Can a micro4/3 camera be a DLSR replacement?

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.

Jim-st said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
sfaust said:
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.
Click to expand...

While you are thinking. Think about which of these images has the most perspective...

perspective.jpg
 

Attachments

  • perspective.jpg
    perspective.jpg
    21.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Warren T. said:
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).

orig.jpg


--Warren
Click to expand...

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
 
ampguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Finder said:
If the object it still or you pre-focus were the animal will be, then it could work well.
Click to expand...


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
 
Jim-st said:
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
Click to expand...

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

orig.jpg
 
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.

Jim-st said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Finder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
gcogger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Finder said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a bit difficult to discuss any further until I know what you mean when you use the term 'perspective'!
 
Warren T. said:
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

orig.jpg
Click to expand...

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
 
gcogger said:
It's a bit difficult to discuss any further until I know what you mean when you use the term 'perspective'!
Click to expand...

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?
 
Hi Ampguy

Hi Ampguy

ampguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Finder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Finder said:
What do you think of the perspective in the three example images?
Click to expand...

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 🙂
 
gcogger said:
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 🙂
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom