tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post8888973925609552654..comments2024-03-29T18:40:23.319+08:00Comments on ROBIN WONG : The Myths About Olympus Micro Four Thirds SystemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-44659697014444606022015-10-21T10:28:06.146+08:002015-10-21T10:28:06.146+08:00Thanks for the information Robin. What I have been...Thanks for the information Robin. What I have been trying to determine regarding the image quality of the four-thirds is how does the print quality compare to an APS-C sensor? Do you have any thoughts on this? Do you loose any print quality when going from an APS-C to a four-thirds?Team JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15036966126413934405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-91470739911016150552014-06-11T10:50:53.973+08:002014-06-11T10:50:53.973+08:00Hi Ulfie,
What is there to badmouth? I believe an...Hi Ulfie,<br /><br />What is there to badmouth? I believe any camera these days are very capable and can deliver great results. Photography has always been capturing photographs and enjoying the shooting process, and I sure hope to promote that through my blog, in whatever small ways I can. <br /><br />E-PL1 is a great camera! I have used it extensively and I still think it can do very well today. Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-24269785723045978812014-06-11T05:59:53.209+08:002014-06-11T05:59:53.209+08:00Robin, I must say, and I'm sure many will agr...Robin, I must say, and I'm sure many will agree with me, that your blog atmosphere, images and responses are so upbeat and positive. Even though you now represent Olympus ("Oly" to me as an E-PL1 user), you don't "push" their products by bad-mouthing other gear companies. In other words, it's always a pleasure to read your articles and see you images. Keep up the exemplary work! ulfie (FYI, "ulfie" comes from the film Amadeus in which Mozart's wife affectionately calls him "Ulfie," short for Ulfgand or Wolfgang, his former first name.) ulfiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02068853425975404840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-3475648667757051412014-06-10T13:57:00.308+08:002014-06-10T13:57:00.308+08:00Dear Ranger9
Regarding the autofocus calibration ...Dear Ranger9<br /><br />Regarding the autofocus calibration it's unfortunately a true fact. It might be perfect out of the box, bot with the usage and time it will change.<br />I bought a reference (lenscal) to do this. Costs me 10 minutes and I do it each 2-3 months. That keeps trouble away when viewing pictures afterwards. aysiayghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079638126871862550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-47349966814483334002014-06-10T01:36:29.237+08:002014-06-10T01:36:29.237+08:00Very interesting article and points brought up in ...Very interesting article and points brought up in the comment section. I agree with the lack of mp for effective enlargements over 22 inches. Such a situation comprises 10% of my photographic purposes with the m43 (street, everydaylife, spontaneous, travel photography) and honestly I feel ready to adopt that line of thought (16mp instead of 20+mp) thanks to the axis-based system implemented in the em10 that almost guarantees sharp photos in any light with the appropriate prime lens. I also believe most of my non-photography-enthusiast clients care more about the content rather than the clinical quality of the result.<br /><br />The line has been stuck on 16mp since 2011. While the sensors have been refined over and over, there is this anxiety of low number that lurks around when viewing images up close (which most of people don't). Had digital artifacts behave better or be better suppressed, enlarging the image above its native size could be a more enjoyable experience. (Tried enlarging my d7000 16mp file, cropped to fit a 50x40 inche print didn't achieve optimal results but the series got saved by the content). I could see this evolve in two ways: a higher quality of 16mp or an increase to 18-20mp (the axis-based stabilisation helps a lot since minor camera shakes can render images unsharp above 20mp)<br /><br />The viewing platform influences the appreciation of m43 a lot too. Last week I viewed images on this site on an apple 27inch. While the images are no doubt very sharp and crisp, they had many artifacts in the highlight and shadow roll-offs not found in the "fullframe cameras" as well as the lack of texture details 3200ISO+ images. Now I'm back on my 15inch retina display and the image defects have disappeared.