Solarflare
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,898
- Reaction score
- 395
Well 4/3 sensors currently give you about 7 bit color depth per channel, and about 12 steps of dynamic range, compared to about 8 bit color depth and 14 steps of dynamic range with APS-C and "full frame" non-cropped small format (this refers to Sony/Nikon sensors; Canon offers a bit less than that).
Actually 4/3 sensors give you about the image quality of the 1" sensor Sony uses in the RX100 / RX10. Thats because they dont use the technology juice that Sony uses in those sensors is missing from all 4/3 sensors on the market, such as being backlit.
Olympus cameras offer the probably best sensor based image stabilization on the market.
And unless you use a tripod and the newest Olympus with the sensor shift trick for increased resolution, you'll only get 16 Megapixels of resolution.
I only hear good stuff about the 4/3 lenses though. Plenty of great glas for this, even if the selection is still not as complete as for a Nikon or Canon DSLR.
So if thats sufficient to you - go ahead.
Personally I see no point. I'm rather tall and not outright weak - carrying a DSLR isnt too much of a hassle to me. Especially since I've picked the most lightweight ones and lightweight lenses as well. Also, one of the most important properties for me is lowlight performance - obviously larger sensors have advantages there.
As a money saving option, 4/3 is IMHO a poor choice. The really good cameras are actually more expensive than almost all APS-C options (except the Leica T and the Fuji X-T1), and the really good glas is just as expensive as great glas for APS-C or full frame.
Actually 4/3 sensors give you about the image quality of the 1" sensor Sony uses in the RX100 / RX10. Thats because they dont use the technology juice that Sony uses in those sensors is missing from all 4/3 sensors on the market, such as being backlit.
Olympus cameras offer the probably best sensor based image stabilization on the market.
And unless you use a tripod and the newest Olympus with the sensor shift trick for increased resolution, you'll only get 16 Megapixels of resolution.
I only hear good stuff about the 4/3 lenses though. Plenty of great glas for this, even if the selection is still not as complete as for a Nikon or Canon DSLR.
So if thats sufficient to you - go ahead.
Personally I see no point. I'm rather tall and not outright weak - carrying a DSLR isnt too much of a hassle to me. Especially since I've picked the most lightweight ones and lightweight lenses as well. Also, one of the most important properties for me is lowlight performance - obviously larger sensors have advantages there.
As a money saving option, 4/3 is IMHO a poor choice. The really good cameras are actually more expensive than almost all APS-C options (except the Leica T and the Fuji X-T1), and the really good glas is just as expensive as great glas for APS-C or full frame.
