Is something moving inside a micro four thirds camera when you take a picture?

Question

I just spent some time playing with a couple of Olympus micro four third cameras and I was surprised that when I took a picture, I felt the body of the camera jerking slightly. That's something I would expect on a SLR, since we have a mirror going back and forth really fast, but why is the same effect happening on a mirrorless camera? What is moving? Or am I missing something?

Asked by J. Pablo Fernández

Answer

All SLDs other than the Nikon 1 J1 have a mechanical shutter. This is most like what who hear each time a shot is taken.

Most of them use the mechanical shutter at the beginning of the shot and all of them use it at the end. The latest models omit the front curtain to improve shutter-lag but that is because they found a way to reliable discharge the sensor fast enough.

On Olympus and Sony SLDs there is also a stabilization system which moves the sensor. It makes a gentle noise throughout the exposure but you wont hear it unless you are in a quiet environment.

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

Is the format for the distortion and chromatic aberration correction of µ4/3 lenses documented?

Question

Olympus micro 4/3 cameras apply distortion correction on their in-camera JPEGs when used with a micro 4/3 lens. Panasonic cameras correct both distortion and chromatic aberration with their lenses.

Although I'm not sure where this information is stored, since this also works on the off-camera software I'd guess that it's in metadata attached to the RAW images.

Is this format documented anywhere (either officially or through reverse-engineering)? It would be nice to be able to implement this correction in open-source software (specifically lensfun) without needing to either calibrate the lens or rely on the calibration database.

EDIT: to make this perfectly clear - the objective is to take the RAW file from the camera and be able to apply the same correction that the in-camera JPEG gets, or that gets applied by the Olympus software.

Asked by RAOF

Answer

There appears to be a pretty rich Open Source movement in the Linux community to generate raw file format processors for linux. I've found several wiki's that are working on compiling file format details for known RAW formats, and there are a few applications that contain some code. Some formats, like Canon's .CRW and .CR2, are open specifications and you can find the details online. It seems that the .ORF format (or the Panasonic .RAW format) are not open, so the only thing knowledge that can be gleaned is via reverse engineering. I doubt that the information you are looking for is contained within EXIF data, however if it is stored, it should be available in RAW format metadata. Here are some resources:

• http://osp.wikidot.com/raw
  • Project to decode RAW file formats
• http://osp.wikidot.com/raw-linux-software-comparison
  • List of open source programs that decode .ORF (and other formats)
• http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
  • Contains the DCRaw project
  • Has some free code that does basic interpolation of raw bayer info for .ORF
• http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec
  • Home of PhotoRec
  • Source code can be downloaded here:
    • http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Download
• http://www.rawsamples.ch/index_en.php
  • Contains a bunch of sample raw formats, including Olympus

The bulk of a RAW file format is a direct sensor data dump, either from a Bayer array, CCD, or possibly a layered CMOS (like the Foveon.) That makes the image data pretty easy to spot, as it is very patterned. The data you are interested in will likely be more complex and and random, either stored at the beginning or possibly the end of a file format. I've done a fair amount of file format reverse engineering in my day, and may be able to recognize some structure in the .ORF format for you. (I worked on an editor for Sim City 4 and the Sims 2 a number of years ago, and alongside a few others, we must have decoded some 300+ file formats via HEX. I may be able to help provide some insight if I can get a hold of some .ORF raw files from the camera+lenses you have access to.) Your best bet, if you wish to have support for lens correction added to lensfun, would be the open source movements to bring RAW processing to Linux.

UPDATE:

Alternatively, it seems like Adobe has released a Lens Profile generator that can generate lens profiles for Lightroom 3/ACR. They cover geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting. I know you mentioned something that could be used with the program lensfun, but this might be a viable alternative.

Answered by jrista

Check more discussion of this question.

What considerations are there when buying a polarising filter?

