Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end
  

Archive 2013 · Re-thinking MFT
  
 
kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · Re-thinking MFT


Pancakes. It doesn't have to be f/1.4, f/2.8 is pretty good for me.

ISO1600 wrote:
FF NEX will be stupid if people are planning/expecting to use DSLR-style large lenses on it. I think the real key for FF NEX will be smaller RF type (think M mount) lenses.




Apr 24, 2013 at 06:03 PM
ISO1600
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #2 · Re-thinking MFT


There are plenty of (manual focus) M-mount primes that are small and 1.4-2.0.
My perfect use-case scenario for FFNEX is Voigtlander 35/1.4 on M adapter.



Apr 24, 2013 at 06:14 PM
itai195
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #3 · Re-thinking MFT


It depends on your needs. I don't really use wide zooms these days, so the oversized nature of the Fuji wide zoom doesn't really bother me because I probably won't get one anyway.

I'm not really a fan of the size of the Fuji 55-200, but I'm also not really a fan of the price of the Panny 35-100. So, tradeoffs for me. I'm not going to spend $1400 on a lens for m4/3, period.



Apr 24, 2013 at 06:36 PM
aleksanderpolo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #4 · Re-thinking MFT


I don't get the 35-100 either. That's why I have the Oly 40-150, pretty decent performance for its price and 220g only. Ya, you give up some speed as a tradeoff. But I don't give up fast tracking of DSLR for a smaller size camera just to get a huge lens back, same for the ultra wide zoom.




Apr 24, 2013 at 06:54 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #5 · Re-thinking MFT


itai195 wrote:
I'm not going to spend $1400 on a lens for m4/3, period.


I understand this if m4/3 is a secondary kit for you, for when things are 'light.' If it's a primary kit, though, there's nothing wrong with that price. All the high grade 70-200 lenses are expensive, with the current f/2.8 IS versions in the $2500 range. I don't see $1400 as an unreasonable price for a high grade stabilized constant f/2.8 lens for a smaller format. Of course, I'm biased a bit, as it's probably my favorite lens for m4/3. It's stellar, with a great range, super fast AF and it's very sharp.

It's also not that big. It's about the same size as the original 45-200mm zoom from panasonic (though I think it's skinnier than that one.)



Apr 24, 2013 at 06:56 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #6 · Re-thinking MFT


+1 on the primary kit vs secondary kit. I am already convinced that MFT can replace my DSLR and I've put the money where my mouth is ... so MFT is now my primary kit and I would not at all hesitate spending upwards of $2,000 for a really nice/fast lens, just as I did when I shot with a FF DSLR.


Apr 24, 2013 at 07:09 PM
itai195
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #7 · Re-thinking MFT


I can understand that line of reasoning. I even understand that you pay a premium for miniaturization. But when that 35-100mm came out at that price, it made me question what it is I was really trying to do with m4/3. It's the same price as my 70-200mm f/4 Nikkor and for me there was no question which lens I'd rather have. For those of us who want m4/3 as a secondary kit, there's still a need for some more prosumer quality zooms with price tags to match. More along the lines of the Oly 9-18mm in IQ and price, maybe with better build quality. I have the Oly 40-150 and it's a good value lens, but it's not really satisfactory for me.


Apr 24, 2013 at 07:42 PM
Glenn NK
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #8 · Re-thinking MFT


Over on DPR, the Pan GH3 full review is out.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3/19

Go to Image Quality compared RAW (I know than Yakim has already cautioned me about comparing these images), but compare the Pan GH3 to the default cameras at various ISO zooming into different parts of the image.

Zoom onto the white cross on the dark blue BG and the fabric immediately to the left.

Also look at the yellow hair and black BG (to left of blue watch).

Based on these, which would you pick?

And for interest, tell me which is the least impressive.

And don't be misled by the name of the manufacturer.

Glenn



Apr 24, 2013 at 08:27 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #9 · Re-thinking MFT


Glenn, my main problem with the GH3 would probably be the EVF. For that kind of money I'd expect it to beat anything on the market.