<br /><br />I think we have to consciously define the benefits and boundaries of the system instead of comparing it to what it's supposed to replace. Telling hero stories of people using this and achieving ultimate satisfaction in usability and results is much better.<br /><br />I trust the system will evolve and refine they way it believes it should.PYKtureshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778100729262886435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-14848593568416208202014-06-09T23:05:03.238+08:002014-06-09T23:05:03.238+08:00".........manage to mature their APS-C NEX an...".........manage to mature their APS-C NEX and A7 FF systems, the "u43 is lighter" debate is going to slowly erode away."<br /><br />A7 FF system would, eventually, save half the size and weight of the camera ONLY. The FF lenses will still remain as they are now (eventually, huge). So, talking about a system, one going for A7 FF will only save on the body size. With u43 system you save on both (body and lenses), so my guess is the u43 system is going to always be lighter.<br />Catahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07841703104745316673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-15578832015766241902014-06-09T21:33:23.399+08:002014-06-09T21:33:23.399+08:00I hope the above statement don't come across t...I hope the above statement don't come across too harshly, I simply want to weigh in on the debate having used most formats and now settling on FF. I don't like burying myself in numbers, and in the end I get my butt out the door and shoot - but tangible numbers and measurements talk the talk and hyperbole from fanboys on rumor sites (im looking at you 43rumors and sonyalpharumors) mean nothing. u43 has bridged the gap so closely to APS-C now, Panasonic and Olympus should be applauded. Numbers do talk though and there is still a quantifiable difference from u43 to FF regarding image quality. It's up to the photographer in the end, and sure as hell i've seen A LOT of bad photo's from n00bs jumping on the FF-wagon. <br /><br />p.s. Before anyone shoults "FF fanboy" i'll say my second favorite camera i've ever used is a GF1. The Sony RX1 steals the number one spot, I see it as the spiritual successor of what I saw in the GF1 and 20mm lens. Light, compact, great build, no-bullshit about it and a joy to use everytime I pick it up. ChristianCloweshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376304630018261034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-88352152997970226662014-06-09T21:25:58.952+08:002014-06-09T21:25:58.952+08:00I'd like to disagree with Sakamoto, respectful...I'd like to disagree with Sakamoto, respectfully of course. The D7100 is more than capable of being compared to a D4s. I'd even say it will trump a 1Dx in certain circumstances. Canon sensors are behind Nikon's current generation. The D7100 is AA filter-less, at 24mp it's resolving power is quite high when equipped with the right glass. It's just as sharp in the right light compared to a D600/D800 as well. The D4s is an incredible low-light performer though, and I don't see it being trumped comprehensively until the Sony A7s comes out. <br /><br />Robin, the exhibition photo's are amazing. That no one was able to pick the camera used is even a finer testament to his ability. Saying that, like he even said in his most recent article - he has a consistent style. Same processing, same composition, etc. At a themed exhibition I doubt anyone, except for the discerning shooter, to tell them apart. This has more to say about his shooting style than the equipment used. I respectfully disagree in regards to the statement regarding printing. You can't escape physics - a 40MP + MF camera used at it's base ISO's will ALWAYS print better than and u43. You may not see it standing 2 or 3 metres away, but go closer - examine the photo, all the tonal gradations, the quality of the micro-contrast; MF will always, always hold the edge. I've seen plenty of MF prints and they are simply THAT much better than anything else I have seen. <br /><br />Ming is a hell of a photographer, but there is a reason he keeps going back to FF or APS-C (Ricoh GR) camera's for the majority of his print work - the quality has a tangible difference. Sure the 75mm 1.8 is great, I had one loaned to me for over a month. At that price and focal length it better be good for a prime. As good as it is though, I'd still pick the Zeiss 135 over it any day and pay the weight penalty. It's possibly the finest portrait lens ever made. <br /><br />u43 is definitely here. A terrific ecosystem, with great bodies and notable advantages. With that though comes questionable pricing, continues tracking that still lacks, and image quality, whilst terrific, is still dwarfed by it's big brothers. Choose whatever system appeals to you most, in the end it's the photo in front of you that counts most. ChristianCloweshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376304630018261034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-5547038939221451732014-06-09T17:55:05.632+08:002014-06-09T17:55:05.632+08:00Like Christian, I have shot a lot of system. Curr...Like Christian, I have shot a lot of system. Currently have fx, aps-c, m43 and film. They all have their pros and cons. <br />If battery life concern you the most, get DSLR. <br />If DSLR is too heavy for you, get mirrorless or smaller DSLR. <br />If you want bokeh, get dslr or other fx mirrorless. <br />If you want to buy a lot of lenses and have access to some good cheap lenses, DSLR. <br /><br />Another problem with m43 system is price. From B&H in USD$<br />E-M5 $799 + Oly 12-40mm f2.8 $899, Oly 25mm $399, Oly 75mm $799 = $2,897<br />E-M1 $1,299 + Oly 12-40mm f2.8 $899, Oly 25mm $399, Oly 75mm $799 = $3,397<br /><br />On the other corner,<br />D610 (fx) & 24-85mm VR combo $2396, Nikon 50mm 1.8G $196, Nikon 85mm 1.8G $396 = $2,988<br />D7100 (dx) $1,096, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 $519, Nikon 35mm 1.8G $196, Nikon 85mm 1.8G $396 = $2,207<br /><br />If you think bokeh is overrated, just get a point and shoot for $400 and save $2300 :)William Liewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00178247764956174111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-60757226170911046682014-06-09T15:51:39.219+08:002014-06-09T15:51:39.219+08:00Dear E,
I have briefly used the video recording he...Dear E,<br />I have briefly used the video recording here: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/02/olympus-om-d-e-m10-review-part-2-high.html<br /><br />I am a photographer and I rarely use video functions. I may not be the best person to answer your questions. If you ask me if the video is good enough, then I say yes, but that is just for me. Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-53593975365089434492014-06-09T15:47:23.671+08:002014-06-09T15:47:23.671+08:00Agree with you Ulfie, that it is more important to...Agree with you Ulfie, that it is more important to look at the images, and see the content rather than admiring the pixels and technicalities. You are also right about how most modern cameras are actually so good that it is hard to find fault in them. <br />Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-53005688056136178192014-06-09T13:40:55.383+08:002014-06-09T13:40:55.383+08:00HI ROBIN! loving all ur coverage on e-m10 olympus....HI ROBIN! loving all ur coverage on e-m10 olympus. i was wondering. have u used the video function on this camera? do you think it's decent to shoot videos with.. not just for personal but maybe like semi professional video work :) Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802687505991621822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-72538816921337580692014-06-09T04:07:24.203+08:002014-06-09T04:07:24.203+08:00For that matter, the D7100 and 70D aren't comp...For that matter, the D7100 and 70D aren't competitive with the D4s and 1Dx but they're also quite usable. That's where the real question is. Why buy either when micro Four-Thirds can create prints that are practically indistinguishable from their similarly-priced APS-C-laden bodies? Sakamoto Nobuyukihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698659558464819776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-43339257331576487762014-06-09T03:21:15.318+08:002014-06-09T03:21:15.318+08:00It would be so much nicer if folks just look at an...It would be so much nicer if folks just look at an image--online or print--and judge it for its image merits (or demerits) and importantly whether it pleases them or not aesthetically instead of wondering what gear produced it. The latter are "gear heads" plain and simple. Today gear of all sensor and/or film sizes is so high quality that the overall IQ depends much more on the human pressing the shutter than on the shutter, sensor, lens, etc. Plus, there is sooooo much choice in gear! ulfiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02068853425975404840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-91160978764373055732014-06-08T20:34:50.136+08:002014-06-08T20:34:50.136+08:00It is a surprise coming from a 1DX user, saying yo...It is a surprise coming from a 1DX user, saying you can't tell the difference unless you go much higher ISO! That is indeed amazing. <br />You are right about it does not matter which camera to use, for 99.99% of the time!Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-42855032146792598472014-06-08T20:33:22.489+08:002014-06-08T20:33:22.489+08:00Here is the link to the exhibition, and I have blo...Here is the link to the exhibition, and I have blogged about it. http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/01/engineering-art-in-metal-exhibition-by.htmlRobin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-26626894297595814342014-06-08T20:32:17.867+08:002014-06-08T20:32:17.867+08:00Now here is the thing. Earlier in January, Ming Th...Now here is the thing. Earlier in January, Ming Thein has an exhibition, he used medium format Hasselblad and OM-D E-M5. The images (about 40 of them) were printed large, really large, and half of the images were OM-D, the other half medium format. Guess what, no one could tell which images were taken from which medium. They all looked equally good. There goes the argument about medium format having the edge in printing large. Ming Thein even admits that for some shots, the OM-D clearly had the advantage, having used the 75mm F1.8 with super resolution it resolves. It is not just the number of megapixels that counts, but also the quality of each pixels resolved. You may get higher pixel count but it is meaningless if the pixel quality isnt there. There I was, amazed by the tiny micro 4/3 sensor in the E-M5, being placed side by side in large prints against Hasselblad. <br /><br />Micro 4/3 is already there. And it is getting even better. People just refuse to see it, and accept it. <br /><br />Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-53647676750568507562014-06-08T20:27:21.764+08:002014-06-08T20:27:21.764+08:00I am glad to hear the E-5 performing so well! And ...I am glad to hear the E-5 performing so well! And seriously that E-1? Wow, never knew it was that capable!<br />You are right, the argument for depth of field goes both ways, when we do need more depth of field, smaller sensor does have the advantage!Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-72533697173044077792014-06-08T20:25:16.495+08:002014-06-08T20:25:16.495+08:00Oh my, those croppers are shameful! Oh my, those croppers are shameful! Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-75323243764495345482014-06-08T20:24:14.534+08:002014-06-08T20:24:14.534+08:00Hi Ranger 9,
thanks so much for elaborating furth...Hi Ranger 9, <br />thanks so much for elaborating further on my original thoughts, and yes, your points are all valid! I think your argument on the ways we view the images is the most striking, because no matter how much megapixel we packed into the image at the end of the day we don't actually see that much of the megapixels anyway when we present our photographs. So true and yet people often overlook this fact. Robin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02572566037297158455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-30810117608001239472014-06-08T19:57:27.536+08:002014-06-08T19:57:27.536+08:00I think we're at the point where it's diff...I think we're at the point where it's difficult to get a 'bad' camera. I can't think of a sensor size above point-n-shoot sensors that can't produce decent pictures. But everyone feels they need to absolute best sensor to be able to take even good pictures. The question is: Do they?<br /><br />When the 16MP Canon 1Ds MKII came out a lot of the reviews commented that it produced 'medium format' quality images. I had a 1Ds MKII and it truly was a fine camera, as was the 5D. I have to say the E-M5 gave the 1Ds MKII a run for it's money and surpassed it at higher ISO's. I currently shoot with a 1Dx and E-M5's. The 1Dx does produce better images once the ISO really gets ramped up. But for most of the time, it's pretty difficult to tell the two apart. That's outstanding for a camera the size of the E-M5.<br /><br />I don't think I'm in the minority when I appreciate the additional DoF either. I've lost so many great pictures when shooting full frame and just didn't have enough DoF to cover focussing errors or when the subject just moved a tad.<br /><br />As shown on this site, m43 is capable of producing outstanding images, and sensor technology has gotten us to the point where, in all honesty, it doesn't matter what camera you use for 99.99% of the time. The percentage is probably even higher for non-pro's. If you can't take a good picture with m43/APS-C then going full frame isn't going to help.<br />Colin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06357279174883408710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-90851090291412790682014-06-08T19:36:00.744+08:002014-06-08T19:36:00.744+08:00Thanks Robin. It takes a while before even intelli...Thanks Robin. It takes a while before even intelligent people figure out what is a fact, what is an assumption and what is an implication based on assumption. As my work mentor used to say "bs baffles brains" heheAnanda Simhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687537365243419292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-35425175840873265882014-06-08T18:51:20.216+08:002014-06-08T18:51:20.216+08:00Great points, i've used everything from point ...Great points, i've used everything from point and shoots, 1", u43, APS-C and "full-frame" 35mm sensors. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything. Strong arguments for both sides and the winner really is the consumer. We have this rapid pace of advancing technology which is a treat for all of us as we have this wealth of choice available to us. Unfortunately I sold my EM5 - the controls simply did not cater for my larger hands, even with assorted grips and modifications. The pick of the litter for ergonomics is undoubtedly the Pentax K5. "king of comfort" I used to call it, Pentax really know how to have buttons laid out well. They even give u43 lenses a run for their money with small, pancake primes. It's a shame they are so overlooked most of the time. Back to the debate at hand and I must admit, even being a full frame shooter, for most casual hobbyist the u43 ecosystem more than suffices. We aren't all pixel peepers and we all don't print big. In reality, a lot of us simply post of to blogs or print 6x9's to palm off to family and friends. It's a fantastically lightweight system that can be adapted easily and quickly. It's grown in maturity and I'd love to give it another look into some time in the future. <br /><br />Let's get a few things in perspective here - shooting in RAW, u43 will never surpass the dynamic range, colour fidelity, tonality, noise control and depth-of-field control that 35mm full frame sensors afford. I could go on to say medium format is another step up, but they simply don't possess the burst rate, continuous tracking that camera's like the D4s and 1Dx possess. It's the wonderful compromise of sensor size and reliable performance. People may potty mouth DxO, but in the end (for the majority) their numbers don't lie. If you aim to print rather large, view at 100% on screen or print, and want high tonal accuracy and dynamic range - u43 still lacks the punch of FF sensors. The above images are SUBLIME, but you can just tell they lack the extra punch a well chosen FF body and lens combo would produce.<br /><br />It's all apples and oranges, you sacrifice weight to haul this around. But like I read from a well established professional photographer; you're paid to get the shot, you're not paid to pack light and leave behind the gear that may get you the money shot.<br /><br />I really hope u43 keeps flourishing, it's pushing the other manufacturers to advance their research and development. Beware the dark horse in Sony though, they have satisfactory market share and if they manage to mature their APS-C NEX and A7 FF systems, the "u43 is lighter" debate is going to slowly erode away. I handled a A6000 and a zeiss zoom combo in Tokyo a month back and was amazed..that thing tracked focus like my old D3!ChristianCloweshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376304630018261034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-77338400681909096092014-06-08T11:48:03.870+08:002014-06-08T11:48:03.870+08:00I still have more luck with my E-5 in sports than ...I still have more luck with my E-5 in sports than the GH3, and I can focus the E-1 with 50-200mm manually more reliably than the GH3 with 35-100mm auto focus.<br /><br />I like the GH3 for other reasons, even besides video. The fully articulated rear display and 12-40mm lens have given me great freedom in getting difficult architectural shots that I could not get otherwise.<br /><br />I continue to think about another dSLR to use, but wait. I was complaining recently about those who use APS-C or larger sensors who don't get enough depth of field to see the product clearly. Just because you have less depth of field doesn't mean that it's correct to use it that way. :-D Besides, I usually have to fight to get enough depth of field with Four-Thirds or micro Four-Thirds. I never have too much.Sakamoto Nobuyukihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698659558464819776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19035680.post-66173911130506867072014-06-08T09:15:28.474+08:002014-06-08T09:15:28.474+08:00Hi Robin, all your points are valid. plus, kno...Hi Robin, all your points are valid. plus, know about your equipment and upgrade photo skill is also important to take good pictures. I know some photographers using FF don't even frame their photo when they shoot, they just crop it out when in computer LOL<br /><br />Francis from TorontoAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09887569936437670223noreply@blogger.com