[farhagh]

I just found this link through dpreview which seemed interesting. I guess these are all discussed many times here and there, some during comparison between ASPS-C and FF though. However, as I am personally thinking about an OM-D (probably a simple dual lens kit to keep in car/carry around all the time) and would like to know what others think.
Before the recent model I never liked the IQ of m43, but this one seems to be something close to K-7 IQ, which is not bad at all. I'm not in hurry and prefer to wait to see more samples from the camera and be able to carry it in hand before a final decision. However, I'd like to know what others think? In general I preferred the size of K10 to K-5 a little bit, but even the latter is not a "carry all the time" for me. Can a 1Kg Olympus kit be such?

[RioRico]

I'll speak of m4/3 in general: It depends on your needs and intentions. Shapsnots may be just fine. Lightweight is great when weight matters. I don't think many m4/3 shots make it into NatGeo. I read that m4/3 lenses are overpriced for what they deliver. Wide AOVs are a real problem, as is getting thin DOF; these are just the issues that drive APS-C users to FF. Were I looking for a lighter camera I'd consider NEX and the K-01; I'd skip m4/3 entirely. YMMV.

[farhagh]

Well I guess a FF and a m43 makes more sense as the size/weight is really different, but I am not thinking about FF at all.
For sure I am not considering it as a replacement for K-5, not only because of form factor but also the lack of fast lenses, etc. I'm however thinking about the times I wish I had something with me, or times I don't like to look like a tourist on the street!
NEX-7 seems fine too, but a little too pricey...
K-01, I just dislike badly!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I just found this link through dpreview which seemed interesting.

Thanks for sharing that link.

I use an E-PL2 and I am very happy with it. I am still considering an APS-C body so I can use all the lenses I purchased for APS-C and get the AOV I purchased them for. But if I would start from scratch, I would go with MFT exclusively.

BTW, the E-PL2 already has less noise than the K-7 and is comparable in performance. See dxomark. The K-7 only edges in color depth. I expect the E-M5 to be better than the K-7, not just to equal it.

[twitch]

NX100 -> cheap, APS-C sized sensor (very similair to a K-7 sensor), decent lenses available.

[Michael Shea]

Panasonic have a far better range of quality MFT lenses than Olympus, but they're generally over priced. The biggest weakness of the system is the lack of dynamic range and so you'll get skies that lack detail and highlights that frequently get blown out, even at 100 ISO. I made the move in the exact opposite direction - from MFT to a Pentax K-5 and wish I'd never bothered with MFT in the first place. Olympus equipment produces colours that are far more interesting for most people and the latest camera looks superb. Whether it truly is still remains to be seen.

There is lot to be said for portability, but you may find you outgrow Panasonic and/or Olympus very quickly. Best of luck with whatever you decide though.

[farhagh]

I made the move in the exact opposite direction - from MFT to a Pentax K-5 and wish I'd never bothered with MFT in the first place. Olympus equipment produces colours that are far more interesting for most people and the latest camera looks superb. Whether it truly is still remains to be seen.

There is lot to be said for portability, but if you may find you outgrow Panasonic and/or Olympus very quickly. Best of luck with whatever you decide though.

Michael,

Using APS-C for many years (currently with K-5) there is no way I give it up to "move" to m43. I am talking about adding it.

Good thoughts from everybody. For me, a fixed LCD is a deal breaker on a MILC. So, it's more between NEX-7, OM-D and GH 2 (and the lenses). I was thinking the Sony is too expensive and may suffer from bigger zoom lenses. Panasonic has the best price, though no IBIS and Oly seems something in between, for sure with its own shortcomings. I guess I should go and carry them (when Oly becomes less hot!) if I get serious. As I said from the charts/numbers the Olympus/Panasonic do not seem behind K-7 regarding noise/DR but those numbers are not everything I guess.

---

Last edited by farhagh; 04-27-2012 at 06:55 AM.

[Aegon]

This forum is not entirely the best place to get information on µ4/3. You'll find truth here, including in the above responses, but you may also find unsubstantiated opinion or worse in equal measure.

If K-7 performance is what you seek, then definitely give µ4/3 a try.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

As I said from the charts/numbers the Olympus/Panasonic do not seem behind K-7 regarding noise/DR but those numbers are not everything I guess.

The K-7 is not hard to match. In some respects, it was worse than the cameras preceding it - the K20D and the K10D. The K-5 defines the current state of the art for APS-C sensors.

The article you posted really says it all.

[Aegon]

I don't think many m4/3 shots make it into NatGeo.

Earth Witness
Earth Witness
Earth Witness
LUMIX in INDIA GALLERY & EPISODE - LUMIX x NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC | Panasonic Global
LUMIX in COSTA RICA GALLERY & EPISODE - LUMIX x NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC | Panasonic Global

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, and I don't know if any of these photos actually published in NatGeo. Further, the whole of it seems to be funded by Panasonic. But NatGeo didn't appear to say "no". I don't see any reason why µ4/3 couldn't be published.

[Christine Tham]

I have been thinking about buying m4/3 on and off for the last several months. Very nearly bought a GF3, then considered a GX1 strongly.

In the end, I could not justify an advantage over the Nikon 1, which delivers almost the same image quality but smaller size, or the NEX-5N, which delivers superior image quality for the same size.

And the NEX-5N with M-mount lenses will deliver image quality superior to most DSLRs.

Which led me to the conclusion - why not buy a NEX7? However, I may as well wait for the successor version that Sony will announce later this year and just continue using my 5N till gthen.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

In the end, I could not justify an advantage over the Nikon 1, which delivers almost the same image quality

You are almost right.

[JHD]

I have been thinking about buying m4/3 on and off for the last several months. Very nearly bought a GF3, then considered a GX1 strongly.

In the end, I could not justify an advantage over the Nikon 1, which delivers almost the same image quality...

Yes, I agree. Here's a shot I took with the Nikon 1 V1




...and a 100% crop



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Clicker]

Stick with the Oly OMD...weather proofed everything else with it is gravy...and i still think it's ugly

[Christine Tham]

Based on DXOMark, the Nikon J1 actually delivers *better* image quality than the GF3:
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

As for low light performance - meh, I am pretty happy with it: