Micro 4/3's vs. DSLR

[C_Dubs]

I can get an olympus e-pl1 and nikon D3000 for the same price. What are the pros and cons of each? Besides the size difference, is there any real difference in the quality of the images they put out or anything like that?

 

[usayit]

Besides the size difference, is there any real difference in the quality of the images they put out or anything like that?

Since you said... "besides the size difference" and followed up with "real difference in the quality", I'd recommend DSLR.

Do a search.. you'll find a review of the E-PL1 and G1 I wrote up. You'll also find some in depth discussion between the two. The real value of the micro 4/3 IS the size; both camera and lens.

 

[JAC526]

If you plan on using legacy lenses the crop factor is 2 to 1. So if you have a 50mm it really looks like 100mm. However, the depth of field is the same. Therefore, its harder to get shallow depth of field and good bokeh.

I've been shooting with a borrowed Panasonic GH1 (while I save some money for dslr) and I've gotten (at least what I think to be) great shots but I want a full frame dslr when I do buy a camera.

 

[clanthar]

So if you have a 50mm it really looks like 100mm. However, the depth of field is the same.

The DOF would be different between these two cameras -- even using the same lens.

Joe

 

[usayit]

Therefore, its harder to get shallow depth of field and good bokeh.

From

Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's not THAT much of a difference between APS-C 1.5-6x crop and Micro 43. You make it sound like they are equipped with P&S pinky thumbnail sized sensors.

There's a difference because CoC is also different...

 

[kundalini]

.... Therefore, its harder to get shallow depth of field and good bokeh......

Really? Are you sure about that?

Shot with an Oly EP3 and 40-150mm lens.

 

[analog.universe]

.... Therefore, its harder to get shallow depth of field and good bokeh......

Really? Are you sure about that?

This is a matter of physics.. the smaller the sensor, the deeper the focus field at a given focal length and aperture. You can certainly get shallow depth of field and good bokeh, but it is undoubtedly harder with a smaller sensor. You're quite close to your subjects in both of those photos, which is the ideal condition for rendering depth of field effects. A larger sensor will always make this effect easier under a wider variety of conditions.

 

[kundalini]

Very true analog., but the myth that you have to shoot wide open at f/1.4 on a full frame to acheive nice bokeh is just that, a myth. It also requires knowing how to use your gear and the physics involved. I do agree with you.

 

[Ron Evers]

Shot with a Panasonic G1 m4/3 camera - both foreground & background out of focus.

 

[C_Dubs]

is the olympus epl-1 a good 4/3's camera to choose?

 

[Ron Evers]

is the olympus epl-1 a good 4/3's camera to choose?

I went with Panasonic's G1 & GF1. I use the G1 with legacy lenses & the wife uses the GF1 with native 14-45 lens.

 

[ann]

I love my pen-1, usayit has an indepth thread here about that camera.

 

[Overread]

*moving to equipment subsection*

 

[C_Dubs]

so i can the the epl-1 for $300 and the sony nex-3 for $360. is the nex-3 worth $60?

 

[usayit]

so i can the the epl-1 for $300 and the sony nex-3 for $360. is the nex-3 worth $60?

So much focus on the camera body... Have you looked at each system's selection of lenses? Have you found the review on E-PL1?

IMO, the NEX's weakness is the lack of interesting lenses.. along with the UI.. along with handling. NEX does have a nicer sensor (bigger) but I surmise this contributes to the complexities and size of the optics which probably is part of the reason. The biggest weakness of the E-PL1 is the autofocus performance.. again my opinion.


btw.. is that $300 new or used?