CKrueger wrote:
I guess for the photography I do, nothing is exceptionally important. Well, other than focal length coverage.
I shoot for pleasure. I like the look I get from my 5D and 24-70 in portraits. I like the AF speed of my 7D. I like the sharpness of my 100/2.8 macro when coupled with my MT-24EX. I'm sure if I bought some Leica lens or other I'd be very impressed with how sharp they are. But when it comes down to it, I shoot for pleasure. If I were banished to a P&S superzoom, I'd still take good pictures. My keeper rate would be lower, the sharpness of the photos would be lower, and I'd have no DOF control. But I'd still get good pictures.
I guess my point is that I'm well past the point where I care about synthetic measurements like lp/mm or sensor attributes like image circle. ("past" is a bad term... it's not like it's a progression; more an opinion.) If the photos look nice, I'm happy. I understand I'm in in the vast minority with that kind of opinion in this kind of forum (which is why I've mostly abandoned this forum), but if people wonder why someone might buy a camera with a silly little sensor with a lens that can't produce anything near Nyquist frequency, that's why I do it. I just don't care what's in my hands, so long as the photos look good. And despite what an MTF chart might say, my EP3 and its kit lens can take some pretty nice pictures. ...Show more →
Sharpness is a misunderstood concept and the thing people usually mean by it is one of the less important aspects of a lens. Sharpness, as it should be understood is resolution + micro contrast. The micro contrast parameter which is the perhaps most important one depends on the spatial frequency - i.e. if it is the coarse details or the fine details or anything in between. Depending on the micro contrast at a certain spatial frequency a lens will produce a different overall look. For instance one that has high contrast in the 40 lp/mm will bring out the fine details, such as textures in an image. A high contrast in the 10 lp/mm on the other hand usually translates to high edge contrast and is great to make geometrical objects 'pop' in an image.
The key here is not 'better' but 'different'. For instance lenses that have very high micro contrast for both high and low spatial frequencies can for some subjects produce rather messy pictures. It may be undesirable to have a too high contrast at certain frequencies if you for instance shoot portraits as it will put too much emphasis on imperfections in the skin, but without giving it an interesting texture. And so on.
The character of a lens depends to a large degree on the sensor size. With a FF camera when you have the entire image circle you usually get vignetting and some form of field curvature at the edges/corners which actually reduces the overall technical quality and uniformity but you get a more intimate, less flat rendering. And of course the micro contrast matters. One of the more popular lenses here in the alt forum is the 21 Distagon - and with good reason. On FF it's really magnificent for many different reasons. However put it on a 7D and suddenly it is transformed to a mediocre lens. It's still very 'sharp' but the micro contrast becomes sub-optimal for landscape photography use which is its forte on FF because it starts emphasizing the 'wrong' type of details in the image.
MTF charts are an attempt at describing the micro contrast that a lens produces at different spatial frequencies. It doesn't tell you everything about a lens - on the contrary, it's just one of many aspects. It does however help you to use the right lens for the right subject and it helps you to understand how you can get the most out of a lens. If you have an interest in how the final image looks and do not wish to leave it just to chance then MTF charts should not be dismissed as 'synthetic measurements'. They are dead useful tools.
I'm not in any way saying that you can't take good photos without knowing or caring about all this. It is however one factor that increases your creative options. If it is important to you or not.. well, that's up to you.
The one thing I CANNOT manage is an enormous camera. How much am I willing to suffer for my art? Would I carry a view camera and a tripod capable of supporting ME? Nope. How about a medium format digital system with a few nice primes? Alluring, but no way. Full frame digital? I'll only carry it for a few hours. Micro Four Thirds? That I can manage all day if I'm out shooting. 24/7? That'll be my iPhone.
That's always going to be relative and people usually find their optimal configuration. Most people can't be bothered to use a P&S, much less an exchangeable lens camera. Some time ago I had the theory to use a complete range from a large sensor P&S (Leica X1) up to a medium format camera (Pentax 67), with DSLRs and rangefinders etc in between. I would pick the best camera suited for the situation and that would be it. It didn't work out. It turned out that the Leica M9 gave me the optimum of image quality/convenience and that's what I use now for 90%+ of my photography. Other people will find a different optimal point.
