efix
RF user by conviction
I fell in love with Micro Four Thirds when I got my E-P1 and 20/1.7 pancake. I still love that combo, and today I'm using the 20/1.7, the M.Zuiko 9-18 and a couple of legacy lenses on a Panasonic G1.
I fell in love with the Leica M8 when I read about it on the internet. I bought one. I bought and sold many lenses for it. The ones that spoke to my heart the most were a Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon and 50/2 Planar. I sold that kit due to financial issues last year.
I fell in love with the Fuji X-E1 and the 35/1.4 lens when I first handled them at photokina 2012. The camera is made for a photographer. At that time, however, focusing was far too slow for my needs.
So I continued to use my Micro Four Thirds kit, with which I am still quite happy. It does what I want it to do. However, it does not speak to my heart somehow.
The M8 had soul. The pictures it produced had soul--in great part thanks to the Zeiss glass, but also thanks to that brilliant Kodak CCD. Today, I fell in love with the X-E1 again after handling a friend's unit. The camera has soul. The 35/1.4 has soul. The images that come out of it have soul. It speaks to my heart.
I finally realised what I miss in my Micro Four Thirds setup: soul. Neither cameras nor pictures have it. But the X-E1 has it, much like my M8 did.
I think I might be jumping ship soon.
I fell in love with the Leica M8 when I read about it on the internet. I bought one. I bought and sold many lenses for it. The ones that spoke to my heart the most were a Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon and 50/2 Planar. I sold that kit due to financial issues last year.
I fell in love with the Fuji X-E1 and the 35/1.4 lens when I first handled them at photokina 2012. The camera is made for a photographer. At that time, however, focusing was far too slow for my needs.
So I continued to use my Micro Four Thirds kit, with which I am still quite happy. It does what I want it to do. However, it does not speak to my heart somehow.
The M8 had soul. The pictures it produced had soul--in great part thanks to the Zeiss glass, but also thanks to that brilliant Kodak CCD. Today, I fell in love with the X-E1 again after handling a friend's unit. The camera has soul. The 35/1.4 has soul. The images that come out of it have soul. It speaks to my heart.
I finally realised what I miss in my Micro Four Thirds setup: soul. Neither cameras nor pictures have it. But the X-E1 has it, much like my M8 did.
I think I might be jumping ship soon.
Kent
Finally at home...
I totally agree to both your opinion on the M8 and on the X-E1 - my two favourite cameras!
But although I recently added the Lumix GF3 as my m4/3-cam to my gear, I don't know enough about it yet to judge on them and decide if they can have "soul".
Anyway, I understand what you mean.
But although I recently added the Lumix GF3 as my m4/3-cam to my gear, I don't know enough about it yet to judge on them and decide if they can have "soul".
Anyway, I understand what you mean.
I can understand your point. I have soul cameras and practical cameras. If you are seriously into photography, and you are the type that is sensitive to the differences amongst cameras, then its a good idea to have a few different cameras to temper your moodiness.
It sounds like you should not get rid of your m4/3 until you are happy with something else.
I miss my Leica M8/M9 from a "soul" perspective, but not from a practical perspective.
It sounds like you should not get rid of your m4/3 until you are happy with something else.
I miss my Leica M8/M9 from a "soul" perspective, but not from a practical perspective.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
In the FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds continuum, my Olympus E-1 has soul and a wonderful tactile feel. The E-5 was a little more industrial and less soulful but seemed right there. The Panasonic G1 was somewhat bland, just as the Olympus E-PL1 seems to be. However, the new E-M1 hit me the same way when I handled it last week as the E-1 did when I first played with one in 2003: tactile feel is great, right there on par with the E-1.
I hope it has soul too ... hopefully, I'll see it within a couple of weeks. ;-)
G
I hope it has soul too ... hopefully, I'll see it within a couple of weeks. ;-)
G
efix
RF user by conviction
Interesting thoughts, Godfrey. The E-M5 is still tickling my fancy, I have to admit. With prices on an acceptable level, I do still consider it. But the X-E1 is also down by as much as 50% for 1-year-old used bodies, which makes it very attractive.
jsrockit, Whatever happens I will not sell my E-P1 and my 20/1.7 pancake. I just love that combo far too much. But I might actually sell my M.Zuiko 9-18mm lens to help fund an X-E1. I'm not going to need another wide-angle lens before the next holidays, anyway. Hardly used it since the summer vacations.
jsrockit, Whatever happens I will not sell my E-P1 and my 20/1.7 pancake. I just love that combo far too much. But I might actually sell my M.Zuiko 9-18mm lens to help fund an X-E1. I'm not going to need another wide-angle lens before the next holidays, anyway. Hardly used it since the summer vacations.
kaiwasoyokaze
Half Frame Goodness
totally agree with your points, but I myself have the GF1 and 20mm combo that I will never part from as well.
