ampguy
Veteran
I've considered this
I've considered this
I occasionally need long lengths for wildlife, and was thinking how compact a U4/3 would be compared to my SLR/DSLR kits.
However, I've held off for now, since the U4/3 sensors seem to have less dynamic range, and low light/high iso performance than the M8, so I think it might be better to go with a 75/90 on the M8, and crop, and still pull out better overall IQ with the M8.
I am looking at the NEX with M adapters, as well as future 4/3 sensors. I think both formats have potential and the flexibility will increase.
I've considered this
I occasionally need long lengths for wildlife, and was thinking how compact a U4/3 would be compared to my SLR/DSLR kits.
However, I've held off for now, since the U4/3 sensors seem to have less dynamic range, and low light/high iso performance than the M8, so I think it might be better to go with a 75/90 on the M8, and crop, and still pull out better overall IQ with the M8.
I am looking at the NEX with M adapters, as well as future 4/3 sensors. I think both formats have potential and the flexibility will increase.
Finder
Veteran
Attachments
Last edited:
Jim-st
Well-known
Jim, I have successfully used a bunch of adapted telephotos on my Lumix G1 from a 85mm to 500mm. Here's one taken with my 135mm Tele-Elmar. This was taken at Avila Beach, CA (central CA).
--Warren
That's a lovely photo, Warren, and certainly makes me think this needs looking into, and not just for wildlife. Clearly useable for landscapes too!
Thinks: 135mm x 2.0 = 270mm on µ4/3, x1.3 = 175mm on M8. Big leap forward.
How did you manage with the 500mm : I would have thought that pretty hard to handle? I think I'd be content to get around 400mm out of a 200mm, and would go for a zoom since I think they have advantages when it comes to composition and just finding the subject!
Thanks for answering
Jim
Jim-st
Well-known
Thanks for the reply, ampguy
I have 75 & 90mm's for the M8, but would like to get a bit closer, without cropping if possible (the M9 would be a big step up here, with its 18mp, but that's not going to land in my camera bag this year!)
And the NEX + adapters has its appeal too, but the 2 x crop factor of the µ4/3 seems to a definite plus here, which it wouldn't be as a wide/standard lens-bearer, imho
Jim
Jim-st
Well-known
Thanks, Finder, that's kinda what I'd hoped for. I'm not thinking of becoming a true wildlife specialist, but I do need to have something useable to hand when a puffin, monkey, pine marten, eagle or a lion hoves into view.
The M8 isn't really it, and lugging an SLR as well as the Leica would partly negate the reason for buying the latter
Over on Luminous Landscape recently one Jack Perkins sings the praises of his M9 as a landscape camera, and says he's sold his SLR gear and carries a V-Lux 20 for close-up and long lens work. (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-landscape.shtml )
I'm thinking for me it's a choice between the V-Lux (probably in its Panasonic incarnation) and a µ4/3. Latter has advantage of interchangeable lenses, and could just about keep me going if the Leica needs to go off to Solms or somewhere anytime.
This thread is most useful and I'm obliged to all those who've offered me their advice!
Jim
S
sfaust
Guest
Warren T.
Well-known
Here's one with the 500mm Reflex Nikkor on a monopod, shot through a dirty window. It's a bit tricky with manual focus and all, but just takes some practice. The excellent built-in EVF of my G1 helps too.
--Warren
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Jim
Hi Jim
Yes, the idea of coming back form a trip with non-cropped wildlife images from a compact u4/3 setup vs a larger sensor, larger lens is appealing, and I think about this possibility often.
I agree with you that the u4/3 format may offer more benefits for the tele fov's than wide, and that IS in the oly bodies is tempting.
However, I'm waiting a bit to see results of others, and how their large prints come out before diving in myself. I have some big gear already that is proven, and just wouldn't want to be disappointed on having the wrong gear with a once in a lifetime photo opp with sasquatch or the loch ness monster
THanks Jim.
Hi Jim
Yes, the idea of coming back form a trip with non-cropped wildlife images from a compact u4/3 setup vs a larger sensor, larger lens is appealing, and I think about this possibility often.
