ampguy
Veteran
Please post your replies and suggestions you might have for those who haven't tried u4/3, but may be interested in it.
RichC
Well-known
Sensor's too small = furry pics and enormously long focal lengths. More interested in the APS variants like the Sony (or, rather, the pro versions which will come along eventually - the current Sony interfaces are awful).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Let's start here: http://xkcd.com/386/
Piffle. Sensor's ~20% less tall than Nikon APS-C. The difference with Canon APS-C is even smaller.
In the real world? Here's a comparison of the actual system resolution for two superb lenses: Olympus 50/2 macro on a 4/3 sensor (Panasonic L10), and Canon L IS USM 100/2.8 macro on an APS-C sensor (Canon 50D).
Both lenses are among the best available, so they should tell us something about the resolution of the sensors in these systems. And the answer is...
They're the same.
Well, not quite the same. The 4/3 setup, at its optimum, does just a hair better than the Canon, despite the Canon's being tested on a 15 vs. 10 megapixel sensor. Identical sensors are used in 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras, so the comparison is valid.
Piffle. Sensor's ~20% less tall than Nikon APS-C. The difference with Canon APS-C is even smaller.
In the real world? Here's a comparison of the actual system resolution for two superb lenses: Olympus 50/2 macro on a 4/3 sensor (Panasonic L10), and Canon L IS USM 100/2.8 macro on an APS-C sensor (Canon 50D).
Both lenses are among the best available, so they should tell us something about the resolution of the sensors in these systems. And the answer is...
They're the same.
Well, not quite the same. The 4/3 setup, at its optimum, does just a hair better than the Canon, despite the Canon's being tested on a 15 vs. 10 megapixel sensor. Identical sensors are used in 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras, so the comparison is valid.
Last edited:
Atto
Established
What can I say about my GF1? wonderful. I've sold my Canon 40D (in which I've used 3 Carl Zeiss including Planar 85mm ƒ1.4, 24-70L, 50 ƒ1.4, Tokina 116, among many other lenses).
The GF1 with pancake 20mm is amazingly portable, and results are not as good as Canon 40D, but between ISO 100 and 800 make it very well.
Nowadays I am using it with 20mm pancake, 14-45 incredible good for a 'kit lens', three c-mount Bolex lenses, two Konica AR lenses.
During these days they will introduce an 14mm ƒ2.5 and another focal fixed ultra fast lens.
The GF1 with pancake 20mm is amazingly portable, and results are not as good as Canon 40D, but between ISO 100 and 800 make it very well.
Nowadays I am using it with 20mm pancake, 14-45 incredible good for a 'kit lens', three c-mount Bolex lenses, two Konica AR lenses.
During these days they will introduce an 14mm ƒ2.5 and another focal fixed ultra fast lens.
Darshan
Well-known
use GF1+20 mm regularly. haven't yet acquired any other lens as this combo more than meets my requirements.
+highly portable, fits in my shorts
+image quality excellent (for my needs)
-don't shoot above ISO 1000
-focus speed very slightly low than my DSLR (very slightly means just barely, not readily noticable but i can feel it while hunting my kids
)
consequence: i am selling my DSLR gear.
cheers,
dan.
+highly portable, fits in my shorts
+image quality excellent (for my needs)
-don't shoot above ISO 1000
-focus speed very slightly low than my DSLR (very slightly means just barely, not readily noticable but i can feel it while hunting my kids
)consequence: i am selling my DSLR gear.
cheers,
dan.
achi4
Member
Amazingly good results with 20mm, 14-45 and 7-14 on GF1
Recently printed architectural photographs using the 7-14 at A2 size with amazing results.
Same building I have shot for years using different camera's (M6 with 21 mm asph, M8 with WATE and Rolleiflex Wide) so I know what quality can be achieved.
Recently printed architectural photographs using the 7-14 at A2 size with amazing results.
Same building I have shot for years using different camera's (M6 with 21 mm asph, M8 with WATE and Rolleiflex Wide) so I know what quality can be achieved.
ampguy
Veteran
The area of a Canon APS-C (20D for example) is 28% larger than a u4/3 sensor.
I think the same things that apply from APS-C to FF apply to u4/3 to APS-C, like this stuff:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/full_frame_vs_aps-c.html
Check it out!
I think the same things that apply from APS-C to FF apply to u4/3 to APS-C, like this stuff:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/full_frame_vs_aps-c.html
Check it out!
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Atto, Dan, and Achi -
So it seems that on the wide side, it's best to use the native 4/3 lens, and not MF adapted lens?
