Nikon about to enter "Micro-DX" format?

er1kksen · 10-23-2009, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by awo425

I've seen samples from G11 at ISO1600 & ISO3200. I am yet to see anything from u4/3 that come even close to this.

I just visited imaging-resource's comparometer and compared samples from the G11 and GF1. By the time I got up to ISO 1600 I was already laughing at this quote; the G11 has mush and sharpening artifacts, while the GF1 has a mild texture and gobs of detail. Playing with the GH1 RAW files, it's easily just as good at high ISO as anything I ever got out of my K20D, so if you believe the G11 beats m4/3, then it apparently also beats the APS-C K20D, which has been shown to have some of the lowest noise in RAW of any of the APS-C SLRs of its generation... so why are you bothering with DSLRs, much less Pentax?

Originally posted by awo425

And the main point for me, putting tele zoom, even something compact like my SMC F 70-210 on a small body like 4/3 without pronounced grip, zumming it and holding still in front of my face is ergonomically a nightmare. I consider micro 4/3 idea a cute toy for geeks, not a tool.

You seem to be forgetting that with m4/3 you can buy the G1 or GH1 and have a perfectly sufficient grip for such lenses (within reason), or you can buy a slim camera with no grip that slips in a large pocket, and have the same exact image quality. You pick the ergonomics that suit you, rather than being stuck with full-size DSLR ergonomics.

But yeah, I suppose the fact that it lacks a mirror box makes it much less of a tool than a similarly sized camera with a cruddy optical viewfinder, incredibly slow operation, a tiny sensor, a non-optional lens of limited range, and... oh wait! No mirror box in this one either!

Is it so difficult to accept that the m4/3 cameras are quite legitimate photographic tools capable of providing excellent results and a satisfying user experience to many (obviously not all)?

Quote:

I love micro four thirds as long as range finder lenses could be used on these cameras. However, panasonic or olympus sensors really sucked.

...how long is this going to keep getting repeated? The evidence contradicting these statements is right there for anyone to find...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Poor man's Nikon"	Naturenut	General Talk	21	10-12-2010 07:47 PM
"Micro Macro: A Little Close-up Prime With Big Results"	jhaji	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	02-27-2010 08:46 AM
"Nikon Girl" Music Video	ColonelPanic	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	19	12-13-2009 12:06 AM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM
First attempt at "micro" Wasp & Bee	GLThorne	Post Your Photos!	16	03-21-2007 11:45 AM

10-23-2009, 03:06 PM	#16
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by awo425 I've seen samples from G11 at ISO1600 & ISO3200. I am yet to see anything from u4/3 that come even close to this. I just visited imaging-resource's comparometer and compared samples from the G11 and GF1. By the time I got up to ISO 1600 I was already laughing at this quote; the G11 has mush and sharpening artifacts, while the GF1 has a mild texture and gobs of detail. Playing with the GH1 RAW files, it's easily just as good at high ISO as anything I ever got out of my K20D, so if you believe the G11 beats m4/3, then it apparently also beats the APS-C K20D, which has been shown to have some of the lowest noise in RAW of any of the APS-C SLRs of its generation... so why are you bothering with DSLRs, much less Pentax? Originally posted by awo425 And the main point for me, putting tele zoom, even something compact like my SMC F 70-210 on a small body like 4/3 without pronounced grip, zumming it and holding still in front of my face is ergonomically a nightmare. I consider micro 4/3 idea a cute toy for geeks, not a tool. You seem to be forgetting that with m4/3 you can buy the G1 or GH1 and have a perfectly sufficient grip for such lenses (within reason), or you can buy a slim camera with no grip that slips in a large pocket, and have the same exact image quality. You pick the ergonomics that suit you, rather than being stuck with full-size DSLR ergonomics. But yeah, I suppose the fact that it lacks a mirror box makes it much less of a tool than a similarly sized camera with a cruddy optical viewfinder, incredibly slow operation, a tiny sensor, a non-optional lens of limited range, and... oh wait! No mirror box in this one either! Is it so difficult to accept that the m4/3 cameras are quite legitimate photographic tools capable of providing excellent results and a satisfying user experience to many (obviously not all)? Quote: I love micro four thirds as long as range finder lenses could be used on these cameras. However, panasonic or olympus sensors really sucked. ...how long is this going to keep getting repeated? The evidence contradicting these statements is right there for anyone to find...