GF1 and the dynamic B&W filter is magic for me.
GF1 and the dynamic B&W filter is magic for me.
Sounds like a good plan... I'm very happy with the Fuji stuff.
efix
RF user by conviction
One more reason to go for the Fuji X-E1: I have a sizeable amount of K-mount lenses, which I could use with a plain adapter as well as the K->X lens turbo. That would make quite an incredibly versatile setup. Save for the extreme wide angle.
Kent
Finally at home...
As soon as you have that toy, please let me know. I'll buy you another cup of coffee then.
daveleo
what?
Interesting topic, and makes me think.
I really love my X100, I say "it's my personal camera" (what I once said about my Hexar AF). I'd say now that it has soul.
I also really like my Nikon DSLR system. It is very good machinery. It does lots of good things and is very flexible. But I always know that I am operating equipment when I use it.
I really love my X100, I say "it's my personal camera" (what I once said about my Hexar AF). I'd say now that it has soul.
I also really like my Nikon DSLR system. It is very good machinery. It does lots of good things and is very flexible. But I always know that I am operating equipment when I use it.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Efix,
Could you post a picture or two that has "soul"
and another set that has "no soul"
I'm curious to see if I can tell the difference.
Could you post a picture or two that has "soul"
and another set that has "no soul"
I'm curious to see if I can tell the difference.
efix
RF user by conviction
As soon as you have that toy, please let me know. I'll buy you another cup of coffee then.
Probably not before next year, though
efix
RF user by conviction
Efix,
Could you post a picture or two that has "soul"
and another set that has "no soul"
I'm curious to see if I can tell the difference.
Haha, now that's a tough request! But I'm sure I can dig out a couple shots from my Panasonic G1 and Leica M8 that will showcase what I mean. Though it's of course a highly subjective thing ...
Murchu
Well-known
Interesting topic. I feel there are always cameras that gel more easily or intimately with us than others. I think its a highly personal thing for each of us, and agree with others there are cameras that click innately with us, and others that are just work tools. I personally don't see a difference in my images taken with either type of camera for me, at least in terms of technical quality, but perhaps in terms of the types of shots I would take.
Go with the cameras that speak to you, but don't ignore the functional cameras that give you the results you want also. I made that mistake, and am still buying back bits and pieces of kit that gave me great results, and I use all the time for certain things, even if they don't hold the same sentimental attachment as other pieces of kit.
Go with the cameras that speak to you, but don't ignore the functional cameras that give you the results you want also. I made that mistake, and am still buying back bits and pieces of kit that gave me great results, and I use all the time for certain things, even if they don't hold the same sentimental attachment as other pieces of kit.
Kent
Finally at home...
I think Felix (efix) has a point there. Although my former Sony NEX-7 was a fantastic camera and it thrilled me from the first day I got it, it never spoke to me the way that the Fuji X-E1 does (although I only have got it about a week ago) ot the way my M8 does, although the NEX-7 - objectively spoken - is a "better" camera than the M8.
Another example: I have always been a Canon DSLR shooter and I loved my first EOS 350D (and later the 40D). I still have the 5Dclassic and it produces great images but it never felt as close as the old 350D did - or the Pentax K100D my dad uses!! That little Pentax really "feels" nice. Hard to say why.
Another example: I have always been a Canon DSLR shooter and I loved my first EOS 350D (and later the 40D). I still have the 5Dclassic and it produces great images but it never felt as close as the old 350D did - or the Pentax K100D my dad uses!! That little Pentax really "feels" nice. Hard to say why.
efix
RF user by conviction
Hm. I've read a couple reviews of the Lens Turbo which all ascribe it bad corner performance, lots of flare, general softness, barrel distortion ... there had to be a catch at that price.
So now what ... wait until the more expensive Metabones Speed Booster comes in K->X? Or spend the same money on an Olympus E-M5 after all?
I guess I'm back to square one.
So now what ... wait until the more expensive Metabones Speed Booster comes in K->X? Or spend the same money on an Olympus E-M5 after all?
I guess I'm back to square one.
Efix,
Could you post a picture or two that has "soul"
and another set that has "no soul"
I'm curious to see if I can tell the difference.
