Micro Four Thirds (Page 2): I have a 4/3rds Olympus Camera, but not in the range of the latest models "M Micro 4/3". Mine is an E620 which is no longer made. I have found their lenses...

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

minniev wrote:

Glad to know there's another Freeman Patterson fan... (show quote)

I have a 4/3rds Olympus Camera, but not in the range of the latest models "M Micro 4/3". Mine is an E620 which is no longer made. I have found their lenses very expensive. Unfortunately, I am a novice so wouldn't enter into your conversations on 4/3rds as I still haven't mastered this camera yet. I just keep listening and learning, so yes, there appears to be a few of us here that have a 4/3rd's camera too.
.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

minniev wrote:

Glad to know there's another Freeman Patterson fan... (show quote)

The term has and continues to be misused and beginners suffer from its misunderstanding and false application. Even the manufacturers used the term "equivalent" to purposefully misguide. They actually used it as part of their marketing. However, they no longer do so. A 20 mm lens on a crop sensor lens is listed as a 20 mm lens. It is not listed as 20 mm with parenthesis "equivalent to a 35 mm FF" or whatever factor applies. What is often misunderstood is that the DOF is never the same even if the focal distant is equivalent. Hellooo are we listening now?

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Mark7829 wrote:

The term has and continues to be misused and begin... (show quote)

I think I explained that by 'equivalent' I meant what most people would understand to be 'equivalent field of view'. I don't think it's misuse if you explain how you are using a word. You've made your point.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

mcveed wrote:

I think I explained that by 'equivalent' I meant what most people would understand to be 'equivalent field of view'. I don't think it's misuse if you explain how you are using a word. You've made your point.

Well when the manufacturers used the term it was often not explained. And when people purchase lenses they often make the decision based upon only two criteria, focal length and sharpness. We now find that sharpness is defined in two ways, in the middle and at the edges of the frame. Except the edges never get due respect until you print large and all the edges are fuzzy. (sigh).

I understand what you are saying and your point about 4/3. It is well taken.

RiverNan Loc: Eastern Pa

Love my Olympus OMDE5

back in the day of film I carried a Vivitar, and then a Canon always with 2 lenses...ok sometimes I made me husband carry it.
Now I never have to ask...

mcveed wrote:

I am curious as to how many people here use Micro ... (show quote)

Dickwood33 Loc: Alberta, Canada

mcveed wrote:

The first statement is true, but it is also true t... (show quote)

What you said is right on the mark, the the camera that gets you there gets the picture. I have been struggling for some time between big and small. I am a Nikon man and an expat living in Florida and looking more for reach to get these beautiful birds down here better. Your comments focused my attention perfectly especially after I experienced a monster 5 pound lens recently. I'm 83 and will definitely go smaller to get what I'm looking for. Thanks for your insight.
BTW Freeman Patterson caught my imagination many many years ago with the same book. What an incredible eye he has. Is the book still available? I lost track of my copy a long time ago during my many moves. Bought another of his a few years back but did not enjoy it nearly as much, could not find the original.
Cheers
Dick Woodcroft

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Dickwood33 wrote:

What you said is right on the mark, the the camera... (show quote)

It appears that book is out of print, but you can get a used copy from Amazon as well as a number of his other books.
http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Joy-Freeman-Patterson/dp/0442298838/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

mcveed wrote:

I am curious as to how many people here use Micro ... (show quote)

Don to my eye your shots are spot on fella and along with folks like min your work makes a good argument for the serious snapper to consider a 4/3 system and it will satisfy all their needs. But mark my words their will always be some who disagree and wish to point out the minor limitations of your chosen equipment which you already carefully considered before purchase.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Billyspad wrote:

Don to my eye your shots are spot on fella and along with folks like min your work makes a good argument for the serious snapper to consider a 4/3 system and it will satisfy all their needs. But mark my words their will always be some who disagree and wish to point out the minor limitations of your chosen equipment which you already carefully considered before purchase.

Thanks Billy. No matter what you say on UHH there is always someone who will disagree with you whether he/she knows what they are talking about or not. Micro 4/3 has freed me from trying to decide what equipment to take on a photo trip - I take it all. And I can walk all day carrying my GX8 and 100-400 zoom lens.
Cheers, Don
P.S. How's the weather down there? We are still freezing our asses off up here.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

mcveed wrote:

Thanks Billy. No matter what you say on UHH there is always someone who will disagree with you whether he/she knows what they are talking about or not. Micro 4/3 has freed me from trying to decide what equipment to take on a photo trip - I take it all. And I can walk all day carrying my GX8 and 100-400 zoom lens.
Cheers, Don
P.S. How's the weather down there? We are still freezing our asses off up here.

The weather here is very weird for the time of year. We are having showers most days and its the dry season and for here its very cold. Down to 22C when it should be in the low 30's. 22 degrees by the way has the locals in anoraks and thick sweaters. And the American government does not believe climate change is happening?
Asses by the way may be considered not a family friendly word. Our Boss Nokia Man has censored me for less. Can I suggest butts as a nice cozy alternative?

Keep warm Billy

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Billyspad wrote:

The weather here is very weird for the time of yea... (show quote)

Butts? Butts? Yep we're freezing them off too.

JuxtaposePictures Loc: San Diego

I'm another m43 user (among other systems). Although I have other equipment if I need something I can't get out of my m43 it's my favorite system to use on a regular basis.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

JuxtaposePictures wrote:

I'm another m43 user (among other systems). Although I have other equipment if I need something I can't get out of my m43 it's my favorite system to use on a regular basis.

Welcome to the FYC section, via revival of a long dead post! Join in, and share your images and your ideas.

One of the biggest complaints about the m43 format is the supposed inability to make large prints. I am about to find out for myself. I've rarely had reason to print larger than 13x19, which is my printer's maximum, and had no problems at that size, but preparing my dam bird prints for public display at larger sizes has caused me some anxiety. I took sample files to the printer this past week to get his opinion. He looked at them at full resolution for the big prints and says we are good to go, even on the ones that are cropped. I was relieved but will reserve final judgement till I see them.

JuxtaposePictures Loc: San Diego

I've had no problems printing 16x20s and that's off an Olympus em-5. It's largely going to depend on the quality of the specific file or image rather than the camera. If you were forced to shoot at a very high iso in poor lighting conditions then it probably won't print large very well but otherwise it isn't a problem. If you are someone that can't stand any noise at all then even a "full frame" sensor probably wouldn't cut it. I actually like the noise pattern in Olympus cameras. Keep in mind that the larger the print the further away the viewer will be standing. An 8x10 can actually show more noise than a 16x20 since the 8x10 would be viewed inches away whereas larger prints will be viewed from a few feet away.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

JuxtaposePictures wrote:

I've had no problems printing 16x20s and that's of... (show quote)

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm looking at A2 size, or in that vicinity. I do hate noise, but know enough PP to work with it where I find it and these particular images are unusually noise-tolerant because of what they are. None of them so far are at very high ISO, most in the 200-400 range on the EM1 (original version). I've just upgraded to the EM1 Mark2 and am seeing a lot of difference, so the newer images may be easier to work with. I have no intention of changing formats but this print project is different for me, so it had me a little rattled.

I think online images are the most carefully studied of any way we can display, because typically we are posting downsized jpegs and other photographers are enlarging them to pixel peep.