The thing here however was that the NEX system and the m4/3 compacts are very similar in size, operation and price. So the question was why people choose the smaller sensor over the larger sensor when all else seems equal. And the answer that has been given is that all else is not equal - there are fewer lenses for the NEX, the m4/3 bodies have more appeal to some etc
Actually it was reading these kinds of posts that convinced me to get a MFT system in the first place. I liked the weak AA filters, the Oly JPG and IBIS engines as well as the much hailed Oly colors.
However, in the end, after using the D7000 and A850, I came away regretting ever going MFT and having a family of images I know would have looked better if I had other portable gear.
IMO, the EPL-2 + kit lens + 20mm F1.7 still requires a bag. Now this will be a per person preference but when I carry a messenger bag or backpack, I feel almost no difference between a MFT kit and a APS-C kit as long as I'm not carrying a 70-200 F2.8 or something gigantic like that. Maybe it's because I'm still in my late 20s and in shape.
And to answer your specific question, yes when I travel, I often carry a camera bag with me and spend many days just shooting photos. When I took those beach shots, it was one of those days I was walking around just looking for photo opportunities. I really regret taking people's advice on the MFT DPreview forum and traveling with MFT, it made no difference to me in carrying it around and made a big difference in how big I can blow these up.
BTW, I did apply NR in LR3 in those beach shots and that's about as comfortable as I am with it without losing detail.
In the end, a Nikon D7000 with a 35mm DX and the 18-105mm kit lens would have been a much better combo for me than the EPL-2 with a 20mm F1.7 and 14-42mm kit lens. I would have had sharper higher quality photos with much more dynamic range. And while the D7k kit would have weighed more, it would have been a moot point for me since either way I have to carry a bag.
You seem to think that its a black and white situation where why not carry the biggest camera made OR MFT. That's simply not the case and is just a strawman argument. Ultimately, due to bad advice on photoforums and my own misjudgement I made some mistakes and I'm glad I can learn from them. Of the gear that was available when I made the trip, I chose the wrong kit.
CKrueger wrote:
Is not size and weight a consideration? Would you shoot with a view camera? You can get the equipment pretty cheap. Cheaper than an A850 and a stable of lenses for it, at least.
I don't see M43 as sub-par. Yes the IQ from a FF DSLR could be better. I AM giving up IQ for convenience. But I'm giving up a little IQ for a LOT of convenience. Perhaps that's just the difference in how you and I judge IQ. I do consider a few of the shots to come out of my G10 to be pretty good, for example.
I think one thing you said to be a perfect illustration of why people like these small cameras. You would have gotten a better final image with your A850. Nobody is going to argue that. But you had the EPL2 with you instead. Just like you might have a NEX camera with you today. And then you might get a bit better noise, but the IQ from the NEX lens lineup is lower. So either way you're stuck with something less than the best image possible.
So what do you do? Bring your A850 everywhere? And what happens when Ansel Adams Jr sets up his 8x10 next to you and shoots a photo with significantly better IQ? When does it end? Where is the bar at which IQ is acceptable? Obviously your bar is higher than mine. That should tell you why I'm scratching my head why you'd lug such a giant hunk of camera with you while you're scratching your head why I'd even bother using a camera with such low IQ. (Please forgive me if that sounds combative, that's not my intent.)
FWIW, I would have been happy with the beach image. You obviously do PP, so I would have just turned the NR up a bit in LR. I know the noise you speak of; even my 7D exhibits it. To me it's no big deal; it comes out with NR in large prints, and I ignore it in small prints. ...Show more →
glassartist wrote:
Brady's Photographic Outfit in the Field - Near Petersburg, VA, 1864
From civilwarphotos.net
Oh, man.. those large format shots on the site makes me want to raid the nearest camera shop for a 4x5. I really love the look but I also know it would be hell to own and use one. I'd be torn between the love for the photos it can take and hate over the massive inconvenience of using it...
denoir wrote:
Bob, you are quite right and it's a good point. There is however another factor that one must take into consideration then - the fact that lenses designed for crop sensors (be it ASP-C or m4/3) are as a rule have low cost as a high priority. So you won't find any really high end crop lenses.
