Micro Four Thirds

[Spades45]

My mother uses a regular Olympus point and shoot, and my Galaxy S2 takes better pictures than her camera. Her birthday is coming up and I know a DSLR is just too bulky for her, so I was thinking of getting her a MFT. What are some good resources I can look into for information on these? All the serious digital photography sites just run on about how they're a fad and you should just get a real DSLR instead. It seems to me that these are perfect for the regular consumer - they take better pictures than a P&S and are just slightly larger in size, and are easier to use than a DSLR.

How much better would one of these be than say, my Galaxy S2? I know it's a cell phone but I've found it takes great pictures, better than any P&S I've ever used. I have an extremely limited experience with DSLRs but found them relatively easy to use - just look, focus, and shoot - I never had enough time to play with options or settings or anything. This is how I imagine she would use the MFT. The reason I ask for the cell phone comparison is I have been trying to snag her a Nexus 4 as well and was wondering if it's worth it to get her both or just the Nexus. If the picture quality is much higher on the MFT then I will get both.

 

[Throckmorton]

It will be much better than a cell phone. The reason you think the Galaxy takes such great pictures is you probably look at them at a small size. You should get her an Olympus MFT because they have stabilization built in to the body

 

[Midwayman]

I'd just be real careful about buying her what you want her to have rather than what she wants. I know my wife and I have very different ideas of what makes a good camera. MFT is honestly overkill for someone who isn't into photography. The cameras are still large and quite expensive. FWIW I like my Olympus XZ1 (there is a 2 out now) a lot. Fast lens, lots of easy to use manual settings and still small enough to fit in most pockets. That's something you can't do with a MFT camera unless you're using a prime or very large pockets.

 

[Syborg1211]

I'd just be real careful about buying her what you want her to have rather than what she wants. I know my wife and I have very different ideas of what makes a good camera. MFT is honestly overkill for someone who isn't into photography. The cameras are still large and quite expensive.

^This. You should look into the high end point and shoots like the Canon S110, Sony RX100, or Panasonic LX7. An MFT will require a separate bag to carry it in, which is a dealbreaker for most women.

 

[blastingcap]

Depends on what your priorities are

If you prioritize portability a LOT then a compact camera, the smaller the better.

If you prioritize IQ then medium format camera or larger.

For casual users who want a big step up from a cell phone and a significant step up from a cheapo pocket cam, yet want to have a lot of portability, a used Canon S95 is great at stills and will take okay videos (though with more artifacts than CMOS-based cameras). If video is also important than a S100 may be worth the extra cost. But for most moms who aren't seriously into photography and video, the S95 used is probably the highest end camera I'd feel comfortable giving them.

For serious users who want portability but are used to DSLR-level image quality, the LX7 and RX100 are the ones to look hard at. You don't give up a lot other than autofocus speed, battery life, and in some cases hotshoe/tripod mount positions etc. You might not even give up much of anything in terms of low light photos because DSLR kit lenses are typically slow f/3.5-5.6 compared to f/1.8 or even f/1.4 lenses (at the wide end) on the high-end compact cameras. But the serious compact cameras will cost you almost as much as a DSLR. So I can't recommend that casual users like "mom" get things like LX7/RX100 cameras unless "mom" is pretty darn serious about photography.

For serious users want to out and out REPLACE their DSLRs with something almost as good but smaller (and with worse autofocus tracking and missing viewfinders in many cases, but faster and more accurate single-shot autofocus in the case of many M43 cameras), consider the mirrorless system cameras like M43, NEX.

 

[gevorg]

RX100 is a perfect gift for a mom. If you give her a DSLR or something not pocketable, she'll likely rarely use it.

