Olympus OM Micro Four Thirds camera!

Dorman wrote in post #16307784
I've been pondering that myself lately. I've been watching the m43 cameras from Olympus and other mirrorless systems such as the Sony Nex and the Fuji X Series. The latter ones there is less of a difference in dof and noise limitations, but there are some many features and things right with the Olympus stuff. The other factor is that while yes it's smaller/lighter I'd still be in the situation where I need to carry a bag and multiple lenses, which makes me wonder if the trade-off from dslr is ultimately worth it or will I still find myself leaving the gear at home and opting for the more portable point and shoot. Not trying to troll or lessen the excitement over these releases, just thinking out loud!

Any way you spin it, mirrorless will be MUCH lighter. A smaller bag is easier to lug than a bigger bag. I can't even carry my normal dslr bag for more than an hour without cursing it.

If i were to carry two eos-m's with lenses mounted, piece of cake with a shoulder bag

Charlie wrote in post #16308265
Any way you spin it, mirrorless will be MUCH lighter. A smaller bag is easier to lug than a bigger bag. I can't even carry my normal dslr bag for more than an hour without cursing it.

If i were to carry two eos-m's with lenses mounted, piece of cake with a shoulder bag

This. Walk all day with a m4/3 camera + 5 lenses = cakewalk. Walk all day with FF + 5 lenses = back and shoulder pain.

For some, miniaturization is meaningless unless it eliminates the need for a bag. If we're talking a 2nd system then I can see how that could make sense. But if we're talking replacing one system with another, then if size and weight savings are attractive then it shouldn't matter if you still need to carry a bag for multiple lenses because even the full kit will be much smaller and lighter.

Thanks for the thoughts to the last few posters. I think my perspective on going mirrorless is more as a supplement or secondary system than a replacement to dslr. The idea of smaller and lighter to me also means a simpler setup, less accessories, and possibly no bag. I would want a mirrorless to be a take everywhere camera, so For me something like the x100s is likely more practical as I don't envision taking an E-M1 system with me everywhere. I do think in many ways these cameras are viable dslr alternatives for many shooters.

Charlie wrote in post #16308265
Any way you spin it, mirrorless will be MUCH lighter. A smaller bag is easier to lug than a bigger bag. I can't even carry my normal dslr bag for more than an hour without cursing it.

If i were to carry two eos-m's with lenses mounted, piece of cake with a shoulder bag

Yes. I took my E-M5 last year with three lenses, filters, three extra batteries, and flash in a bag that would barely fit just a normal sized DSLR, and it was feather light still.

monk3y wrote in post #16306009
That is a very nice setup. I remember you.

Yup - and I've been to the Phils about 15 times since my last post!

Seriously though, comparing the EP-5 and EM-5 (I had access to both on my last trip to Bangkok, HK and the Philippines), I found that the EM-5 generally had the 14mm F2.5 glued to it, though once ever os often, the 30mm F2.8 Sigma got pulled out.

The EP-5 may as well have had the 17mm F1.8 welded on. I just loved it. Took a day to get in the full swing of the EP-5 after having adjusted to the EM-5 for 4 or 5 days beforehand, but I did prefer having the "low iso" option, and the 1/8000 shutter speed of the EP-5, over the 200 iso and 1/4000 of the EM-5. Having said that, the EM-5 has better control options. Regardless, both were fun, and it was not often that I found myself wishing for the 7D.

I personally do not really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, but I don't really dislike it either, I heavily prefer a 3:2, just seems like a better aspect ratio for images, for me, anyway.

One huge advantage that my 7D has is battery life. With the Sterlingtech batteries, I get 1100-1200+ shots from a battery. Way less on the OM-D or EP-5, but at least batteries are very small, and having one or two in a pocket is not a big deal.

In terms of image quality, I really do think that either of them leave the 7D in the dust. And to be honest, seeing as Canon seem to be sacrificing still photography for video these days (eg - overly aggressive AA filters), A system change may be on the cards anyway.

Having said that, I do actually find taking photos with a DSLR is nicer, I find it much easier to hold the 7D stable, and it's bulk makes it more comfortable during use. Whether or not this makes up for the weight I have to lug around whilst not in use...

Actually, long term I could see myself in 2 systems, an M4:3 for travel and general stuff, and a full frame setup for when I want to shoot something a little more seriously. Not sure which one I would prefer to house for underwater photography though...

Z...

Dorman wrote in post #16308711
Thanks for the thoughts to the last few posters. I think my perspective on going mirrorless is more as a supplement or secondary system than a replacement to dslr. The idea of smaller and lighter to me also means a simpler setup, less accessories, and possibly no bag. I would want a mirrorless to be a take everywhere camera, so For me something like the x100s is likely more practical as I don't envision taking an E-M1 system with me everywhere. I do think in many ways these cameras are viable dslr alternatives for many shooters.

