Gary Ayton photography

The Micro Four Thirds camera system has taken the photographic world by storm becoming 3rd in sales of dSLR-like cameras in Japan behind Canon and Nikon dSLRs.

There are a number of reasons for their popularity which essentially results from a culmination of various technologies coming together to make such a system possible in a functional manner for the first time.

Point and shoot users who are tired of the poor image quality, lack of versatility and limited ability to progress with learning photography have discovered that Micro Four Thirds can address all these issues and still be relatively compact and light, although still not cheap.

DSLR users have adopted Micro Four Thirds in their droves because it offers a much smaller and lighter, less intimidating camera kit to take almost anywhere and which compliments their dSLR kits beautifully, while only giving up marginal image quality.

Leica M rangefinder wannabe’s have also flocked to Micro Four Thirds, because for the first time they can get relatively affordable access to a Leica-like system with the ability to use almost any 35mm rangefinder lens, and unlike the far more expensive Leica M9, you get fast live preview manual focus and video as well as an option for autofocus lenses.

Creative photographers will also enjoy the fact that almost any 35mm lens ever made can be used and in addition, now be converted into a tilt lens via the new tilt adapter mentioned in a previous post.

Street photographers and candid portrait photographers just love the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 M43 lens.

Whilst a Micro Four Thirds camera and lenses may solve 90% of photographic needs, the system is still immature and is not able to and may not ever be able to solve all photographic needs.

Let’s look at the many pros of the Micro Four Thirds system:

Large sensor in comparison to point and shoot cameras:

• much better image quality, especially at higher ISO – very usable at ISO 800-1600, although marginally not as good as cropped sensor dSLRs or full frame dSLRs, but these mandate much larger lenses.
• much shallower depth of field and thus ability to make your subject pop if using a wide aperture lens such as the 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens or a 50mm f/2.0 lens (M43 version coming next year), or the many legacy 35mm lenses – you can even use a Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L lens wide open with fantastic results, or a Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Leica M rangefinder lens.
• much better low light performance – higher ISO perfromance, image stabilisation, large aperture lenses.

2x crop factor sensor:

• generally allows better edge-to-edge image quality, particularly when used with telecentric Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds lenses
• fantastic super telephoto reach in a compact hand holdable package (although Olympus dSLRs would be even better for this)
• many sports events wont allow more than 200mm focal length lenses, a 2x crop camera will give you much more telephoto reach.
• increased depth of field in comparison to full frame cameras may be valuable for macro work as well as landscape work, while for low light portraiture, it means you could use a 50mm f/1.4 lens at lower ISO, but still have sufficient DOF to capture your subject – sometimes very shallow DOF of full frame dSLRs is NOT in your favour.
• smaller image circle means smaller lenses needed.

Short lens flange to sensor distance:

• allows almost any legacy lens to be adapted including rangefinder lenses, and allows tilt adapter to be used on 35mm SLR lenses.
• allows far more compact super wide angle lenses – compare the Micro Four Thirds 7-14mm zoom with the Four Thirds 7-14mm zoom
• allows more compact camera/pancake lens kits

No mirror and no prism:

• allows the most efficient and accurate manual focus system available, and brilliant for MF of tilt-shift lenses which require magnified live view for accurate focus.
• quieter shutter – hopefully in the near future, fully silent mode will be possible with electronic shutter for still images
• no mirror vibrations to blur the photos, and thus no need to set a mirror lockup for super telephotos or macro work
• means less moving parts to go wrong, and importantly, as the system matures, it should become much cheaper to roll out new bodies with upgraded sensors and features as there is no phase detect AF system, no mirror, and no prism to pay for, or to constrain the design of the body. This will become very important, we all hate having cameras that become technologically obsolete within 3-5 years, now there is an opportunity for bodies to be replaced quite cheaply so you are more able to stay with the advances. Furthermore, the cost will be able to be reduced due to the economies of scale that such a popular system will provide. A win-win situation.