Really? Have you looked at the prices? Have you tried them? Neither of the Pana 7-14, Zuiko 12, Leica 25 or Leica 45 macro are cheap. Even the little Pana 20mm f/1.7 is three times the price of my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and approaching the price of the Nikkor f/1.4. From a quality point of view, there's little difference that is significant in real life situations.
Actually I would say while the 14-45mm felt very solid and so does the 7-14 as well as the 14-42mm mk2 olympus... they don't get close to approaching the build quality of say the Sony Zeiss 85mm ZA F1.4 or Nikon 85mm AF-S G F1.4
Those lenses of course cost quite a lot more and aren't designed for lightness as a design priority.
If you look at moderately priced lenses like the Oly 8-16mm which is a optically very good lens, it still feels pretty light and plasticy although perhaps not cheap. I wouldn't have any confidence it would last 20 years of normal use like the aforementioned lenses would.
CKrueger wrote:
Is not size and weight a consideration? Would you shoot with a view camera? You can get the equipment pretty cheap. Cheaper than an A850 and a stable of lenses for it, at least.
I don't see M43 as sub-par. Yes the IQ from a FF DSLR could be better. I AM giving up IQ for convenience. But I'm giving up a little IQ for a LOT of convenience. Perhaps that's just the difference in how you and I judge IQ. I do consider a few of the shots to come out of my G10 to be pretty good, for example.
I think one thing you said to be a perfect illustration of why people like these small cameras. You would have gotten a better final image with your A850. Nobody is going to argue that. But you had the EPL2 with you instead. Just like you might have a NEX camera with you today. And then you might get a bit better noise, but the IQ from the NEX lens lineup is lower. So either way you're stuck with something less than the best image possible.
So what do you do? Bring your A850 everywhere? And what happens when Ansel Adams Jr sets up his 8x10 next to you and shoots a photo with significantly better IQ? When does it end? Where is the bar at which IQ is acceptable? Obviously your bar is higher than mine. That should tell you why I'm scratching my head why you'd lug such a giant hunk of camera with you while you're scratching your head why I'd even bother using a camera with such low IQ. (Please forgive me if that sounds combative, that's not my intent.)
FWIW, I would have been happy with the beach image. You obviously do PP, so I would have just turned the NR up a bit in LR. I know the noise you speak of; even my 7D exhibits it. To me it's no big deal; it comes out with NR in large prints, and I ignore it in small prints. ...Show more →
I think a lot of it depends on your goals and priorities. I have no interest in going to a beach other than to photograph. I don't have a camera I take everywhere and if I did my 4x5 fits in my pack easily. But if my intent is to photograph than I have no problem lugging the 8x10 around. So a camera I can carry around all day is useless to me because I am either photographing 100% or doing something else 100%.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Really? Have you looked at the prices? Have you tried them? Neither of the Pana 7-14, Zuiko 12, Leica 25 or Leica 45 macro are cheap. Even the little Pana 20mm f/1.7 is three times the price of my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and approaching the price of the Nikkor f/1.4.
Not cheap, but not particularly expensive either. The best ones are in the $500-$1,000 range, which is mid-range for DSLR lenses and budget for rangefinder lenses.
From a quality point of view, there's little difference that is significant in real life situations.
You could say the same thing about photos taken from an iPhone and the statement would be no less meaningless. Of course there's a massive difference. That it may or may not be significant to you personally is a separate issue.
Nice colors, contrast, and sharpness. The Panny 7-14 is the only reason I'd choose a m4/3 or a NEX camera, but it in itself is not enough. The Nex-7 will be out soon, and I'm sure it will be superb. If it had an excellent super wide zoom (14-28mm effective) it would be hard to resist.
denoir wrote:
You could say the same thing about photos taken from an iPhone and the statement would be no less meaningless. Of course there's a massive difference. That it may or may not be significant to you personally is a separate issue.
The iPhone with what lenses? What RAW converter for that camera?
Not for me personally, but for my clients. I use m4/3 as a professional tool. I shoot regularly with the GH1 and Pana 7-14mm alongside photographers using Nikon D3 with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens, and except when the light is low or the DR is challenging, it's mostly hard to see which photos are taken with what camera, in print, not pixel peeping at 100 or 200%. A more important difference is that I can get shots that they can't, using the swivel screen (they have to guess the framing, I don't), and that I can hold the camera at arms length when necessary, far longer than them, since my rig is only one third of the weight.