Is anyone using Micro 4/3 specifically for a compact long tele system?
So it seems that on the wide side, it's best to use the native 4/3 lens, and not MF adapted lens?
Is anyone using Micro 4/3 specifically for a compact long tele system?
wray
Well-known
This is the symbol for micro, μ. A lower case u is acceptable in its place.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The jump in both linear resolution and sensor area from APS-C to FF is a whole lot bigger than the jump from 4/3 to APS-C. See the diagram that I posted above.
If a 12 megapixel APS-C camera gives you adequate IQ, so will a 12 megapixel 4/3 or m4/3.
If resolution is actually a limiting factor in your photography, don't mess around. Just get a FF or MF camera. Same goes for low light.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
DNG
Film Friendly
More than sensor size.....
It can mount any others brand lens, and the glass is 80% of the IQ IMO.
Sure many want High ISO (1600+) super clean... Than, buy a FF DSLR and quit complaining about smaller than FF sensors.
For a bunch of us hobbyist, ISO 1600+ are rarely used anyway.
The m43 has a very strong following with RF users that want an option to use their glass on a Digital without spending $1,400 to $8,000 on a DRF.
I, personally, may switch over to just a Film RF and a m43 digital... I'll have to see what wide angle primes are coming. The 12mm seams like a go.. but, at what price point? I will get rid of my DSLR if an affordable 12mm comes out. Than, I'd get the 12mm, 25mm and have a nice kit. + I have a great 50mm f/1.5 that I can use as a macro with my extension tubes or have a great fast portrait lens without them.
I have a 70-300 Sigma APO, that I have not used since I bought it new. So, I don't need long lenses apparently.
That's my take. A great system camera for multiple brand users or by themselves too.
@ampguy
I plan to buy a lens in the 90-135 range for fast telephoto.. My ZM 50 f/1.5 C-Sonnar is a superb portrait lens on a m43 body.
I may get a UWZ, don't know yet, a 12mm is as wide as I like right now. I have CV 25mm Snapshot now for the film RF. It is just OK on a m43 though... adapted lenses from 35mm and longer work best on m43 from my tests.
It can mount any others brand lens, and the glass is 80% of the IQ IMO.
Sure many want High ISO (1600+) super clean... Than, buy a FF DSLR and quit complaining about smaller than FF sensors.
For a bunch of us hobbyist, ISO 1600+ are rarely used anyway.
The m43 has a very strong following with RF users that want an option to use their glass on a Digital without spending $1,400 to $8,000 on a DRF.
I, personally, may switch over to just a Film RF and a m43 digital... I'll have to see what wide angle primes are coming. The 12mm seams like a go.. but, at what price point? I will get rid of my DSLR if an affordable 12mm comes out. Than, I'd get the 12mm, 25mm and have a nice kit. + I have a great 50mm f/1.5 that I can use as a macro with my extension tubes or have a great fast portrait lens without them.
I have a 70-300 Sigma APO, that I have not used since I bought it new. So, I don't need long lenses apparently.
That's my take. A great system camera for multiple brand users or by themselves too.
@ampguy
I plan to buy a lens in the 90-135 range for fast telephoto.. My ZM 50 f/1.5 C-Sonnar is a superb portrait lens on a m43 body.
I may get a UWZ, don't know yet, a 12mm is as wide as I like right now. I have CV 25mm Snapshot now for the film RF. It is just OK on a m43 though... adapted lenses from 35mm and longer work best on m43 from my tests.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
DNG
Film Friendly
Don't see why not....
Canon FD may be the cheapest long teles At KEH, they have an FD 300 f/5.6 Florite for $425.00 EX, and they have an FD 200's f/2.8 that is a mere $200.00 in EX, f/2.8 is a lot better for MF longer lenses.
ampguy
Veteran
have some teles
have some teles
The lenses I'd like to try first would be the ones I have in Nikon F mount, the 12 element 80-200 zoom, and a Sigma 70-300. These work well with a D40x, but the long ends can really use a tripod.
Will be interesting to see how effective the IS really is in say the Oly EP2 or EPl1.
have some teles
The lenses I'd like to try first would be the ones I have in Nikon F mount, the 12 element 80-200 zoom, and a Sigma 70-300. These work well with a D40x, but the long ends can really use a tripod.