Electronic viewfinder:

• the new EVFs are so good that the view is better than in some entry level dSLR optical viewfinders and this will only get better as technology improves
• allows real time display of digital filter effects, shutter speed effect, exposure effect, live histogram, camera level indicators (on Olympus), image aspect ratio, grid lines, etc.
• allows option of tiltable or potentially in the future, removable EVF
• much better view in low light or with stopped down legacy lenses than on optical dSLRs

Fast contrast detect autofocus:

• no back focus AF calibration errors that need to be corrected as with dSLRs
• fast enough to maintain AF on a subject as you walk towards it taking 3.5fps shots (using GH-1 with 14-140mm lens in AFC mode)
• fast face recognition comes in handy
• ability to track a selected object which is actually very handy – just choose your subject in tracking mode, and even if you zoom in or out, or get closer to subject, it will regain focus although this mode gives you blurry shots every alternate shot in 3.5fps burst mode as you walk towards a subject, as it takes a touch longer to recognise the subject that just AF on a given point. This is fast enough to track walking people, moving cars (using GH-1 with 14-140mm lens in AFC mode)
• the best AF system for macrophotography currently available  (with Pan. 45mm f/2.8 macro lens)

Optimised for HD video:

• extra lens contacts means faster contrast detect AF which is essential for HD video AF
• 14-140mm HD lens is the only dSLR-like lens optimised for HD video
• the only dSLR-like camera that will allow continuous AF in HD videos (Pan. GH-1 with 14-140mm HD lens)

Now, let’s look at some of the cons:

Too small:

• some people with big hands will find such cameras too small to handle well
• large, heavy lenses become unweildy – if you want to use a Olympus ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 lens, then an Olympus dSLR may be a better option on handling alone let alone this lens will not AF on a Micro Four Thirds yet.
• sometimes a large camera is needed to give you credibility

Autofocus not fast enough yet:

• as fast as the AF is, especially on the Panasonic models, it is only as fast as entry level dSLRs and will not yet match pro dSLRs, and thus shooting sports and action may not be as easy using AF.
• having said that GH-1 +14-140mm lens at 90mm gives more in-focus images walking towards a subject and shooting at 3.5fps than does my Canon 1D mark III with 135mm f/2.0L lens at 3fps but then AF on that model has been buggy from the start 🙁
• at the current rate of technology change, I would think it would not be long before contrast detect AF becomes faster than dSLR phase detect technology which struggles with different temperatures, etc as it is not actually using the final image to judge focus accuracy. Olympus was right not to pursue their revolutionary E330 dSLR’s dual AF system – I think contrast detect AF will win in the end.

Still noisy at higher ISO:

• if you really need to use ISO > 1600, then you need to look at a full frame dSLR, but remember, you can usually get more telephoto reach at faster aperture on this system than on a full frame dSLR which may allow you to use a lower ISO than on a dSLR.
• dynamic range will always be marginally less than on full frame dSLRs of similar technology.

Limited flash systems:

• no remote TTL flash capability as yet let alone radio wireless TTL flash
• no inbuilt flash on some models
• needs a compact macrophotography flash system although can use Olympus SR-11 Ring flash, etc as well as Canon Ring Flash (in manual mode)
• flash sync 1/160th or 1/180th sec although high sync flash is available (FP flash) if use a FP-capable flash such as Olympus FL-50R

Limited range of AF lenses:

• only one lens will do continuous AF in HD video – but then no other dSLR can do this
• limited wide aperture prime lenses – need 12mm f/2.0, 40mm f/1.4, 50mm f/2.0 macro, 100mm f/2.0 macro, 200mm f/2.8, 250mm f/4 – at present we have 17mm f/2.8, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.4 Leica-D Four Thirds, 50mm f/2.0 macro Four Thirds (but slow if any AF on M43).

No shift lenses:

• you can get a tilt adapter to convert almost any 35mm legacy lens into a tilt lens but no shift capability
• can use legacy or even Canon EF shift lenses, but no dedicated M43 shift lenses

No through-the-lens optical viewfinder:

• you can’t have your cake and eat it – no mirror, no through-the-lens optical view
• a good dSLR will have minimal blackout of your view during burst shooting, even at 10fps – the GH-1 even at 3.5fps has some very noticeable blackout between frames – but technology should improve this for future cameras, and you could opt for a hot-shoe mounted optical viewfinder instead.
• the view through a high quality full frame optical viewfinder can in itself be inspiring and nurture your creativity – something that is not easy to replicate with an EVF – yet, but it will happen

Most Micro Four Thirds lenses need digital correction of aberrations:

• with the ready availability of post-processing or even in-camera aberration correction, the M43 lenses generally are designed to allow more aberrations so they can be designed more compact – a reasonable compromise but it may mean some loss of edge sharpness.

Video mode limitations:

• 17mbps compression rate a touch too aggressive – 25mbps would be better
• no B-frames in AVCHD compression means motion is not recorded as well as it could be
• needs more frame rate options for the video enthusiasts
• no power zoom – but then no dSLR is likely to get this either
• no control over audio level

Special functions not yet available:

• no intervalometer
• no wireless remote camera control
• no live view output to external devices
• burst rate is only 3.5fps – similar to most entry level dSLRs but not up there with 5-10fps of the pro dSLRs
• no GPS tagging – but this will come when the new GPS chips which do not use up as much battery life get to market
• limited third party software control – an issue for astrophotographers
• 20+ megapixels is not going to happen in the near future and if you really need this resolution and image stitching is not suitable, consider a medium format digital or film camera.

Personally, the Micro Four Thirds will replace my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens for most of my photography, but I will still use my Olympus dSLR with ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD lens (just love this combination, while others will also love the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens), and my Canon 1D Mark III with tilt-shift lenses and the 135mm f/2.0L lens.

The Micro Four Thirds kit will do almost everything else well enough to produce good 20″x30″ prints and I don’t need any bigger.

Which would you rather take to the zoo with you:

This photo was posted on dpreview.com forum today by Robert Deutsch and compares Canon 5D full frame with Canon 100-400mm IS L lens and a Panasonic GF-1 M43 camera with Panasonic 45-200mm lens.

He also posts comparison images hand held with each at 400mm effective focal length, ISO 200 and there is little difference in image quality – so which would you take?

Personally, I would take my Olympus E510 + ZD 50-200mm lens to the zoo – the 400mm f/3.5 with IS gives a nice compromise with better background blurring for portraits such as when used at 100mm f/2.8, while allowing close focus to 1.2m, as well as my GH-1 with 14-140mm for video and snapshots.

The Micro Four Thirds camera system has surged to 3rd in popularity of “dSLR” sales in 2009 partly because of the versatility its short sensor to lens mount flange distance offers allowing almost any lens ever made to be used.

The recently announced competing system from Samsung which is a welcome competition for us all, may have a larger sensor and marginally less noise at high ISO, and less crop factor for 35mm lenses, but it has a number of disadvantages when compared to the Micro Four Thirds format.

To understand some of these issues, let’s first look at the implications of the sensor to lens flange distance – on the Micro Four Thirds cameras, this distance is 20mm, while on the Samsung NX system, it is 25.5mm.

One of the implications is the range of legacy lenses that can be mounted.

In theory, both systems should be able to have adapters made which allow infinity focus for most legacy lenses, HOWEVER, unlike the MFT cameras, it is uncertain if a Leica M bayonet lens would achieve infinity focus on a Samsung mount as Leica M flange distance is 27.8mm, only 2.3mm more than the Samsung and maybe too thin for an adapter.Other rangefinder lens mounts such as Leica M screw mount,  and Canon rangefinder, and the half-frame Olympus Pen should be possible  to make for the Samsung given they would require only 3.3mm thin adapters.

An important factor may be the difference in throat diameter – for example, the Canon EF is 8mm wider than the OM which may make a 2mm thin adapter design easier by allowing enough metal to give it strength, but more importantly, allows the narrower OM mount to fit inside the EF mount given there is no latitude to create a conical shaped adapter.

The Leica M throat is 44mm at the small end for SLRs and if the Samsung throat is 38mm, they will not be able to fit a Leica M mount inside it and thus it would appear one would not be able to fit rangefinder lenses such as a Leica M on a Samsung and still get infinity focus.

Without this capability, Samsung will struggle to gain support of photo enthusiasts who would be the early adopters, and without these early adopters and their ongoing support combined with the lack of goodwill in the SLR community, I would be surprised if Samsung make big inroads into this sector, however optimistic they may be.