 

[xSauronx]

^This. You should look into the high end point and shoots like the Canon S110, Sony RX100, or Panasonic LX7. An MFT will require a separate bag to carry it in, which is a dealbreaker for most women.

love love my lx7 but at retail price of 450...its not really for mom unless she is a little bit serious about photography. even at 300, which i paid, its not pocketable and more than someone needs if they just want some snapshots here and there. the s110 and rx100 are pricey, too. theyll all take really nice picture though, without the bother of having to ever shop for lenses

but the s110 is pocketable, and the s100 is 280 on amazon, but is it worth getting a really nice P&S for her? could probably get something well under $200 that would upgrade her current point and shoot and not be a waste of money on features she will never use

 

[sixone]

If your mom is happy with her Olympus, she may not enjoy learning a new camera, no matter what kind you get her.

Talk to her about it, before you do anything.

 

[nOOky]

I'd consider a camera like the Canon SX260HS or another brand equivalent like a Panasonic. There aren't tiny, they sure ain't huge, and they take great images, much better than a cell phone imho.
A 4/3 camera is still a bit big, even with a pancake lens. Mine fits in my cargo pocket, but you know it's there.

 

[alpha88]

I think it's important to identify the use case -

I recently bought a M43 camera (G5 with the 20mm 1.7 pancake) and I absolutely love it. However, I went from being very comfortable with both compact cameras as well as DSLR, and looking for something that could give me some of the control of a DSLR (e.g. narrow depth of field, different lenses) but still able to be put in a coat pocket. I think M43 is a great option in that case.

However, if you're talking about a relative novice, who just wants to their pictures to look better, then a higher end compact may be a better option.

 

[gar655]

I'd just be real careful about buying her what you want her to have rather than what she wants. I know my wife and I have very different ideas of what makes a good camera. MFT is honestly overkill for someone who isn't into photography. The cameras are still large and quite expensive. FWIW I like my Olympus XZ1 (there is a 2 out now) a lot. Fast lens, lots of easy to use manual settings and still small enough to fit in most pockets. That's something you can't do with a MFT camera unless you're using a prime or very large pockets.

Another recommendation for this. The menu will be similar. The fast lens with will allow for better indoor shots than even the RX100 for moving subjects.

 

[Throckmorton]

Another recommendation for this. The menu will be similar. The fast lens with will allow for better indoor shots than even the RX100 for moving subjects.

What is the actual light gathering ability compared to the RX100? The f stop is lower but that number is relative to the size of the lens and sensor

 

[AkumaX]

What is the actual light gathering ability compared to the RX100? The f stop is lower but that number is relative to the size of the lens and sensor

RX100's sensor is 2.8x crop to that of a normal 35mm sensor
Same size as the Nikon J1/V1 (which, at the time of MSRP $800 was a ripoff, but due to firesales ~$250-$300, is a pretty good solution). Nikon's AF is also top notch (so I'm told)

m4/3 sensor = 2.0x
APS-C (entry canon/nikon/sony) = 1.5x/1.6x

Also, check out Focal Length Equivalent + Aperture Equivalent in table:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100

 

[blastingcap]

What is the actual light gathering ability compared to the RX100? The f stop is lower but that number is relative to the size of the lens and sensor

RX100 sensor size is almost three times bigger than LX5/7, XZ1, or S110 sensors and is built on Sony's latest and greatest process, so on sensor size alone the RX100 has a ~1.67 stop advantage in light gathering ability. However the RX's lens starts at f/1.8 and ends at f/4.9 which is slightly slower than some of the Oly/Pany cameras (e.g., the LX7 starts at f/1.4 which is something like .67 stops faster than f/1.8), so the RX100 gives up some of the advantage it got from the larger sensor and the net advantage is about 1 stop if we take the numbers at face value. (Reality may be different; the fastest lenses are often over-spec'd so if they say f/1.4 it's probably significantly slower than that, maybe f/1.8. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues for more info.)

This is assuming a standardized print size, so you get to downsample the 20MP RX100 image to 10MP or whatever the Oly/Pany is at, to make things fair.

The bottom line is that at wideangle the RX100 is best in low light due to its ~1 stop advantage in light gathering ability, but at telephoto the Oly/Pany cameras catch up and it's basically a wash.

There are other quirks as well like the LX7 having arguably better macro ability than the RX100.