The viewfinder is something of a disappointment. The OLED design avoids the 'tearing' that the field sequential designs used in previous Panasonics gave - making it much more enjoyable to use. Sadly the optics let it down (you'll rarely see the whole screen as sharp if you wear glasses), and we're not alone in finding the color calibration of the EVF dramatically different to that of the rear screen - to a degree that's unacceptable for anyone with any concerns about color.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Apr 25, 2013 at 02:22 PM
Glenn NK
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · Re-thinking MFT


Yakim Peled wrote:
Glenn, my main problem with the GH3 would probably be the EVF. For that kind of money I'd expect it to beat anything on the market.

The viewfinder is something of a disappointment. The OLED design avoids the 'tearing' that the field sequential designs used in previous Panasonics gave - making it much more enjoyable to use. Sadly the optics let it down (you'll rarely see the whole screen as sharp if you wear glasses), and we're not alone in finding the color calibration of the EVF dramatically different to that of the rear screen - to a degree

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
...Show more

Yakim:

My post wasn't made to suggest that the Panasonic was the winner by any means.

It may be my monitor, but to me (when I zoom into different areas of the large image), the Oly is the best of the four cameras.

For example, look at ISO 800 and zoom to the lower edge of the yellow hair to the left of the blue watch. Be sure to include some of the black background. The Olympus is the clear winner; the sharpness of the Panny is not so great. I'd choose the E-M5.

Then zoom onto the group of fuzzy balls just above Mickey Mouse; based on this image, I'm taking the E-M5.

For the fourth camera (default is the GH2) I used my own 5DII. It doesn't look as good as the E-M5.

Glenn



Apr 25, 2013 at 03:27 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #11 · Re-thinking MFT


For me, IQ in modern DSLR/MILC is good enough for me to consider it low on my list of priorities. Case in point, my 7D. Yes, IQ is not top notch on its own but combined with the other merits like BQ, AF, ergonomics, VF (sorry Adam ) and other features then it's a superb all-rounder. At the time I bought it over the 5D2 which as better IQ but is far worse in all other aspects. Today I'd still make the same decision.

You see, as I grow older I put less and less emphasis on top notch IQ as both the IQ of modern sensors is getting better and better and I tend to put more emphasis on the artistic aspects of the pic, not the technical ones.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Apr 25, 2013 at 04:04 PM
Glenn NK
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #12 · Re-thinking MFT


Yakim Peled wrote:
For me, IQ in modern DSLR/MILC is good enough for me to consider it low on my list of priorities. Case in point, my 7D. Yes, IQ is not top notch on its own but combined with the other merits like BQ, AF, ergonomics, VF (sorry Adam ) and other features then it's a superb all-rounder. At the time I bought it over the 5D2 which as better IQ but is far worse in all other aspects. Today I'd still make the same decision.

You see, as I grow older I put less and less emphasis on top
...Show more

Agree on all points.

I'm not rushing into M43 because I can still carry my 5DII with a lens on it by myself.

Smaller gear would help because I'd like to do some street photography - a 5DII with a 24-105 or 70-200 is not discrete enough - at least not for me.

As you say, the IQ of the new cameras is no longer a limiting factor. Ease of use in the field is more valuable for creativity. However, I don't think the latest M43 systems are mature yet what with quirky UIs, buggy EVF, and limited lens selection (I'm not ready to give up my TSE24).

If I was jumping into M43 right now, I'd pick the Olympus over anything else.

Glenn



Apr 25, 2013 at 05:48 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #13 · Re-thinking MFT


Great minds think alike.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Apr 25, 2013 at 07:08 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #14 · Re-thinking MFT


'tend to put more emphasis on the artistic aspects of the pic, not the technical ones.'

There are of course difficulties separating and quantifying the relative contribution of these two aspects, which combine to produce fine art. No need for a lengthy dissertation on the subject, except to point to two maybe obvious and verifiable matters:

. not all subject matter requires high level technical performance, and related to this, each of us has our own 'threshold of sufficient quality' in photography, some higher, some lower.