Will be interesting to see how effective the IS really is in say the Oly EP2 or EPl1.
willie_901
Veteran
The image quality with my G1 and Lumix 20/1.7 is fine. The kit zoom lens is nice too, but it is very slow. The increased DOF is both a blessing and a curse. If you are really into subject isolation, I doubt you will enjoy micro-4/3. One exception is close ups. But when the subject is 6-8 feet away, isolation suffers. Also all the inherent perspective distortion issues with wide-angle-of-view lenses are more annoying with the smaller format sensor. In Lightroom the LUMIX lens correction data tables correct barrel/pin cushion distortion quite nicely and CA is also well controlled.
I mostly use manual focus and bracketed aperture priority metering. The EVF lag is not an issue for me. I did some family action photos. I bracketed these as well, but kept the exposure constant. Again, this worked fine for dealing with action in simple family snap shots. I would never use this camera for serious action photography.
I shoot in RAW and process the images in Lightroom. The LUMIX images are about 90% as good as my D200 and about half as good as my D300 RAW images. By good I mean noise, shadow details and dynamic range. I think at ISO 800 the images look fine as B&W photos. But I abandoned pixel peeping to concentrate on emotional and visual impact a while back... so I am not very fussy.
I bought some lens adapters, but while messing around with legacy lenses is fun, I did not find it useful or cost effective for my work. I would just stick with micro-4/3 lens.
In my mind the LUMIX G1 with a 20/1.7 is essentially a 21st century Canonet QL-17... and that's how I use this camera.
I mostly use manual focus and bracketed aperture priority metering. The EVF lag is not an issue for me. I did some family action photos. I bracketed these as well, but kept the exposure constant. Again, this worked fine for dealing with action in simple family snap shots. I would never use this camera for serious action photography.
I shoot in RAW and process the images in Lightroom. The LUMIX images are about 90% as good as my D200 and about half as good as my D300 RAW images. By good I mean noise, shadow details and dynamic range. I think at ISO 800 the images look fine as B&W photos. But I abandoned pixel peeping to concentrate on emotional and visual impact a while back... so I am not very fussy.
I bought some lens adapters, but while messing around with legacy lenses is fun, I did not find it useful or cost effective for my work. I would just stick with micro-4/3 lens.
In my mind the LUMIX G1 with a 20/1.7 is essentially a 21st century Canonet QL-17... and that's how I use this camera.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
Love my GF1. Had an E-P1 too, though I let that one slide. I really like the Lumix G 20mm f/1.7. I have high hopes for the upcoming Lumix G 14mm f/2.5. Should be fun. Plus, I'm considering (one day) picking up the Lumix G 45mm f/2.8. There are just a few native MFT primes, so I'm hoping for more.
retnull
Well-known
Very happy with the GH-1. Very good IQ and ergonomics.
It is also a lens geek's delight -- the camera will mount pretty much anything at all (with adapters). Adapted lenses shorter than 35mm is iffy, but longer can work out extremely well. It's been fascinating to experiment with cheap lenses that I never would have encountered otherwise.
It is also a lens geek's delight -- the camera will mount pretty much anything at all (with adapters). Adapted lenses shorter than 35mm is iffy, but longer can work out extremely well. It's been fascinating to experiment with cheap lenses that I never would have encountered otherwise.
gavinlg
Veteran
I've used an e-p1 and liked it.
Once they release some f1.4 and faster native lenses I'll buy into it bigger. The best thing about m4/3 is the ability to have tiny superfast lenses that make up for the differences in sensor size. I want a 17mm f1.4, a 25mm f1.2 and a 12mm f1.8. If they made those I'd buy each one + a panasonic and olympus body.
Panasonic looks to have the right idea with lens speeds, olympus is kidding themselves. The 17mm f2.8 is the same size as the panasonic 20mm f1.7 and is optically worse. It doesn't make sense. If it had been a 17mm f2 it would have been so much better.
Once they release some f1.4 and faster native lenses I'll buy into it bigger. The best thing about m4/3 is the ability to have tiny superfast lenses that make up for the differences in sensor size. I want a 17mm f1.4, a 25mm f1.2 and a 12mm f1.8. If they made those I'd buy each one + a panasonic and olympus body.
Panasonic looks to have the right idea with lens speeds, olympus is kidding themselves. The 17mm f2.8 is the same size as the panasonic 20mm f1.7 and is optically worse. It doesn't make sense. If it had been a 17mm f2 it would have been so much better.
Last edited:
ReeRay
Well-known
Use my GF-1 with 20mm pancake, 35, 45 and 90mm Zeiss G lenses. Nikon 50mm AI-s and Kern Switar 75mm f1.9. Perfect lightweight travel set-up with amazing IQ. Despite owning a 5D MKII and tons of L glass the GF-1 is the kit I invariably pick up.