bluey
Its all about the image..
I'm trying to figure out if it's worth spending money on a digital body + interchangeable lens kit, vs getting something that will work with legacy lenses.
Curious about:
1. Maximum aperture and Depth of field
Using standard lenses on a smaller sensor, we get a crop effect but with the same DOF as the original lens. So using a micro 4/3 lens to get the same perspective at half the focal length, the DOF goes up? To reduce DOF to be equivalent to a 35mm camera lens, do we need a wider aperture to compensate for the shorter focal length?
Was 35mm designed on purpose (or just fluked) to be the most efficient frame size optically??? Have we reached the limits of optics??
2. Contrast
Nobody yet makes a 12mm 4/3 or micro 4/3 prime to do the job of my 24mm lens. And we know the cost of wide aperture lenses was always high. I can't see how a 12mm zoom can provide the same contrast as a 12mm prime.
A good prime with fewer elements has always made a more contrasty image than a zoom. Has this changed?
3. Low light and Image Stabilization
Does IS and high ISO performance make up for the slowness of micro 4/3 (and 4/3) lenses?
3. Framing and vision and Image Stabilization
It seems many people feel comfortable stabilizing a camera against their eye. But the 100% or less field of view of SLR or digital seems a bit limiting to rangefinder users. Does an image stabilized camera with LCD back permit both peripheral vision and picture quality free of camera shake?
4. Post-processing
Are people these days using post-processing to get pretty images from less than stellar digital captures, which once would have taken good film equipment and a careful photographer?
5. The future
Am I really waiting for a full size 35mm sensor that can cope with non-perpendicular light rays so I can use my legacy lenses to get great images captured digitally? Surely it can't be that hard, since optically, the sensors at the centre and edge are always at the same spot getting light from the same direction from whatever lens is feeding light rays.
Thanks all for your thoughts.
Curious about:
1. Maximum aperture and Depth of field
Using standard lenses on a smaller sensor, we get a crop effect but with the same DOF as the original lens. So using a micro 4/3 lens to get the same perspective at half the focal length, the DOF goes up? To reduce DOF to be equivalent to a 35mm camera lens, do we need a wider aperture to compensate for the shorter focal length?
Was 35mm designed on purpose (or just fluked) to be the most efficient frame size optically??? Have we reached the limits of optics??
2. Contrast
Nobody yet makes a 12mm 4/3 or micro 4/3 prime to do the job of my 24mm lens. And we know the cost of wide aperture lenses was always high. I can't see how a 12mm zoom can provide the same contrast as a 12mm prime.
A good prime with fewer elements has always made a more contrasty image than a zoom. Has this changed?
3. Low light and Image Stabilization
Does IS and high ISO performance make up for the slowness of micro 4/3 (and 4/3) lenses?
3. Framing and vision and Image Stabilization
It seems many people feel comfortable stabilizing a camera against their eye. But the 100% or less field of view of SLR or digital seems a bit limiting to rangefinder users. Does an image stabilized camera with LCD back permit both peripheral vision and picture quality free of camera shake?
4. Post-processing
Are people these days using post-processing to get pretty images from less than stellar digital captures, which once would have taken good film equipment and a careful photographer?
5. The future
Am I really waiting for a full size 35mm sensor that can cope with non-perpendicular light rays so I can use my legacy lenses to get great images captured digitally? Surely it can't be that hard, since optically, the sensors at the centre and edge are always at the same spot getting light from the same direction from whatever lens is feeding light rays.
Thanks all for your thoughts.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I'm not sure any of these questions matter in reference to Micro 4/3. You can collect eight of these things as they come out for the price of a future FF M9! Having eight different cameras is much better than having just one. 
gavinlg
Veteran
Try an olympus 4/3 9-18mm zoom. It's great, heaps of contrast, sharp from corner to corner and really quite small. Olympus excels at making zooms.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
The Panasonic 4/3 7-14 (14-28 35mm equivalent) is a wonderful lens as well.
JBurnett
Member
RE: "vs getting something that will work with legacy lenses". I am an enthusiastic G1 owner, and I do use a number of legacy lenses on it. However, I would not recommend purchasing a micro-4/3 camera for the primary purpose of using legacy lenses. If an m4/3 camera suits your photographic needs, aspirations and operating style, that's great. The fact that you may have some legacy lenses that work well with it (eg. a fast 50mm now working as a 100mm portrait lens) is an added bonus.
1. DOF: Yes, a 100mm f2 lens on full-frame 35mm focused at 10 ft will have a shallower depth of field than a 50mm f2 on a 4/3 body focused at the same distance.
2. Contrast (Primes/Zooms): With a few exceptions, the IQ difference between primes and zooms has narrowed dramatically. For better or worse, consumer demand for zooms outstrips that for primes and, therefore, commands the R&D dollars. As the m4/3 market grows, however, many of us are hoping to see additional quality primes.
3. Low Light and IS: IS does not entirely mitigate having slower lenses. It absolutely does make it possible to hand-hold shots at slower shutter speeds than otherwise. This is not very helpful for subjects that are moving, however. High ISO performance is relative. I find 800 ISO OK for colour, and 1600 for some B&W. Others may have different tolerances. Neither IS nor high-ISO can give one back the creative flexibility of a fast lens and narrow depth of field (when desired).
3b. IS/Framing/Vision: Others may have different experiences/tolerances, but I haven't found using an LCD or EVF with one eye tracking the wider scene to be something I do. Mind you, I never got used to doing this during my brief foray into rangefinders, either. Having said that, I frequently used a 40mm prime (80mm equiv.) on my G1 because the subject in the EVF appears to be the same distance away as it does to the naked eye. So back and forth (between natural view and viewfinder) is quick.
4. Post Processing: I always shoot RAW, and I edit virtually every shot that I might want to post or print. It's part of the digital process, not part of being lazy. At times I am able to improve a shot from the RAW image quite substantially. A times it's a brief tweak. Shooting JPG and not post-processing is a bit like shooting slide film which a lab processes for you. Or letting a lab process and print your B&W. One of the major advantages of digital is that you can have creative control from start to finish. That's something I never really had for colour before digital.
5. The future: Yup, we're all waiting for a full-frame digital camera in the size of a Leica M3 (or substitute your personal vision here). How soon? Dunno, but I'm getting more grey by the day. In the meantime, some of us are having a lot of fun and getting a lot of pleasure from our micro-4/3 cameras.
1. DOF: Yes, a 100mm f2 lens on full-frame 35mm focused at 10 ft will have a shallower depth of field than a 50mm f2 on a 4/3 body focused at the same distance.
2. Contrast (Primes/Zooms): With a few exceptions, the IQ difference between primes and zooms has narrowed dramatically. For better or worse, consumer demand for zooms outstrips that for primes and, therefore, commands the R&D dollars. As the m4/3 market grows, however, many of us are hoping to see additional quality primes.
3. Low Light and IS: IS does not entirely mitigate having slower lenses. It absolutely does make it possible to hand-hold shots at slower shutter speeds than otherwise. This is not very helpful for subjects that are moving, however. High ISO performance is relative. I find 800 ISO OK for colour, and 1600 for some B&W. Others may have different tolerances. Neither IS nor high-ISO can give one back the creative flexibility of a fast lens and narrow depth of field (when desired).
3b. IS/Framing/Vision: Others may have different experiences/tolerances, but I haven't found using an LCD or EVF with one eye tracking the wider scene to be something I do. Mind you, I never got used to doing this during my brief foray into rangefinders, either. Having said that, I frequently used a 40mm prime (80mm equiv.) on my G1 because the subject in the EVF appears to be the same distance away as it does to the naked eye. So back and forth (between natural view and viewfinder) is quick.
4. Post Processing: I always shoot RAW, and I edit virtually every shot that I might want to post or print. It's part of the digital process, not part of being lazy. At times I am able to improve a shot from the RAW image quite substantially. A times it's a brief tweak. Shooting JPG and not post-processing is a bit like shooting slide film which a lab processes for you. Or letting a lab process and print your B&W. One of the major advantages of digital is that you can have creative control from start to finish. That's something I never really had for colour before digital.
5. The future: Yup, we're all waiting for a full-frame digital camera in the size of a Leica M3 (or substitute your personal vision here). How soon? Dunno, but I'm getting more grey by the day. In the meantime, some of us are having a lot of fun and getting a lot of pleasure from our micro-4/3 cameras.
Last edited:
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I'll jump in here and comment that yesterday I received my Jinfinance Minolta MD to u4/3 adapter, and have begun exploring using legacy lenses on my G1. I've no images yet to post, but my initial perception is that I love the heft, feel and wide focus range of my legacy lenses. Yes, the EVF is more than adequate for judging proper focus without resorting to the 10x magnified chimp mode. Several of my legacy lenses, including a Minolta 50/1.8 and Vivitar 28/1.2 exhibit a quality of color and contrast that I find exciting; I look forward to using these old tools on my new body. I also have a Tokina 80-200 @ f/2.8 (at all focal lengths) that promises some interesting image capture possibilities; I'm neither a birder or a surveillance snoop, but the idea of a 160-400 angle of view at f/2.8 with a lens that can be hand-held is interesting.
That said, I must say that I am still well-pleased with the 14-45 kit Lumix lens, especially considering its cost when bundled as a kit with the G1.
These are exciting times in photography, and I am more than satisfied with my G1; it is more tool than my meager skills can master.
That is all; carry on.
~Joe
That said, I must say that I am still well-pleased with the 14-45 kit Lumix lens, especially considering its cost when bundled as a kit with the G1.
These are exciting times in photography, and I am more than satisfied with my G1; it is more tool than my meager skills can master.
That is all; carry on.
~Joe