In that case an all-in-one like the X100s is a great option. For my money one of the few things wrong with the X100s is AF speed. This is something that Fuji still struggle with across the board on all of their APS-C cameras, interchangeable lens or not. Once they figure that out though, watch out! Also better RAW converter support that doesn't make their RAW image quality look worse than it should would be welcome.

Here are my thoughts on mirrorless being a replacement for DSLR, or being used for smaller everyday carry around cameras.

For me mirrorless is a replacement for traveling and street stuff only. I will not travel around the world with just one body, so when I use to carry my Canon gear it was beyond bulky. 2 bodies with a few lenses meant carrying a backpack instead of a smaller shoulder bag. In some of the places I traveled in Asia this became an issue because the smaller airlines always wanted to weigh my backpack, only to find it too heavy and would try to force me to check it. Needless to say when I finally decided to stop traveling with my Canon stuff I was much happier because of the lesser weight and no hassle from airports.

Heres an example of using smaller gear and what can be carried at a fraction of the size of a DSLR. I went a little over board on one trip to the Philippines and Hong Kong with the gear I carried. My last trip consisted of an M9, M6, 35 cron , 50 cron, and voightlander 21. Along with that I also carried the X-Pro with 14, 35, 18-55, and the x100s. The shoulder bag was jam packed with extra batteries, filters for B&W with m6, film, memory cards, and so on. Even with this large kit it was not even close to what the Canon kit would weigh and never felt uncomfortable on my shoulder. I never carried all of this at one time when out shooting, but for transient purposes it was still much easier than hauling the DSLR stuff.

With that said, I just spent little under a week walking the streets of NYC with an E-P5. I started out with the 12 and 17, only to pick up the 45 when I stopped in at B+H. I could comfortably put one lens in each cargo pocket of my shorts, along with a spare battery and memory card in another pocket and walk for hours. I'm confident that if somebody needed a camera to take everywhere than this is surely one of those. So combine it with what looks to be an awesome camera in the E-M1 and I think my travel kit will finally be figured out. I felt the files were pretty good considering the ISO I was shooting at most of the time and felt the EVF was great, but also the LCD was pretty handy at times. Will the E-P5, or the new E-M1 slip into a small pocket so you can have a camera with you 24/7? Probably not, but to me thats one of the trade offs of having a small, yet very flexible setup capable of interchangeable lenses. My x100s will fit in my front pocket without hood installed, so I may keep it just for that when I don't feel the desire to carry anything else. Also, the Ricoh GR, X20, or RX100 could probably fit the role of pocket able cameras.

Anyways, sorry for the long winded post, but thought I would share my experience and thoughts on how useful a smaller setup can be when compared to DSLR gear. Like I said, the Olympus, or any other gear will not totally replace my DSLR gear, but will compliment it very nicely.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, justinz850. I would say something like an E-PM2 + 14mm, 17mm, or 20mm pancake would fit in a pocket about as well as an X100s, maybe even better. Just another option if one already has m4/3 and also wants a 1 camera + 1 lens pocketable solution for those bagless days.

I actually appreciate being able to shoot wide open on a m4/3 yet maintain a certain level of DoF. When I was shooting FF, I would shoot at f/4 most of the time and rarely would shoot wide open. I'm not a huge fan of having such shallow DoF.

EtherealZee wrote in post #16308884
.

Actually, long term I could see myself in 2 systems, an M4:3 for travel and general stuff, and a full frame setup for when I want to shoot something a little more seriously. Not sure which one I would prefer to house for underwater photography though...

Z...

This is honestly where I have ended up with things

Got my 50-200mm 2.8-3.5 SWD in today. Almost the same size and weight as my 70-300L and solid built. The 50-200mm is a little taller but lighter, even with the tripod collar attached on the Olympus and not the Canon. However of course I will still need to factor in the MMF-3 adapter to use it on the E-M1. Considering it has 100mm more effective reach, and more than a full stop faster for action stopping, I think it is fairly impressive that it is the same size as Canon's smallest 300mm+ high end lens. It would be much more compact compared to the 100-400mm Canon. Remains to be seen how it performs of course: optically, focus speed, and IBIS vs in lens IS at longer MM.

1632 x 1224

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://imageshack.us/a​/img43/1250/3fwq.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

1632 x 1224

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://imageshack.us/a​/img23/31/q0ee.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

Looks like a cool lens, but I don't get the "100mm more effective reach" comment given that 300mm on a 1.6x crop is 480mm vs 200x2x = 400mm.

I want that 500L For some reason after my Leica gear sells I will own it, or the 600L lol.

tkbslc wrote in post #16310311
Looks like a cool lens, but I don't get the "100mm more effective reach" comment given that 300mm on a 1.6x crop is 480mm vs 200x2x = 400mm.

That is correct. I was comparing to FF.

@Yohan

http://www.lightingrum​ours.com …on-micro-four-thirds-4683