A list of flange distances can be found on wikipedia and from this list you can see why you cannot use non-Nikon F mount lenses on Nikon dSLR as Nikon has one of the widest flange distance of 46.5mm, but you can mount Nikon F, Leica R, Yashica/Contax, and Olympus OM lenses on most other dSLR systems including Canon EF (44mm), Olympus Four Thirds (38.67mm).

You can also see that Sony/Minolta/Pentax lenses could also be used on Four Thirds but not on Canon EF cameras, but you need the mirror-less systems such as MFT and Samsung NX to use Canon FD/FL/R/EF lenses.

Optimal focal length for a compact pancake lens:

In order to make a pancake lens as thin as possible, the optimal focal length is close to the sensor-flange distance – this is why Olympus made its 17mm f/2.8 (34mm in 35mm camera terms) and Panasonic made its superb 20mm f/1.7 lens which is 40mm in 35mm camera terms, and presumably the reason Samsung chose 30mm f/2 pancake (48mm in 35mm terms).

For street photographers wanting a compact camera kit, a focal length of 30-40mm in 35mm terms is often the most desired focal length – obviously the 2 MFT lenses mentioned above fill this niche nicely, but the Samsung 30mm is too long – if they made a 25mm pancake which would equate with its flange distance, you could get a 40mm focal length reach in 35mm terms and still be a compact pancake lens.

They could make thin pancake lenses at focal lengths less than these, but I suspect the rear element may need to protrude into the camera or they would need to resort to a more complex lens design.

Short lens flange distances and sensor size:

As Leica have discovered, in order to make digital cameras using their 27.8mm flange distance for their Leica M lenses, increasing sensor size requires expensive specialised sensor design to ensure the light rays hitting the outer parts of the sensor are more consistent with the image characteristics of those hitting the central parts.

They appear to have finally achieved this in their Leica M9 full frame digital, but it is very expensive and does not offer live view for manual focus, nor movie capabilities.

Samsung with their NX-10 appear to have ignored this issue so it will be interesting to see how much vignetting, CA and poor image sharpness they will get in the outer areas of their images – there is always a compromise in photography – you can’t have your cake and eat it too!

Optical aberrations increase exponentially with distance from centre of the image, thus it will always be easier to make lenses with better edge-to-edge image quality on a 2x crop sensor compared to the NX 1.6x crop sensor.

Of course they could use in-camera digital corrections instead of expensive sensors but this would increase noise, and reduce image detail in the periphery.

Conclusion:

The Samsung NX is a welcome addition to the competition in the mirror-less interchangeable lens digital camera market as it will spur on further development and we should all benefit from that.

However, its design, whilst allowing similar size camera bodies to MFT, inevitably means potentially less versatility in what lenses could be adapted – in particular, they may not have access to Leica M  lens users, and their AF lenses will necessarily be larger than MFT lenses and with potential for less image quality in the periphery.

The 2x crop of the MFT sensor also means that focal length reach can be achieved in a much more compact lens than with Samsung’s APS-C size 1.6x crop sensor – you could easily design a compact 200mm f/2.8 lens for MFT or Four Thirds which would give high quality 400mm f/2.8 focal length reach in a very compact, hand holdable kit (please Olympus, bring one of these out soon), but to do so on a NX camera would require a massive 250mm f/2.8 lens with its much larger image circle.

Furthermore, Samsung does not have access to a range of AF lenses as does MFT with their MFT and Four Thirds lenses, and this as well as their lack of following, will limit their success.

It may though stimulate Nikon or Canon to enter this market, although I suspect Canon has the high end in its sights with some of its new lenses offering a 40mm image circle which allow for a larger than full frame sensor.

In comparison to the Samsung NX, the Micro Four Thirds format offers a better compromise on lens size, edge-to-edge image quality, greater hand holdable telephoto reach and compatibility with legacy lenses, and at present, a much greater range of dedicated AF lenses, much better video capability with only marginally less high ISO performance.

ps.. Novoflex has just announced its adapters for Samsung NX which include Nikon F, Canon FD, Minolta MD, Leica R, Pentax K, Olympus OM, M42 and T2, but as predicted, none for Leica M or Olympus Pen.