. even for subject matter not requiring the higher levels of technical quality, for example portraiture, the greats almost always used the best, most technically advanced equipment they could lay their hands on. HCB and Garry Winogrand being prime examples, also McCurry, Weston...it goes on and on.



Apr 26, 2013 at 01:27 AM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #15 · Re-thinking MFT


Unless my photographic history is rusty, isn't HCB the prime example for choosing convenience and other considerations over absolute image quality? When he was shooting with 35mm film and Leica rangefinders, the vast majority of pros were using large format, or at the very least 6x6 TLR. 35mm was the 'mini' format at the time, and was looked down on as massively inferior. HCB helped popularize the 35mm format for professional use.


Apr 26, 2013 at 01:48 AM
Spyro P.
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #16 · Re-thinking MFT


bresson's photos were, from a technical perspective, crap
known for producing blurry and wrongly exposed stuff that needed hours of massaging in the dark room.
winogrand was mostly using a serenar 28/2.8 lens, pretty average by any standard. Tons of videos and writings of his, you ll never hear him talking about "IQ"

but these were street shooters, this is predominantly a landscape shooter forum. Sharpness at infinity, corners, distortions, 100% zooms, are the things that matter (and GW wouldnt give a sh!t about). Othes were more concerned because they were selling to NG, which has its own, particular aesthetic, others just get the best gear they can, simply because...they can. why not.

it all depends how you shoot, for whom, and what you are trying to do with photography. lots of different requirements, all very legit.



Apr 26, 2013 at 02:21 AM
kwalsh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #17 · Re-thinking MFT


No Jordan, I think you've got that right.

And on the landscape front Galen Rowell would be an excellent example of someone who did the same in a field that many amateurs still decades later insist can't be done with anything less than four times the resolving power of what Rowell built a career and a legacy on.

I think people often mistake the fact that a professional having to use their equipment daily is of course going to acquire whatever tool is most effective for them with no concern for the marginal cost. This is often interpreted as somehow related to their demand for perfection in their images and not willing to compromise at all on image quality. However if you read what many of the greats said or wrote you find that often that really isn't the case at all. While you had AA metering the bejeezes out off every scene, characterizing every film and developer you had other greats who used what was convenient and never even printed their own work.



Apr 26, 2013 at 02:28 AM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #18 · Re-thinking MFT


Rowell, many will agree, might have paid more attention to his choice of equipment, but he was usually hanging off a cliff. His subject matter, in the most part as he shot so many different things, would have been much better if he used something like an AF/AE Fuji GA645zi, total weight of 815 grams. Then those 20x30s would have shone.

Ken, I reckon people had different standards in those days, very different times.

'this is predominantly a landscape shooter forum'
jeez, I hope not, Spyro, it ought to be as broad as possible..a let's say, 'close attention' to gear is definitely to be found here though ;-0.

It's all secondary to the power of the image, so more people getting into shooting via MFT is a great thing.



Apr 26, 2013 at 04:43 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #19 · Re-thinking MFT


Phillip, of course the two are inseparably combined. It's just that I feel a personal shift from putting more emphasis on the technical aspects to the more artistic ones. It never was and never is 100-0 or 0-100. It's more 70-30 to 30-70. That is why, when modern sensors are concerned, I primarily focus on a camera I will be happy to shoot with, not on how 100% crops from it look like.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Apr 26, 2013 at 08:55 AM
ISO1600
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #20 · Re-thinking MFT


I completely agree that if you can get the shot you want/need, the format doesn't matter.
M4/3, and most modern "serious" PnS cameras, can get good enough image quality for me, but i prefer the look I can get with a larger format (than M4/3, or even APS-C generally).
That is my reason for FF.

The SB from Metabones totally changes that though, and I'll probably get an NEX in the coming months.



Apr 26, 2013 at 12:07 PM
1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password