Can a micro4/3 camera be a DLSR replacement?

[januaryman]

I would buy an Oly E620 with 14-52 and 50-200 lens kit refurb for $449 and get small size and more versatility. I'm just saying.

Yeahhhh.... uh, that's not gonna happen. I'll just trot out my M2. I know how to figure that one out.

 

[Finder]

I guess that using hyper-focusing with my legacy lenses means that I'll need a DoF app on my iPod or a slide rule. Eeek, indeed.

There is an even easier solution for a m4/3 camera--just use the DoF scale marks two stop larger than the set aperture. So, if you aperture is set to f/11, use the f/5.6 marks. This becomes a little dodgy at maximum aperture or one stop closed down because their are no marks.

And to answer your other question, cropping does affect DoF and perspective. As does viewing distance.

 

[PCB_RF]

Originally Posted by kshapero
I would buy an Oly E620 with 14-52 and 50-200 lens kit refurb for $449 and get small size and more versatility. I'm just saying.

If you're saying an E620 w/two kit zooms has more versatility than an m4/3 w/one kit zoom at the same price, I suppose you're right. But the only reason it has more versatility is because it has a second zoom lens.

But if we're still comparing m4/3 to dslr in terms of features and use, the only area I see dslr having more versatility is in burst-mode/sports photos. M4/3 wins on versatility for everything else.

Mirrorless bodies are the future.

I'd rather have a Panny G1 and 14-45 at $400 used, then save $250 for a used 45-200, than have an E620 w/two zooms at $450. I've owned two E420s, so I'm very familiar with compact 4/3 features/benefits. Other than sports photography, m4/3 beats it hands-down in every way possible.

 

[gcogger]

And to answer your other question, cropping does affect DoF and perspective. As does viewing distance.

Cropping effects DOF and angle of view, but it does not affect perspective. The only thing that affects perspective is your distance from the subject.

 

[Finder]

Cropping effects DOF and angle of view, but it does not affect perspective. The only thing that affects perspective is your distance from the subject.

The image on the left is the original image. The one on the right is a crop from the same image. The perspective has changed.

 

[PCB_RF]

Er, sorry, but perspective has not changed. Image is only cropped, perspective is identical. Look at it closely---everything looks the same. Same relationship between objects, same relative size, same shadows, nothing new visible, nothing formerly present hidden. Same angles, same everything, just a smaller slice of what was there...

 

[Finder]

Er, sorry, but perspective has not changed. Image is only cropped, perspective is identical. Look at it closely---everything looks the same. Same relationship between objects, same relative size, same shadows, nothing new visible, nothing formerly present hidden. Same angles, same everything, just a smaller slice of what was there...

Sorry, but the linear perspective has. The lines are not converging at the same rate. Compare the outside lines of the building to the columns of the crop.

 

[gcogger]

Perspective in images generally describes the relationships between sizes of objects at different distances. That certainly does not change with sensor size and cropping (only with distance to subject). There's a comprehensive discussion on that HERE.

Are you using another definition of perspective, perhaps?

 

[Jim-st]

Interesting discussion. I've been thinking of getting an Oly µ4/3 to use with longer lenses than I can use on the M8 - maybe try out something like one of the Vario-Elmar-R's (70mm–210mm f/4 maybe) - for wildlife etc

Anyone tried using telephotos on µ4/3? How did it work for you?

 

[januaryman]

I used a Canon 100/3.5 on a tripod and didn't like the results. When I got home and started thinking about it, I re-read the manual. Once I turned off the in-body stabilization, it was much better. But I'm not much of a telephoto guy, so YMMV.

 

[Finder]

Perspective in images generally describes the relationships between sizes of objects at different distances. That certainly does not change with sensor size and cropping (only with distance to subject). There's a comprehensive discussion on that HERE.

Are you using another definition of perspective, perhaps?

If you check the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, it states the variables to linear perspective are:

Object distance and Image Size
Changing Object Distance and Focal Length
Viewing Distance (this is what cropping does)

So when you look at the building image, the converging lines of the side of the build recede faster then the converging columns. The perspective looks stronger in the uncropped image. Perspective is how an image appears rather than any absolute quantification of an image. Just look at the images--if you did not know one was a crop of the other, you would not think they had the same perspective.

This is a well documented effect. If this had changed is the last 25 years since I first studied this (this type of stuff is related to my profession), I would have certainly heard about it. It would like in geometry that someone discovered circles are not round.

BTW, this is just linear perspective. Other effects that control perspective are:

Overlap
Ariel haze
Depth of field
lighting
color
motion
motion parallax

Perspective is simply the illusion of depth in a two-dimensional image.

 

[sfaust]

Isn't this similar to taking an enlarger and negative and setting it up for an 11x14 print. Then printing on 11x14 paper, and another on 5x7 paper with the 5x7 positioned in the middle of the 11x14 image area. While it may appear visually different since the viewer doesn't have the reference of the full image on the 5x7 cropped image, in reality it should be exactly the same as if you cut out a 5x7 portion from the center of the 11x14 and compared it to the cropped 5x7, no?

Wouldn't it work the same way, substituting a sensor instead of the paper? Or am I all wrong on this, with some other technical reason coming into play?

(EDIT: looks like I cross posted with you finder while I was typing. hate when that happens . I understand what you mean now on linear/visual perspective. )

 

[Finder]

Isn't this similar to taking an enlarger and negative and setting it up for an 11x14 print. Then printing on 11x14 paper, and another on 5x7 paper with the 5x7 positioned in the middle of the 11x14 image area. While it may appear visually different since the viewer doesn't have the reference of the full image on the 5x7 cropped image, in reality it should be exactly the same as if you cut out a 5x7 portion from the center of the 11x14 and compared it to the cropped 5x7, no?

Wouldn't it work the same way, substituting a sensor instead of the paper? Or am I all wrong on this, with some other technical reason coming into play?

(EDIT: looks like I cross posted with you finder while I was typing. hate when that happens )

Not quite as the cropped portion is enlarged to match the size of the original. My example has the cropped portion enlarged to match the original.

Think of shooting 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 35mm, and m4/3. Put a 150mm lens on all of them. Take a picture from the same point and then print all the images out on 11x14. I am pretty sure you are not going to think the perspective is the same across the formats.

However, it you shoot with those formats with a normal lens--300mm, 150mm, 90mm, 43mm, and 21mm. And then printed them out on 11x14, they would appear to have the same linear perspective.

There is more to linear perspective than just object distance.

 

[Warren T.]

Interesting discussion. I've been thinking of getting an Oly µ4/3 to use with longer lenses than I can use on the M8 - maybe try out something like one of the Vario-Elmar-R's (70mm–210mm f/4 maybe) - for wildlife etc

Anyone tried using telephotos on µ4/3? How did it work for you?

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

 

[Finder]

Interesting discussion. I've been thinking of getting an Oly µ4/3 to use with longer lenses than I can use on the M8 - maybe try out something like one of the Vario-Elmar-R's (70mm–210mm f/4 maybe) - for wildlife etc

Anyone tried using telephotos on µ4/3? How did it work for you?

I have used a 90mm f/4 on my E-P1. Images were OK, but I think it would be a real challenge to follow wildlife with it--DoF is really narrow and critical focus is important, so it can be slow to work with. If the object it still or you pre-focus were the animal will be, then it could work well.

 

[david.elliott]

With my macro photos, on a tripod, I can't say that I noticed any difference between IS on and IS off. :|

Maybe the differences are more evident with telephoto work?

 

[Finder]

With my macro photos, on a tripod, I can't say that I noticed any difference between IS on and IS off. :|

Maybe the differences are more evident with telephoto work?

I have noticed IS impacts some tripod images. I have also noticed if you have the wrong focus length set, it can be significant whether on a tripod or not.

 

[sfaust]

Not quite as the cropped portion is enlarged to match the size of the original. My example has the cropped portion enlarged to match the original.

Think of shooting 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 35mm, and m4/3. Put a 150mm lens on all of them. Take a picture from the same point and then print all the images out on 11x14. I am pretty sure you are not going to think the perspective is the same across the formats.

However, it you shoot with those formats with a normal lens--300mm, 150mm, 90mm, 43mm, and 21mm. And then printed them out on 11x14, they would appear to have the same linear perspective.

There is more to linear perspective than just object distance.

I'll have to read up on this. I understand what you are saying, but my technical mind also keeps telling me that if you measured all the various points on the different prints, the relationships will all be the same in relation. But I also understand what you are saying about the perceived differences between then regardless. I think I get it, but a little more reading will help. I'll follow that link you provided. Thanks.

 

[ampguy]

This is correct

This is correct

Thanks for the link, excellent reading.

Perspective in images generally describes the relationships between sizes of objects at different distances. That certainly does not change with sensor size and cropping (only with distance to subject). There's a comprehensive discussion on that HERE.

Are you using another definition of perspective, perhaps?

 

[Finder]

I'll have to read up on this. I understand what you are saying, but my technical mind also keeps telling me that if you measured all the various points on the different prints, the relationships will all be the same in relation. But I also understand what you are saying about the perceived differences between then regardless. I think I get it, but a little more reading will help. I'll follow that link you provided. Thanks.

I did not provide a link. I gave a book reference.