If I had to boil it down to something... it would be m4/3's wide depth of field. Not soul, but it looks different.
rbelyell
Well-known
imo its not a matter of 'soul', its more a matter of 'user euphoria'. the m8 and the fujis have analogue controls--they harken us old film users back to our roots. nostalgia is very powerful, and gains influence as we progress in our lives. added to that, practically, analogue controls do provide more of a 'connection' with the camera as a tool, much more easily taking it in our mind and reflexes from 'tool' to 'extension'. frankly, though i love the results, i'm having the same issue now between my gxr m and x100. i certainly have noted it with my epl5.
having said that, and myself fully identifying with it, i heartfully disagree about resulting images not having 'soul'. i guarantee 100%, thatall but the most discerning eye can spot an m4/3 photo 'in the wild'. i have an epl5 with oly 45/1.8 and it produces images almost in every way the equal of my x100, so much so i was frankly stunned. in many ways my gxr m produces images i like better than my x100. but i too am coming to the point where, given that IQ from many sources has reached a baseline of excellence i never thought id achieve with digital, the 'user euphoria' is supplanting squeezing a tad more IQ from my equipment.
in the end, m4/3 provides a tool not easily replicated by FF or apsc. its size and features make it perfect for discreet street shooting. as the streets become more hostile, these benefits become more important. and the 2x crop, IBIS, and small lenses make it ideal for extreme telephoto, birding etc. in my personal journey, my present decision is to hold on to m4/3 for these reasons as my autofocus rig. i will sell my gxr m because i more want to replicate analogue user euphoria with my manual focus rig, which will center around a yet-to-be-purchased xpro1.
tony
having said that, and myself fully identifying with it, i heartfully disagree about resulting images not having 'soul'. i guarantee 100%, thatall but the most discerning eye can spot an m4/3 photo 'in the wild'. i have an epl5 with oly 45/1.8 and it produces images almost in every way the equal of my x100, so much so i was frankly stunned. in many ways my gxr m produces images i like better than my x100. but i too am coming to the point where, given that IQ from many sources has reached a baseline of excellence i never thought id achieve with digital, the 'user euphoria' is supplanting squeezing a tad more IQ from my equipment.
in the end, m4/3 provides a tool not easily replicated by FF or apsc. its size and features make it perfect for discreet street shooting. as the streets become more hostile, these benefits become more important. and the 2x crop, IBIS, and small lenses make it ideal for extreme telephoto, birding etc. in my personal journey, my present decision is to hold on to m4/3 for these reasons as my autofocus rig. i will sell my gxr m because i more want to replicate analogue user euphoria with my manual focus rig, which will center around a yet-to-be-purchased xpro1.
tony
efix
RF user by conviction
Well, to me personally, Micro Four Thirds sensors create a different look to images than does Fuji's X-Trans sensor, the CCD in the M8/M9, or the new CMOS sensor inside the M 240. These devices create images with unmatched clarity, depth, and color reproduction. I am unable to find that in images taken with Micro Four Thirds camera. Although I have to admit, with good glass, the latest generation MFT sensors can come close under optimal conditions.
Whenever I browse through my Lightroom catalogue, I can instantly make out images taken with my M8 or Panasonic G1. The former have 'soul', the latter don't. The Fuji X-E1 raw files that I played with come close to what I've been getting from my M8. Files from the E-M5 are also very nice, but they lack a certain punch to my eye, a certain clarity in the fine details and the color reproduction.
Good lenses play a role here of course. But as an example, the Zeiss 50mm Planar shone on my M8, while it delivered mediocre results on my Panasonic G1. I haven't had a chance to use one on a Fuji X-Trans camera, so I can't comment on that.
Whenever I browse through my Lightroom catalogue, I can instantly make out images taken with my M8 or Panasonic G1. The former have 'soul', the latter don't. The Fuji X-E1 raw files that I played with come close to what I've been getting from my M8. Files from the E-M5 are also very nice, but they lack a certain punch to my eye, a certain clarity in the fine details and the color reproduction.
Good lenses play a role here of course. But as an example, the Zeiss 50mm Planar shone on my M8, while it delivered mediocre results on my Panasonic G1. I haven't had a chance to use one on a Fuji X-Trans camera, so I can't comment on that.
rbelyell
Well-known
of course the planar 'shone' on your m8--its optimized for rf lenses! m4/3 isnt. look, we all feel what we feel and see what we see. many different cam companies can survuve because cam/lens combos, 'look', 'colors' etc are subjective. and while i have no doubt you can ID what cam took what pic in your own catalogue, i do have doubt that you, or 99% of the rest of us, can ID an m4/3 pic in the wild.
tony
tony