I agree with you that the u4/3 format may offer more benefits for the tele fov's than wide, and that IS in the oly bodies is tempting.
However, I'm waiting a bit to see results of others, and how their large prints come out before diving in myself. I have some big gear already that is proven, and just wouldn't want to be disappointed on having the wrong gear with a once in a lifetime photo opp with sasquatch or the loch ness monster
THanks Jim.
gcogger
Newbie
Again, I guess it may come down to definitions of the word perspective. I would say the perspective would be the same in both the above scenarios- it's just that, in the first case, the framing would be different.
To me (and in the discussions I've had elsewhere on this topic) perspective is taken to mean the relative size in the image of objects at different distances. For instance: I take a picture of 2 people, one 10 feet away from me and the other 20 feet away. The second person appears about half the size of the first on the image. Now I move another 50 feet from them and take another picture, but with a longer lens. Now, there is not much difference between the sizes of the people in the image - the perspective has changed. This is the kind of 'perspective' change that makes portraits more flattering from a greater distance.
Just so we are on the same page - would you agree that you can get exactly the same picture (without moving the camera), in terms of both perspective and framing by:
- doubling the focal length, or
- halving the sensor size (or cropping by 50%) then enlarging the image to the same size print?
If so then we're simply discussing definitions of terms rather than anything more substantive
(Of course the DOF will change unless you change the aperture, but that's another question).
Finder
Veteran
And I would disagree as the two scenarios would produce different perspective.
To me (and in the discussions I've had elsewhere on this topic) perspective is taken to mean the relative size in the image of objects at different distances. For instance: I take a picture of 2 people, one 10 feet away from me and the other 20 feet away. The second person appears about half the size of the first on the image. Now I move another 50 feet from them and take another picture, but with a longer lens. Now, there is not much difference between the sizes of the people in the image - the perspective has changed. This is the kind of 'perspective' change that makes portraits more flattering from a greater distance.
Just so we are on the same page - would you agree that you can get exactly the same picture (without moving the camera), in terms of both perspective and framing by:
- doubling the focal length, or
- halving the sensor size (or cropping by 50%) then enlarging the image to the same size print?
If so then we're simply discussing definitions of terms rather than anything more substantive
(Of course the DOF will change unless you change the aperture, but that's another question).
I would agree that doubling the focal length or halving the sensor size will result in similar images.
However, your definition of perspective is incomplete. You are simply saying object distance is the only factor affecting perspective. That is not true. You are not going to achieve the same perspective from 35mm lenses on a m4/3 camera compared with a 35mm camera simply because the crop factor changes things.
gcogger
Newbie
It's a bit difficult to discuss any further until I know what you mean when you use the term 'perspective'!
rlouzan
Well-known
The vertical converging lines are also known as the Keystone effect.
Regards,
RLouzan
--------------------------------------------------
FS: Hand Made Leather Camera wrist Straps
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...ate/1248809875
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
RLouzan
--------------------------------------------------
FS: Hand Made Leather Camera wrist Straps
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...ate/1248809875
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim-st
Well-known
Here's one with the 500mm Reflex Nikkor on a monopod, shot through a dirty window. It's a bit tricky with manual focus and all, but just takes some practice. The excellent built-in EVF of my G1 helps too.
--Warren
Another fine shot, Warren.
Have the dirty windows, better get the monopod: I think µ4/3 is the next step for me.
OTT: my wife asks what type of bird that is?
Jim
Warren T.
Well-known
Finder
Veteran
The standard definition of the appearance of depth in a 2-D image. What other definition is there? This is not what "I" mean. This is how it is defined in photography.
What do you think of the perspective in the three example images?
Finder
Veteran
Also a quality of linear perspective.
Jim-st
Well-known
Hi Ampguy
Hi Ampguy
Well, Nessie's around most days up here, and there's Morag in Loch Morar, so maybe I can afford to take my chances
Seriously, though, I think µ4/3 makes sense for me at this time. I'll keep hold of the dslr kit 'til the Oly's worth is proven or otherwise. Off to France next weekend, though, so maybe I'll just take M8 + lenses and see how that goes. A whole month with just one camera?!? Probably a good idea?!? So long as I don't meet that sasquatch, or the Bête du Gévaudan, or, or, or....
