Micro 4/3 cameras

[thaeffman]

Any body here have any experience with the micro 4/3's system. I really like the form factor of these cameras but do they deliver in terms of image quality??. Im going to be visiting the states this summer (NYC and Virgina) and I want a camera that can be carried easily but still takes quality images. Thanks

[mdauben]

Personally, I transitioned straight from film SLRs to digital SLRs and have been quite happy with my choice. I too have recently become interested in the new Four Third and Micro Four Third cameras, for their size and flexibility.

My concerns were not only image quality but also the lack of an optical viewfinder. I too would be very interested in hearing from someone who has used high end digital SLRs how they feel FT and MFT cameras compare?

[G-man]

I thought a little about these two posts before answering. As far as how the FT/MFT cameras compare to high end DSLR's, there's just simply no comparison. I've used a 1D, 1D MK II, 1DS MKII, 5D, and 5D MKII and with those type bodies, you're typically getting better bodies, faster/better autofocus, and a slew of options that let you customize the camera. On top of all that, you're also getting a much larger sensor which translates to better image quality at higher ISO's for low light shooting and/or hand-held shooting. It's just not even a good comparision. It's like comparing a Toyoyta Celica to a Lamborghini. Even APS-C type cameras like the 7D or D300 have larger sensors, better dynamic, better resolution.

I've used a couple of MFT cameras and also used a couple of the original FT cameras (which had the same size sensor as MFT) like the E-1 and the E-3. In fact, I owned three E-3's because of how much I liked the image quality, but a lot of that is attributable to the glass as well as the cameras.

That said, I think the MFT format is an excellent step up from the typical point and shoot consumer digital cameras. When you talk about image quality, much of your decision making process has to be made around what types of pictures you're taking. If you're doing landscapes or shooting tourist style shots in good light, then you'll be well taken care of by a MFT camera provided you pick quality lenses to match up with it. Even if you're doing some lower light shots, the MFT offerings are still going to do much better than point and shoot digitals.

Right now, I'm speaking in generalities because I don't have a lot of specifics to work with from the OP. He says he wants to know if they deliver in image quality. It all depends on how much image quality you're looking for. If someone says they don't deliver the image quality compared to a DSLR, then will you get a DSLR? That means a bigger camera and bigger lenses. Which is more important? Size or Image Quality? Size or better auto-focus? Size or faster frame rate? It just depends on what you're going to be shooting.

I think more info is needed as to your requirement before really solid advice can be given.