Question

I have an Olympus EPL1 with two lenses: the micro 4/3rds 14-42mm and the 4/3rds 40-150mm. At the beach today, I could see the sea creatures in the rock pools but couldn't take a picture of them. The reason I could see them was because I was wearing polarised sunglasses. Sticking the sunglasses in front of the lens didn't work. A passing professor of physics told me that it was because my sunglasses are prescription glasses!

So I'm considering getting a polarising filter, but have absolutely no idea what to get or what to look for (I've never even used filters before, let alone thought about buying one). Reading around on the internet, I see that there are two types: circular and linear. How do I decide which to get?

I've also read that I probably shouldn't bother with a filter for the 14-42mm because the front of the lens rotates when it focusses. (This isn't true of the 40-150mm, I just checked.) As a first foray into the realm of filters, would I be really hampering myself by only getting a filter for the 40-150mm lens?

What's a reasonable price to pay for a filter? Given that I'm only dipping a toe in this particular water, I don't want to pay a great deal for something that might turn out to be not as useful as I thought, but I do want to give it a fair go. Looking on a certain website, named for a South American river, I see a circular polariser filter of the right size for my lens (\phi 58) with a RRP of 70UKP but on sale for 14UKP. Don't touch with a bargepole? Or reasonable for the experiment?

My most likely use would be shots through water, and scenery shots with the sun low on the horizon (happens a lot in Norway).

Asked by Andrew Stacey

Answer

A circular polarizer is what you want. Those are the ones that are broadly compatible with modern autofocus and metering tools built-in to cameras.

As for quality, if you're just trying out the effect, sure, go for the cheap one. But watch out for the usual problems with cheap filters: they are probably more prone to flare and ghosting than more expensive filters, they might degrade image quality to an unacceptable degree, and they might be less efficient at letting light through (so you'll need more exposure).

If you find you're using it often, then upgrade to a nice, multi-coated one from one of the brand names (Tiffen, Hoya, etc.) that's large enough to cover any other lenses you're planning on getting. A circular polarizer is one of the few things you can't fake in Photoshop, so it's still broadly useful to have around.

You would want to get one that fits the largest thread mount you have. In your case, that'd be 58mm on the 40-150 lens. Get a 37mm-58mm step-up ring to use it on your 14-42mm.

You can use it on your 14-42mm, but if the front element rotates you'll have to constantly readjust the filter, which is annoying. What I'd do in that situation is leave the filter off; then, compose, focus, switch it to manual focus so the front element won't move, put the filter on, adjust the filter and exposure, and then (finally) shoot. Again, sort of a pain, but it's certainly possible.

Answered by unexplainedBacn

Check more discussion of this question.

How do non-MFT lenses work on a Panasonic GF3?

Question

I'm thinking of buying a GF3. But the lenses are pricy, so I have to pick my kit wisely. I saw that there are adapters for it, but I'm new to lenses.

• Are there any problems with attaching non-MFT lenses?
• How can I see the image from the lens without a viewfinder? (Is it going to show correctly on the display?)
• Can external lenses be used with Raynox DCR 250?

Answer

You can mount pretty much anything on a m43 system using the right mechanical adapters, but that doesn't mean ergonomics are going to make it a practical option, specially on a camera with limited controls like the GF3.

You view through the viewfinder as with any m43 lens, but will be working in aperture priority mode. You can trigger manual focus assist, which will show you a magnified view of the focus area, but you will have to trigger it manually (unlike manual-focus m43 lenses like some Voigtlander models, where turning the focus ring automatically triggers MF assist).

In practice, using non-m43 lenses on a m43 body is not ideal. It's perfectly OK for landscapes, still lifes and street photography using estimated scale focus, but not anything involving action.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I get the prime or zoom kit lens with the Panasonic GF3?

Question

I'm new to lenses, because currently I have the fixed lens Olympus XZ-1. I'm thinking of an upgrade, and I find the Panasonic GF3 very good. It has the option of two kit lenses: A pancake lens at 14mm f/2.5, or the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6.