Ho hum
Regards + thanks
Jim
Hi Ampguy
Yes, the idea of coming back form a trip with non-cropped wildlife images from a compact u4/3 setup vs a larger sensor, larger lens is appealing, and I think about this possibility often.
I agree with you that the u4/3 format may offer more benefits for the tele fov's than wide, and that IS in the oly bodies is tempting.
However, I'm waiting a bit to see results of others, and how their large prints come out before diving in myself. I have some big gear already that is proven, and just wouldn't want to be disappointed on having the wrong gear with a once in a lifetime photo opp with sasquatch or the loch ness monster
THanks Jim.
Well, Nessie's around most days up here, and there's Morag in Loch Morar, so maybe I can afford to take my chances
Seriously, though, I think µ4/3 makes sense for me at this time. I'll keep hold of the dslr kit 'til the Oly's worth is proven or otherwise. Off to France next weekend, though, so maybe I'll just take M8 + lenses and see how that goes. A whole month with just one camera?!? Probably a good idea?!? So long as I don't meet that sasquatch, or the Bête du Gévaudan, or, or, or....
Ho hum
Regards + thanks
Jim
gcogger
Newbie
What other definition? I gave one in an earlier post (the relationships between the apparent sizes of objects at different distances). If you view the discussion I linked previously, you'll see that it's the same one as used there (and in the other technical discussions I've seen on the issue).
As this all came from a discussion on the results of using 35mm lenses on 4/3 cameras, and I can't think of a way to quantify 'the appearance of depth', how about we abandon the use of the term perspective for the moment and just describe how a lens behaves on the 2 systems? Assuming a perfect lens and a perfect sensor, and ignoring for a moment the different aspect ratios:
A 50mm lens at f/2 on a 4/3 camera will produce an image that is the same in every way as that from a 100mm lens at f/4 on a full frame (35mm) camera.
(Aperture was changed to keep the DOF the same).
If you're happy with that, then I think it's all that people need to know about using 35mm lenses on 4/3 cameras.
It's a bit difficult to compare, as they are all of different scenes and perspective is not something that you have an 'amount' of - according to the way I use the word, of course
Finder
Veteran
What other definition? I gave one in an earlier post (the relationships between the apparent sizes of objects at different distances). If you view the discussion I linked previously, you'll see that it's the same one as used there (and in the other technical discussions I've seen on the issue).
As this all came from a discussion on the results of using 35mm lenses on 4/3 cameras, and I can't think of a way to quantify 'the appearance of depth', how about we abandon the use of the term perspective for the moment and just describe how a lens behaves on the 2 systems? Assuming a perfect lens and a perfect sensor, and ignoring for a moment the different aspect ratios:
A 50mm lens at f/2 on a 4/3 camera will produce an image that is the same in every way as that from a 100mm lens at f/4 on a full frame (35mm) camera.
(Aperture was changed to keep the DOF the same).
If you're happy with that, then I think it's all that people need to know about using 35mm lenses on 4/3 cameras.
It's a bit difficult to compare, as they are all of different scenes and perspective is not something that you have an 'amount' of - according to the way I use the word, of course
OK. I see what you are saying. And yes, the relationship between foreground and background object is simply dependent on object distance. And there is not change to that relationship if you change angle of view either by changing focal length or sensor size.
Perspective is more complex. The easiest way to take about perspective--and I mean the apparent depth in a 2-D image--is whether it has strong or weak perspective. So in my first example, the original image show a strong perspective, whereas the crop has a weak perspective.
Just to illustrate the complexity of the problem, I made the three image example. All images were taken with the same focal length lens. Two of the images were taken at the same object distance. The image with the strongest perspective is one the right. The left image and the center image have weaker perspective, but the left image was taken at the same distance as the image on the right and the center image was taken at about half the distance as the other two. The left and center images were cropped.
This is why my example of formats with the same focal length lens or the same angle of view do not have the same perspective. But you would be right in saying the relationship of foreground and background object/image size does not change.