Oh, and when I upgrade to GH2 (or GH3?), autofocus will be faster in live view with that camera than with the D3... much faster.
denoir wrote:
Thanks for all the replies guys, a lot of good points. I'll just pick and choose from some of the answers:
But if you want something SLR like, why not get a compact DSLR, such as the Pentax K-5 which AFIK significantly outperforms both m4/3 and the NEX?
Even the K-5 is significantly larger than the EVF-equipped G or GH bodies. A GH body with the 14, 20 or 45/1.8 is smaller than the K-5 body only. And it's a LOT easier to accurately focus with the EVF than even the K-5's excellent (for APS-C) finder. That's what eventually landed me in the Sony SLT's (I needed more high ISO than m43 could deliver before the GH2 but was seriously unsatisfied with the OVF's on the compact APS-C DSLR's, the best of which, the K-x, I owned in between my G1 and my A33). I'm personally looking at a mix of APS-C DSLR and SLT for my needs rather than m43 but I'm constrained by the fact I want to shoot film with the same system and prefer SLR's to RF's. For pure digital use as it stands today I'd probably go with a G3 backed up by an E-30.
mawz wrote:
For pure digital use as it stands today I'd probably go with a G3 backed up by an E-30.
Interesting that you say that, since I'm doing something similar, buying an E-620 for when I need an optical viewfinder and using OM cameras for film. That way, I can use OM lenses for all cameras, 4/3 lenses for all digital cameras and m4/3 lenses for m4/3 cameras, which which are the cameras I use the most.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
The iPhone with what lenses? What RAW converter for that camera?
The built in lens of course, and who needs RAW? 9 out of 10 lemmings can't tell the difference.
Not for me personally, but for my clients. I use m4/3 as a professional tool. I shoot regularly with the GH1 and Pana 7-14mm alongside photographers using Nikon D3 with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens, and except when the light is low or the DR is challenging, it's mostly hard to see which photos are taken with what camera, in print, not pixel peeping at 100 or 200%.
Honestly, that's not very likely unless the viewer has terrible eyesight. But OK, let's do a little experiment. Here are two pictures one taken with a mid range 50mm prime and one with a high end 50 mm prime. They are web sized. Open the images in separate tabs in your browser and flip between them. Do you see any difference?
The difference between those two lenses is smaller than the difference between the 7-14 Panny and the Nikon 14-24.
Oh, and when I upgrade to GH2 (or GH3?), autofocus will be faster in live view with that camera than with the D3... much faster.
Eh? I think you need a serious reality check. Phase detection focus on a pro DSLR is orders of magnitude faster and more accurate than the best contrast detection AF.
Edit: Unless you meant the Live View focus on the D3 - in that case you are of course right.
It's a beautiful photo due to the subject and the composition as well as the long exposure..but the rendering does seem somewhat problematic. The details have very low contrast producing a rather muddy and indistinct rendering of the textures. It's a good example of the photographer doing everything right but where the camera/lens is the limiting factor.
Let me give a counter example - it's the only waterfall shot that I have that is roughly comparable:
Can you see how you can almost feel the texture of the rock? And this is not an ideal shot as it was taken at f/16 where the 21 Distagon becomes seriously diffraction limited. Had I shot it at f/8 the rendering would have been a notch better. Now scroll up and look at the Panny uwa zoom photo again. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Interesting that you say that, since I'm doing something similar, buying an E-620 for when I need an optical viewfinder and using OM cameras for film. That way, I can use OM lenses for all cameras, 4/3 lenses for all digital cameras and m4/3 lenses for m4/3 cameras, which which are the cameras I use the most.
Buying an E-620 for the OVF is not exactly the greatest idea. I'd strongly suggest moving up to the E-30 or the E-3/5 bodies if you need an OVF. While the E-620 does have a better OVF than the E-4x0 or E-5x0 bodies that's kinda like saying a Yugo is more reliable than a 60's Jaguar. While it's true, it doesn't actually say anything good about it. Even the E-30's OVF is frankly marginal, it's in the same class as a Rebel or Nikon D5100 rather than other Pentaprism-equipped bodies. The E-3/5 OVF is actually quite good for a sub-135 finder but those are the only 4/3rds bodies that can say that. I did own the E-30 for a while and generally quite liked it, but the OVF was still a weak point.