I saw that the bigger (14-42mm) lens has a 3x zoom, which isn't anything special and the 14mm has F2.5 in comparison to F3.5 of the 12-42mm lens. Which should I choose? Are those the only differences, -1.0 of F and 3x zoom? The 14-42mm is way bigger, and if that's the only difference maybe I'll stick with the smaller 14mm lens.

Also I am thinking of getting Raynox DCR250 to take macro shots.

My main questions are:

• Is the only difference the zoom and the maximum f-stop?
• Which one is better to use with the Raynox to make macros?
• Which one is better for landscape photography?

Answer

I will present the "quick and dirty" version of my answer, because I could talk on this topic for pages and pages. Essentially the 14mm f/2.5 "pancake" is a prime lens, which means it does not zoom, it has one fixed focal length. So instead of zooming in and out to frame your subject, you have to move your feet along with the camera! The fixed focal length usually comes with a few advantages such as:

• Large apertures that zoom lenses do not have
• Very high quality optics due to easier manufacturing of the single focal length
• Size can be a huge advantage, and only primes can really get the "pancake" form factor

The other option you are looking at is a general purpose zoom lens. The 14-42mm is equivalent to 28-84mm angle of view in the 35mm format, which is handy to know when comparing it to something like your old Olympus XZ-1 6-24mm, which had a 28-112mm 35mm equivalent angle of view. So the easiest way for you to compare the lenses on the two cameras you are considering is probably the following when considering the field of view:

• 14mm "pancake" = 28mm field of view
• 14-42mm = 28-84mm field of view
• 6-24mm = 28-112mm

Someone else will likely chime in and explain how I forgot a few important details when explaining focal length conversions and field of view, but this is the simplest way I can explain it to you that I hope will make sense to a beginner. What is important to understand, is the "field of view", in that, the pancake lens will look just like your current Olympus zoomed all the way out. And the 14-42mm standard zoom will look almost like the Olympus - but will not let you zoom in quite as far.

Other things to consider as you suggested, is the maximum aperture. This is how much light the lens will let into the camera, and is very important. The larger the better. f/2.5 is the maximum the pancake lens will allow, and f/3.5 is the maximum the standard zoom will allow. Your old camera had a maximum of f/1.8 which is larger then both of these Panasonic lenses. Both zoom lenses have variable maximum apertures, so as you zoom in the maximum aperture becomes smaller, which is not a great thing. The prime "pancake" lens has only one maximum aperture since it does not zoom, which is a good thing.

I hope this helps shed a bit of light on what to purchase. In the end the choice between a prime lens and a standard zoom is really up to you, the user. I would say that the majority of people end up with a standard zoom at first, and as a second lens they may choose a prime, but this may not be the correct choice for everyone.

Check more discussion of this question.

Which kit lens to get with the Panasonic GF3?

Question

I'm new to lenses, because currently I have the fixed lens Olympus XZ-1. I'm thinking of an upgrade, and I find the Panasonic GF3 very good. It has the option of two kit lenses: A pancake lens at 14mm f/2.5, or the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6.

I saw that the bigger (14-42mm) lens has a 3x zoom, which isn't anything special and the 14mm has F2.5 in comparison to F3.5 of the 12-42mm lens. Which should I choose? Are those the only differences, -1.0 of F and 3x zoom? The 14-42mm is way bigger, and if that's the only difference maybe I'll stick with the smaller 14mm lens.

Also I am thinking of getting Raynox DCR250 to take macro shots.

My main questions are:

• Is the only difference the zoom and the F?
• Which one is better to use with the Raynox to make macros?
• Which one is better for landscape photography?

Answer

I will present the "quick and dirty" version of my answer, because I could talk on this topic for pages and pages. Essentially the 14mm f/2.5 "pancake" is a prime lens, which means it does not zoom, it has one fixed focal length. So instead of zooming in and out to frame your subject, you have to move your feet along with the camera! The fixed focal length usually comes with a few advantages such as:

• Large apertures that zoom lenses do not have
• Very high quality optics due to easier manufacturing of the single focal length
• Size can be a huge advantage, and only primes can really get the "pancake" form factor

The other option you are looking at is a general purpose zoom lens. The 14-42mm is equivalent to 28-84mm angle of view in the 35mm format, which is handy to know when comparing it to something like your old Olympus XZ-1 6-24mm, which had a 28-112mm 35mm equivalent angle of view. So the easiest way for you to compare the lenses on the two cameras you are considering is probably the following when considering the field of view:

• 14mm "pancake" = 28mm field of view
• 14-42mm = 28-84mm field of view
• 6-24mm = 28-112mm

Someone else will likely chime in and explain how I forgot a few important details when explaining focal length conversions and field of view, but this is the simplest way I can explain it to you that I hope will make sense to a beginner. What is important to understand, is the "field of view", in that, the pancake lens will look just like your current Olympus zoomed all the way out. And the 14-42mm standard zoom will look almost like the Olympus - but will not let you zoom in quite as far.

Other things to consider as you suggested, is the maximum aperture. This is how much light the lens will let into the camera, and is very important. The larger the better. f/2.5 is the maximum the pancake lens will allow, and f/3.5 is the maximum the standard zoom will allow. Your old camera had a maximum of f/1.8 which is larger then both of these Panasonic lenses. Both zoom lenses have variable maximum apertures, so as you zoom in the maximum aperture becomes smaller, which is not a great thing. The prime "pancake" lens has only one maximum aperture since it does not zoom, which is a good thing.

I hope this helps shed a bit of light on what to purchase. In the end the choice between a prime lens and a standard zoom is really up to you, the user. I would say that the majority of people end up with a standard zoom at first, and as a second lens they may choose a prime, but this may not be the correct choice for everyone.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I fit a Minolta 35mm lens to a Micro 4third mount?

Question

I have old 35mm lenses for my old Minolta camera. I'm going back to photography and getting an Olympus PEN E-PL1 (micro four thirds mount).

Can I use my old lenses on such a box or do they become completely useless? They were pretty expensive lenses, so why throw them away?

Answer

There are a number of adapters for Minolta MC/MD to Micro Four Thirds, like this one at Amazon. (If you are talking about Maxxum/Dynax lenses, then look for Sony Alpha to Micro Four Thirds adapters.) The lenses will be all-manual focus and aperture (no automatic stop-down), but you can use them. It's just going to be an old-timey sort of experience in the digital age.

Check more discussion of this question.

What Nikon F lenses can be adapted for micro four-thirds cameras and with what limitations?

Question

There seem to be several makes of adapter that allow most Nikon F lenses to be mounted on any Micro four-thirds (M43) camera.

I believe that autofocus is not supported, nor is electronic aperture control.

I have several categories of Nikon F lenses, for example

• AIS (e.g. micro 55mm f2.8)
• AF-D (e.g. 50mm f1.8)
• DX G (e.g. 18-200mm VR)

Which of these lens types can I use on an M43 camera and in which metering modes

• Aperture priority?
• Fully manual - no metering at all?
• Something else?

Answer

You're right, autofocus and aperture control are not supported (at least not in normal adapters like the ones you find on ebay or amazon). That means you'll need a lens with aperture and focus rings. That's the only restriction afaik. Shoot in Aperture mode, select the aperture at the lens and let the camera do the metering.

And find out if your camera has a focus assist function. On my E-PM1 i can reassign the red video button to do that. One push and the center of the image gets magnified, that makes exact focusing much easier.

Check more discussion of this question.

What has the best possible quality/form factor ratio: a GF1, GF2 or GF3?

Question

I have hear great things about the GF range as a whole, but am having troubles understanding the logic behind this branding divide.

What I am looking for is the best possible quality/form factor ratio. Price is not an issue, external flash is not an issue. Camera size/weight is an issue, so are camera features.

Thanks in advance

Answer

By your title I can see you did not heard about the GX1, have a look.

From a general point of view the GF1 is more "loved" because it was the first, it was the news out on the world, it looked gorgeous and it had an amazing image quality for the first of it's kind. I own a GF1 and I would strip it of some functions, as they did in the GX1, still It's an amazing camera, portable and with a great performance.

In camera size/weigh between GF1, GF2 and GF3. The GF1 is the bigger and the heavier, GF2 significantly decreases sizes and GF3 even a bit more. Never had all the 3 in my hand to compare weight, but for the size of the camera (GF1) you would expect it to be lighter, but it isn't. I know that gf2 is lighter than the gf1.

The gf1 has no touch screen, gf2 and gf3 have, because of this panasonic stripped gf2 and the gf3 of some physical controls and for this reason the ones that loved gf1 didn't liked so much the gf2 and the gf3, finally as to external features the gf3 has not hot shoe, but since the external flash is not an issue to you, I guess you could discard this difference.

Relating to the gx1, is simply a fine evolution of the gf1, it has almost the same size as the gf1, the physical controls are back, although it also has the touch screen introduced in gf2 and the hot shoe back is back. The rubber grip that was introduced in it is very handy as well.

As to the features that this 4 panasonic hold, they are almost the same, the only things that I point out are:

• gf1 does 720p video and the rest does 1080p
• gf2 and gx1 can record stereo sound
• gx1 has a better sensor and a better image quality. Also it generates better jpg's.

Of course that there are more differences to refer to, you can check them here.

In this site you can find extensive reviews about the gf's and the gx1 and also of it's cousins from panasonic.

If you are pointing a bit more pro with the pictures you take, gf1 or gx1 would be the best options, they are also the bigger cameras, if not, if you're looking for a more simple approach to your photography gf2 or gf3 would suite just fine for you and of course they're the smaller cameras.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is gallery quality possible with a mirrorless camera?

Question

I'm a gallery represented photographer and I'm contemplating a new camera. I currently shoot with a Canon 40D primarily with 2 pieces of Canon L glass, the 17-40mm and the 24-105mm. I am exceptionally happy with this setup with one exception.

The gear weighs so much I only carry it when I go out on a shoot. I am constantly seeing things I want to shoot but I don't have my gear with me.

I'd love to get a small camera that I would have with me at all times. The 4/3rds cameras, both compact Samsung NX10 and TL500, and the Sony NEX-5n (can't afford the 7) all seem to come close.

As you can tell by my current kit, I'm a firm believer in "buy glass," but the current crop of mirrorless cameras seem to be telling me "buy the sensor." None of the cameras stand out. The 4/3rds have the best lens selection, the Sony has the best sensor, and the Samsung falls in between. The good news is that the Leica M-mount lenses fit the Sony and the 4/3rds, but at cost of additional bulk and of course Leica pricing.

I know that none of these are small enough to be unnoticeable when packing, none of them is the Canon S95 for example. But its low light performance seems to suffer compared to the larger sensor cameras.

So, now for the question: Is it possible to have gallery quality work, printed no more than 20" across with any of the current crop of semi-compact mirrorless cameras?

Answer

Have you seen a gallery showing decades old photographs from 35mm film? All mirrorless cameras do better, much better. Do you think those pictures would get rejected today on the grounds of being to grainy, unsharp or lacking contrast?

Gallery quality has much more to do with with content of photographs than anything else. Light, color, gesture says Jay Maisel. No megapixels, S/N or color-depth there! Sure, it helps to have a better camera but no camera will keep your work out of a gallery if it deserves it.

Depending on your subject, there things to get concerned with when choosing the camera. You did not say about your subjects but if you shoot action, for example, autofocus will be a big issue on mirrorless cameras. Even the Nikon 1 V1 which employs phase-detection and does very well in good light, drops in performance when light levels get low.

For other subjects, the most limiting factor is the choice of lens and there you are rather limited. As you said, 4/3 has the best selection of native lenses. You can also get a NEX with adapter to use Alpha lenses or Nikon F-lenses on the V1 once the adapter becomes available (it was announced with no ship date). The one thing that happens there is that the size advantage drops quickly when you include adapters and bigger-than-necessary lenses. The NEX does have a neat trick up its adapter and that is Phase-Detect autofocus with Alpha lenses. Keep in mind that there is no way to have stabilization with that adapter because the body assumes the lens has it and lenses assume the body has it!

Check more discussion of this question.

Which camera offers flexible remote control and good manual controls?

Question

I want to switch to a system camera, preferably one from the Micro Four Thirds or Four Thirds systems. Since I also want to do experimental technical setups like time lapse or astrophotography, I have a set of requirements that are not easy to check for on the manufacturer's websites.

Can you recommend a camera with

• flexible remote control software (I'd like to have at least a live preview and controls for shutter, focus, f-stop, sensitivity and shutter speed)

  • Edit: Alternatively, a connector for an external monitor and a programmable remore control would also work for me. To put it another way, I don't need a computer in my setup, but I want the ability to control the camera without touching it.

• the ability to provide a video stream like a webcam (ok, that's more of a bonus item, no hard requirement)

• good manual controls (preferably two separate control wheels for f-stop and shutter speed)

• low sensor noise

• overall good usability

I suppose that adapters for M42, which is the standard connector on telescopes, are generally available. If I'm wrong, this becomes another "hard" requirement.

The cost of the body should not exceed $750, but in order to keep the answers relevant for everyone, please also list models costing more.

MTIA for all hints!

Answer

I would take a look at the Canon 60D. It is not a micro four thirds camera, it is an APS-C sensor sized camera. The reasons I suggest this include:

• Larger sensors as opposed to the micro four thirds format should provide lower noise typically
• The 60D has great manual controls, including an index finger wheel near the shutter release and a full size wheel on the back
• Available remote control software(example1,2)
• Not an extremely large body

It does not sound like you have a hard requirement for micro four thirds, only for cost, remote control software, noise performance, and usability. I think you will find all of this and more in the canon 60D for right around $750. The 50D would also be an option to save a bit of money.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do Micro 4/3s cameras compare with DSLR cameras?

Question

What are the major (and perhaps more subtle) differences between the newer Micro 4/3s format in comparison to the well-established DSLR cameras? What are the pros and cons of the Micro 4/3s format, the camera body and lens capabilities and offerings, size/weight, etc.

Answer

The first technical difference is the fact that the sensor is smaller to the most common DSLR sensor sizes (APS-C and larger), whilst it's going to be less optimal than an APS-C, full frame or medium format (very expensive) sensor, it's still going to be far better than compact sensors. Noise will be comparable to APS-C (1.6x), though probably not quite as good, but this is also dependent on the sensor technology.

The second technical difference is that almost all Micro 4/3rds cameras currently use an electronic viewfinder, not SLR viewfinder. This means there is no phase detect auto-focus which is much quicker than contrast based auto focus. Phase detect AF can take less than a second in good light, whereas contrast AF can typically take 3-4 seconds and most often takes this long in any conditions.

Another difference is that on a lot of Micro 4/3rds cameras, the manual controls for aperture, shutter speed and ISO aren't as accessible as an SLR camera. If you plan on shooting manual with a Micro 4/3rds camera you may have to look around for the one that won't hinder you. For example, Sony's NEX-5 (not Micro 4/3rds but similar) apparently are very fiddly and it's better to just use them in an automated mode like Program mode.

