doubt that is ok
I hear the balance is not that great and leads to camera shake but I like the shooting speed. I shoot with a Nikon at work and I have several customers who bring in their NEX's and they shoot at the same speed. The only thing I hate about the 4/3 and NEX kits is the lenses. They are not retractable so really it kills the over all idea of compactness since the kx is not much bigger than a nex or 4/3 system. My point and shoot fits in my pocket if I need a smaller camera. I see these as just more markets to make more money and eventually these poeple will move up to a dslr anyway. this is just a spot between point and shoot and dslr but its a better market for sony and samsung to play though as they both make sensors and now can make their own cameras.
Nex should fit in pocket with primes. That's what Sony needs to do next (30mm F2, 50mm F2, 85mm F2).
Have you been drunk while writing this article? It just reads like... You forget the biggest two probs of the Sony: not compatible to any other lenses than what Sony supplies (which isn't much, 17 mm prime, come on!) and no built in stabilizer. With the m 4/3 you get a broader range of compatible lenses and optional stabilizer, which easily balances the 1 stop advantage of the APS-C Nex.
2 replies · active 765 weeks ago
too bad sony and samsung won't work together to develop this format
the way panasonic, olympus and lieica did
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Rice is right. Micro 4/3s will be in serious trouble. Just wait until the NEXt NEX model comes along, with more buttons and a built-in flash. or the next NXt NX from Samsung. The Sony cameras will sell to those who wants the best images and also the smallest size. The Samsung ones will sell to those who want the best usability, cheaper price and features at some small sacrifice to image quality and bulk. Its image quality is still slightly better than the M4/3s. And I haven't mentioned Nikon which is supposed to be joining the party. And Canon, which has even more advantages with its 1.6x crop size sensors, as its models will be able to take just about all the other APS-C lenses with an adapter, making it attractive to other DSLR owners wanting something smaller for traveling etc. So, what does that leave Panasonic? Panasonic will have to take the high end and make expensive mirror-less models with sophisticated video. The GH2 cannot come quick enough. What about Olympus, who abandoned 4/3 to concentrate on M4/3s, who does not have the strength, resources of Panasonic, or its video business and know-how? Will it be the beginning of the end for Olympus?
Agree agree with the assessment of image quality 4/3 vs APS-C. After Nikon and Canon jump to make mirrorless system, then, m43 will need to do significant innovation again to compete with them. Olympus will be more in trouble than Panasonic in this case.
Panasonic would be in trouble with their M4/3 cameras too because whatever they can do to add functionality and advanced features, say in video functionality, Sony can do better because the NEX sensor is larger and Sony has the same if not more video camera as well as electronics expertise. Sony may not be so good in the DSLRs, an enthusiast sector, but it is very good in miniaturization, packaging as well as in marketing in smaller camera sector. Once it starts pumping out more models, lenses, and higher models with more attention to usability, it will be hard for even Canon and Nikon to catch up. This looks like the perfect market for Sony to re-establish itself after its bad years and from what is shown in this first round, it looks promising. Let's see what the two big boys CandN do next. and also whether Samsung, no midget either, can deliver better quality lenses quickly and release better models. Should be interesting very soon.

What is the meaning of micro 4/3 now? Very little, I am afraid.
However, M4/3 will do better than NEX in terms of resolution if you use 16mm C-mount cine lens to take movie or photos as many cine lens cannot cover FF nor APS-C format! Don't forget that many cine lens have large apertures and wide angles to compensate for the high ISO noise weakness in M4/3. For lens that can cover APS-C or FF, still prefer normal DSLRs which have much better ergonomics and balance. NEX's AF lens wont be small as it will need in-lens optical stablisation except for wide angle large aperture primes.
Oké, the NEX-body is smaller than the M4/3 bodies. But... Take the 14-150, 9-18 and 17mm, and put it into a case. Then the NEX-system will be much larger.

The image quality of the NEX is better than the GF1 etc, but nut much than the E-pl1, G2, Pen2
Re 4/3 discussion: Olympus dslrs have some more visible noise at higher iso with nr disabled. There is not much more than apsc dslrs if you check Dpreview's E620 review. This noise is very film-like in my experience.
However, resolution is well maintained in spite of some extra noise. I use both 4/3 (e420) for a light walkabout and apsc dslrs. The format of 4/3 suits many subjects quite well. I like it. The lenses are great, and there are some very good lower price ones: 25mm 2.8, 35mm 3.5 macro.
The point of 4/3, micro or dslr, is the light weight, and framing format.
I agree with the concerns the M4/3 community has to have with the release of the NEX and the Samsung NX series - Why would anyone buy our system when you can get similar systems with bigger sensors and better quality?

Clearly, it shouldn't mean Olympus and Panasonic should cash it in just yet. First of all, despite the great sales Sony has had, M/43 is still more established. Starting with 4/3 itself, that platform has already built a relationship with third party lensmakers, and, well, there are two companies - and people may feel more comfortable buying into a system with two companies sharing a lensmount than one proprietary mount.

And of the two, Panasonic has to feel the most secure since it does video. With the HD camcorder announced, Panasonic can sell cheap HD with Leica lenses.

And Sony and Samsung can screw things up. Clearly, Samsung making a clean cut from the K Mount, not providing a full function adapter for lenses sends a message they don't care about supporting legacy lenses (whether that's true or not is in the mind of Samsung). And both need to get third-party lensmakers on board right away.

Some of the discussion here makes me wonder - how small is small enough? Clearly, neither the m4/3 or NEX would fit in a pocket with a lens mounted, and it still is not the easiest carrying around spare lenses in your pockets. So, as far as portability, these systems will never compete with the portability of P/S cameras.

So how small do people want to go for an interchangeable lens system? Clearly, there is a group of people who want a smaller, lighter camera, but does it need to be the smallest? If Pentax got the Kx to a size comparable to their old film cameras, would that be enough? WIll there be a group that would love a smaller camera, but retain the viewfinder and a flash unit?
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
It is actually quite comfortable to hold, for those who have not and presume it to be uncomfortable.....please do go down to the nearest store and give it a try. It harks back to the days of the f707 and f717.

I think it is a fun camera to shoot with, either hiking or cycling, street. It feels nimble in the hand.
No surprise the bodies are of similar size, handling aspects and battery life limits how small they can be.

Lenses of similar optical quality and same FOV should be smaller on MFT, but Sony have managed to make the lenses small by compromising the optics. Some may find that acceptable.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
LandscapePhoto's avatar

LandscapePhoto · 765 weeks ago

Wait until the next generation of Panasonic sensors comes out. Sure NEX is better than the old GF1, which does not have nearly as good IQ as the Olympus e-pl1 -the best of the last generation- but will it be better than the new generation of Panasonic sensor that comes out at Photokina? We'll have to wait and see. And as others have pointed out, Leica glass, Panasonic glass and Olympus glass with in-body IS and 2X cropping more than make up for any miniscule benefit of a larger APS sensor.

But hey, competition benefits all of us so best of wishes to NEX users out there. I hope Sony and Pentax keep up with the innovations.
http://photorumors.com/2010/08/03/pentax-to-relea...

Pentax to develop mirroless camera system
What's the point of Micro Four Thirds? It's still the enthusiast's choice in the mirrorless sector. Let's see: it has 12 native lenses (with another half dozen being unveiled in the next few months) and 30 compatible lenses from Four Thirds (the majority of which will AF on an adapter, unlike the NEX and Alpha DLSR lenses, which will not AF at all). The NEX has... 2.

It has a standard flash bracket with FP-TTL capable native lenses and (on some models) wireless flash control. Not to mention compatibility with wireless triggers. Meanwhile, the NEX has a proprietary flash mount, X-sync only, a measly GN7-ish external flash with no swivel/bounce.