I found using a film system alongside 4/3rds to be too much of a stretch, which is one major reason (aside from needing better high ISO) that I ended up moving away from the system. The crop factor was just too different (unlike with 1.5x, where I just added one lens to the bag to allow for dual-format days).
To be fair, you're comparing a lens that is twice the price , manual focus, and a body that can be nearly four times the price. It also weighs about 3-5x as much.
Considerations if you cannot carry equipment or do not wish to spend so much.
I will say MFT always produces better photos than all compact cameras including the current king, the XZ-1.
denoir wrote:
Eh? I think you need a serious reality check. Phase detection focus on a pro DSLR is orders of magnitude faster and more accurate than the best contrast detection AF.
Edit: Unless you meant the Live View focus on the D3 - in that case you are of course right.
CDAF on the GH2 on a fixed point is comparable in performance to most PDAF systems on the centre point. PDAF's major advantage today is in continuous tracking and multi-point tracking (which is currently a massive advantage) but on a fixed centre point there's little difference in performance.
Note those two shots aren't really comparable, look at the textures on the rocks, the Distagon shot has highly textured rock, the G Vario shot has almost textureless rock (in actuality. the 7-14 isn't missing the fine detail, it's merely not there), it also looks like the leaves moved slightly in the 7-14 shot which makes them appear softer. The Distagon shot is an excellent display of just how good the lens is, but the 7-14 shot, while excellent from a composition standpoint, is not a great demonstration of what the 7-14 can do at its best because of the lack of high-frequency detail in the subject as well as what appears to be a bit of motion blur in the leaves.
The 4/3rds 7-14's are generally considered to be two of the very few UWA zooms which can approach the Nikkor 14-24 in performance. They are very, very good lenses (and the Panasonic is remarkably small. The Oly 4/3rds 7-14 is a bit of a beast though)
FlyPenFly wrote:
To be fair, you're comparing a lens that is twice the price and a body that can be nearly four times the price. It also weighs about 3-5x as much.
Considerations if you cannot carry equipment or do not wish to spend so much.
Of course, and I'm not disputing either point. I'm just pointing out that there is a difference and a price to pay in image quality that can easily be seen in web sized photos.
In fact, I'm paying that price myself. I don't use my 21 Distagon much these days although it's probably my all time favorite lens. Instead I use the much more compact M9 although I don't have a lens that can replace the 21 Distagon. The Zeiss 18/4 Distagon ZM comes close, but it's not quite as good.
mawz wrote:
Note those two shots aren't really comparable, look at the textures on the rocks, the Distagon shot has highly textured rock, the G Vario shot has almost textureless rock (in actuality. the 7-14 isn't missing the fine detail, it's merely not there), it also looks like the leaves moved slightly in the 7-14 shot which makes them appear softer. The Distagon shot is an excellent display of just how good the lens is, but the 7-14 shot, while excellent from a composition standpoint, is not a great demonstration of what the 7-14 can do at its best because of the lack of high-frequency detail in the subject as well as what appears to be a bit of motion blur in the leaves. ...Show more →
Hmm. I'll have to disagree with that. Look at the moss on the left side of the shot and look at the grooves in the rock. It certainly has texture, it's just that the details are so low contrast that it all sort of blends together.
The 4/3rds 7-14's are generally considered to be two of the very few UWA zooms which can approach the Nikkor 14-24 in performance. They are very, very good lenses (and the Panasonic is remarkably small. The Oly 4/3rds 7-14 is a bit of a beast though)
I've used the 7-14 on a GF1, admittedly not for very long, but I've seen quite a few shots from it (the GF1 and Panny 7-14 belong to a friend) and my impression is that it's good for a crop sensor lens but doesn't stand up well in comparison to FF UWAs. It's sort of similar to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 that also has a reputation of being an amazing wide angle zoom. Except it's not. It's better than any other UWA zoom for ASP-C, but it's really terrible compared to a mediocre UWA FF Zoom, not to mention a high end UWA prime on FF.