A major physical difference is the size. The camera body itself is typically no larger than a large compact. The problem with this though is that the lenses are still fairly large when it comes to portability. You probably wouldn't try putting one in your pocket unless you have both a large pocket and a very short lens attached.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do Micro 4/3s cameras compare with DSLR cameras? Pros/Cons?

Question

What are the major (and perhaps more subtle) differences between the newer Micro 4/3s format in comparison to the well-established DSLR cameras? What are the pros and cons of the Micro 4/3s format, the camera body and lens capabilities and offerings, size/weight, etc.

Answer

The first technical difference is the fact that the sensor is smaller to the most common DSLR sensor sizes (APS-C and larger), whilst it's going to be less optimal than an APS-C, full frame or medium format (very expensive) sensor, it's still going to be far better than compact sensors. Noise will be comparable to APS-C (1.6x), though probably not quite as good, but this is also dependent on the sensor technology.

The second technical difference is that almost all Micro 4/3rds cameras currently use an electronic viewfinder, not SLR viewfinder. This means there is no phase detect auto-focus which is much quicker than contrast based auto focus. Phase detect AF can take less than a second in good light, whereas contrast AF can typically take 3-4 seconds and most often takes this long in any conditions.

Another difference is that on a lot of Micro 4/3rds cameras, the manual controls for aperture, shutter speed and ISO aren't as accessible as an SLR camera. If you plan on shooting manual with a Micro 4/3rds camera you may have to look around for the one that won't hinder you. For example, Sony's NEX-5 (not Micro 4/3rds but similar) apparently are very fiddly and it's better to just use them in an automated mode like Program mode.

A major physical difference is the size. The camera body itself is typically no larger than a large compact. The problem with this though is that the lenses are still fairly large when it comes to portability. You probably wouldn't try putting one in your pocket unless you have both a large pocket and a very short lens attached.

Check more discussion of this question.

What compact interchangeable lens cameras have manual video?

Question

I'm looking to buy a single camera to use both as a personal snapshot camera and as a video camera to document my artistic work (mainly kinetic sculptures and light installations). The micro four thirds format is appealing for its compactness, as well as the short flange focal distance which allows potentially broad lens compatibility.

I was all set on buying the Lumix G3 but then I discovered it has no manual controls for video. I want at least aperture priority as the Vimeo shallow depth of field eye candy effect is kind of important in my field... The Lumix GH2 has manual video controls but it's simply too big to be called 'compact'. The Olympus PEN cameras have manual video controls, but seem to get bad reviews for video quality.

What's a good EVIL/CSC alternative? Ideally no bigger than the Lumix G3 but with the video controls and quality of the Lumix GH2. Could I adapt+attach a lens with a manual aperture ring to the G3 (to escape the no-manual-controls problem) and trust the G3's auto ISO + shutter speed to give me acceptable results?

Answer

four thirds will limit the ability to get the "depth of field eye candy effect"

You don't need a small aperture necessarily but the smaller the sensor the harder this is to achieve, the Sony uses an APS-C sensor which will help somewhat in doing what you want. I don't believe the manual control is up to par with your needs however.

Depth of field can be manufactured in post processing if it is a top priority of yours, this would give you more flexibility with camera choices as you can fiddle with it later on and get the image nice and sharp initially.

The Olympus also has some magnificent controls in regards to manual control, I think Andrew has a good point there. I can't say that the times I've used the PEN that the videos have been bad for a four thirds camera.

You can mount pretty much any lens to any camera these days it needs to have both manual aperture and focus rings however. I would really try to avoid any camera that does "auto ISO" or "auto aperture" as the only way to achieve great results is to control all these functions yourself. In decent light that means keeping ISO as low as you can and using your aperture to control the light and depth of field.

In the end the GH2 may not seem like a compact, but as soon as you put big lenses on these cameras, how can any of them be called compact? The only time I find the sony NEX even slightly compact is when it has the 17mm pancake lens on, then you lose your ability for decent depth of field (unless something is at minimum focus distance), any other lens, even primes make them so big that you may as well just get a better camera that is going to perform much better under your needs.