As for noise smearing, these cameras should be shot in RAW, to take advantage of their limited DR and (in the case of MFT) poor high ISO capabilities. Post capture noise processing will always be better than in-body NR anyway, since desktop PCs are an order of magnitude more powerful than the chips in camera bodies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very impressed with the NEX and have recommended it to many friends and family members. But it can't fill my photographic needs like my GF1 and 20/1.7, ME45, 7-14/4 and FL360 can. At some point, the NEX format is going to grow, and it might become a serious competitor for MFT in the enthusiast sector. But it's not there yet.
2 replies · active 765 weeks ago
Micro Four Third is going to be used som time in point and shoot and FF in all dsrls and aps-c in evils
.........."And then some Oly guys say that the Oly 14-42mm E-PL kit lens is much smaller. Yes, but it is just retracted when it is needed to be small and the lens must be unretracted before it can be used for shooting!"
....and what? It is smaller when retracted so it can be easily put into your beg.
You cannot do this with the NEX.
i have both gf1 and canon 5d i really didn't understand your blog. Why are you trying so hard for Sony products. Nex has low image quality comparing to m4/3. And nexes, like most other sony cameras do NOT have ISO 100 setting.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Why is it that people feel compelled to denigrate the Pany/Oly M43 cameras. They are just tools it is up to you and your skills to use them to achieve the results you require. Sony, Pany/Oly and Samsung can produce the results you want, okay so camera capability does come into it to some extent, but you decide what is acceptable to you.

I have an ELP1 and 4 lenses plus accessories, the IQ is good enough for me, I dont print above A3. but it is the weight saving that is the most useful to me, DSLR IQ at compact weight.

Design wise I think that the Pany/Oly are better as you have the full range of controls and flexibility that a my old E3 DSLR had.

Buy the camera to fit your requirements, take photos, be happy, who cares what other brands are doing, not me.

Cheers
NEX vs. GF1... I can see Rice's point. NEX vs. Olympus E-PL1 or even E-P2? Then it's not so clear. Final image quality of the Sony doesn't seem to be taking full advantage of what APS-C has to offer. And the camera is frustrating in terms of manual control. Meanwhile, the E-PL1's jpg engine is so good that one doesn't really need to shoot RAW. I expect Panasonic and Olympus to unveil major advancements for micro four-thirds at Photokina. Now granted, I'm sure Sony won't stand still either in the months and years ahead. It's just that micro four-thirds is a much stronger competitor in this market than specifications and theoreticals would indicate at first glance. I expect a lot of non-serious consumers to go for the NEX. Hobbyists tend to be drawn moe to MFT.
I have certainly felt that the micro 4/3 lot NEEDS to play to the potential for smaller optics period, as I see it as the only real way to compete with the new direction the Sony cams have taken. Smaller sensor = smaller image circle = smaller lens.

I know that many like to pixel peep, but for me, if IQ is the only criteria I will shoot with my full frame cameras and high end lenses. For a compact camera, I want exactly that, compact. While IQ and noise performance are important, I will take a fully functional compact camera over a stop or two of high ISO noise performance (that I can deal with in post if necessary). The NEX cameras are nice, but they are cool point and shoot cameras at best. The micro 4/3 cams offer the shooter full manual control in a very similar fashion to that of a dSLR system camera. That control is far and away more important to me than a bit more resolution, or a one stop advantage, etc. If Sony addresses this with its next camera, then I think it will spell trouble for Panolympus (assuming they also don't address the lack of small pancake lenses for the m4/3 system as well). But currently, if you want a fully functional, easily controlled, pocket sized interchangeable lens camera, the GF1 and PENs are your only real choices right now. (I consider having to go through multiple menus to change ISO, WB, et al to be a hindrance beyond what I would be willing to deal with and expect from a system camera.)
3 replies · active 764 weeks ago
I can see You are completly unhappy with GF1, if it is really true I can give You my address and You send me one You own. I'll be happy to free You from such terrible camera. Will You accept the challenge proving Your own words or retreat showing everybody the value of this opinion :-)

No offense, I don't want Your camera (I've got my own - not GF1) just think of what You are laughing at... Is what You write of really important, and if You are really able to stand up for Your opinion till the end?

Time will telll long all these new systems will last.
(I have very bad experience with several sony's product lines - they disappear very quickly from the market...)

Omox
The 4/3 system (and its micro variant) was always a stupid idea. Choosing a small sensor format based on then-current chip manufacturing affordability and yield, sacrificing actual photographic quality, ranks as one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of cameras. Must be Olympus to botch this up; they make first-class products within their constraints but the suits defining the constraints are troglodytes. They killed the excellent OM system too with some of the worst cameras/products ever released. Yes, Power Focus lens, I'm looking at you.

Post a new comment

Comments by