If you want professional results, unfortunately you are going to have to spend more on a camera to get them. In the end I would just get a decent proper DSLR and do things properly the first time.

The Nikon D3100 is one of the first DSLRs out with full time autofocus in Video and the results you will get, along with the lens options at your fingertips without mount adaptors and having to resort to manual lenses is far superior.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there reasons beyond weight and price to choose the Olympus 40-150mm over the 14-150mm?

Question

I'm curious whether there is any advantage in buying the 40-150 vs. the 14-150 lens. Both are f/4.0-5.6 and quality seems to be the same.

Is there any reason except weight and price for which one would choose the 40-150?

Answer

The 40-150mm is optically better and lets you open to F/4 at 40mm, while the 14-150mm is already F/5.6 by that focal-length, so you get more light in until you get close to the end of the zoom range.

For sharpness, it depends which side of the 40-150mm range you prefer. At 40mm, the 14-150mm is noticeably sharper than the 40-150mm. At 150mm, the 40-150mm is noticeably sharper. See sharpness samples at all F-stops here and here

Vignetting is terrible on the 14-150mm at both ends of the zoom, while moderate on the 40-150mm and only near the widest aperture. The 40-150mm lens also shows less distortion.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are MMF-1 / MMF-2 adapters so expensive?

Question

Why is it that MMF-1 / MMF-2 adapters (the ones that convert from 4/3 to Micro 4/3) are that expensive?! They seem to be at least $140 on eBay, $250 on Amazon!

Is this a way for Olympus to force you into buying new Micro 4/3 lenses? Or are they technically complicated to build? Isn't is just a metal ring and a bunch of contacts?

Are there cheaper alternatives out there?

Answer

It's partly because they can be. Yes, it is a bit of precision machining with tight tolerances, it is multi-part and multi-material by nature, but it's also the poster child for niche markets. It requires buyers who have a substantial investment in Four Thirds lenses (and by "substantial" I don't mean a huge collection -- just enough to make purchasing new lenses distasteful) and a Micro Four Thirds camera.

It's telling that other "names" in the adapter field, like Adaptimax and Bower, don't offer a 4/3-μ4/3 adapter; that's sort of a giveaway about the size of the potential market, isn't it? Given that the tooling, quality control, packaging, marketing and distribution are all non-trivial, it's not just a matter of weighing the materials and adding a reasonable mark-up. It costs money just to put the things in inventory, and if the low-enders aren't bothering, there's probably a reason for it: they can't make the things at a profit.

Check more discussion of this question.

Better for learning about photography, dSLR or Micro 4/3

Question

I am getting frustrated with the limitations of my iPhone camera and my girlfriends's point and shoot. I want to purchase my first serious camera and learn how to take better photos. I don't think the picture quality difference would effect me much, since I have only used point and shoot cameras. I considering the dSLR because the controls might make it easier to switch settings quickly. I was consider a Micro 4/3 or Sony Nex because the small size would make it easier to have it with me and just take more photos.

Answer

Learning-wise the biggest difference is going to be depth of field control due to sensor size. On a micro 4/3's mount you can't get as much control over what portion of the picture is only in focus (subject isolation). The bigger the sensor, the more control. Sony Nex, however, shares the a sensor size with their DSLRs - so there's no difference there I believe.

Beyond that - its an image quality and handling thing mostly. DSLRs are typically faster to operate and faster all around and they're better in low light. Mirrorless cameras are smaller - its a bit of a tradeoff. There's other differences, but I'll leave that to the other question as its not learning related.

I think you'll be able to learn on either and if you think the smaller size will dictate you using it more - get a mirrorless camera (just make sure it has fully manual controls and that you can afford to buy more lenses in the future - don't buy a system you can only afford to get one lens with). The best camera is the one you have with you.

Check more discussion of this question.