I guess this discussion probably goes to show we have different preferences: On the 5Dmkii I get really great extreme dof, the kind I want on a percentage of shots ...
With a FF camera I mostly get the good DOF I want the majority of my images to have.
Why is f/8 a pain? It's easy to pump up the ISO and get the same as with the 4/3 camera at f/4.
I also have no issues with noise at base ISO, or even at most working ISO's for daylight.
This is again about preferences. When I struggle on with my very slow project documenting buildings the G1 noise at ISO100 made me frustrated sometimes. Nothing is impossible of course, as long as you bring the tripod and bracket.
If I want to PP some and print big there is noise. If I want to PP a lot there is noise. Sometimes this noise doesn't matter at all.
mawz wrote:
That's an interesting take. I haven't found achieving shallow DoF to be an issue with m43. It's there where I want it with fast 28-50mm lenses and it's achievable close in with wider lenses like my 17/2.8. I do find myself shooting a bit wider open than I do with 35mm but overall the shallow DoF I want is available at the FoV I want.
A lot of it just depends on how you're shooting. I like the shallow DoF I can get shooting with a full frame camera and an f/2.8 zoom without being super tight on my subject. If you tend to shoot really tight, then an m43 with an f/1.7 might be fine. If you tend to shoot a bit looser, then FF may be the only thing that really lets you get what you want. Personally, I find that for my style the Nikon D50 with the 35G @ f/1.8 is fine, so I suspect that the GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7 will be okay, even though it will be a bit deeper. But it will definitely not challenge my D700 with the 24-70G in instances where I want the flexibility of a zoom while still having a great range of DoF control biased to the shallow end of things.
Jonas, you have to realize that I like extremely narrow dof and use it fairly frequently.
However what you gain at one end ... you lose at the other. So while I like FF, and Medium format even more, for the extremes I can get at say F2 it then is a pain at the other end. I'm used to using F8 to f11 for those times when I want a lot of dof, but find now it is like using F4 or F5.6, where it simply doesn't deliver enough. Using f 16 on ff often makes me want for more dof and f22 dies from diffraction.
micro four thirds is fantastic for large dof. At f 8 I have what I need for landscapes and macros in a liberating way. So you lose something but gain something else with each of these.
But in the end I find that narrow dof is easier to get my framing tightly, and if I really want the look of it out of a setup that delivered a bit less than I wanted - I'm darn good with faking it with photoshop. Sure it takes me a long time to do it right ... but I've done that a few times only - because frankly FF and F4 is often good enough and that is about what I expect with 1.7 and M4/3 and a tight shot. But photoshop will never deliver me extra dof ... no matter how long I'd be willing to spend on it>
So even as someone who considers himself a disciple of that narrow dof look, I'm still not panicked about what I expect the trade-off to be with this new Panasonic combo.
Now with the Olympus E-1 I used to own and F 3.5-4.0 vari-zooms ... I did find it unacceptable. F 2.0 and a bit of work in the setup of the shot ... and its not so bad.
The thing to do obviously is the have medium format for one end of the scale ... and for the other ... M4/3 seems to be a heck of a system in the making. Not perfect .. sure ... but then ... what is? FF is surely not some kind of panacea to all ills photographic. It is simply its own set of trade-offs. (and yes, I do own FF bodies - so I'm not reflexively trying to denigrate them)
Mawz ... to hear about Ryerson brings back memories. I took business there a long ago. We used to call it Ry-high. It was half way between a college and university then.
No, in fact the diffraction is worse with a small sensor and high megapixel, but on the 5Dmkii I see it degrade a bit at f13 and see F16 as the last useable stop.
I switched to Canon for their tilt-shift lenses where you can change the alignment without disasembly ... and am getting them next, making all of this a mute point.
Anything beyond F5-5.6 will start to suffer from diffraction effects with the micro4/3rds sensor size. Of course the better the lens, the more noticeable the degradation. That's even more reason that faster lenses should be the norm for this format. A zoom that starts at 5.6 on the long end such as the 14 - 45 becomes a joke of sorts if your looking for optimum results. Even with FF 35, I can easily see image degrading diffraction effects start at F8 with a great lens. Of course, sometimes you need the greater dof regardless, particularly with FF.
Pavel wrote:
No, in fact the diffraction is worse with a small sensor and high megapixel, but on the 5Dmkii I see it degrade a bit at f13 and see F16 as the last useable stop.
We (at least me) are talking about diffraction limiting the resolution per image height. If you scale the pictures to the same resolution, sensor size is unimportant when it comes to diffraction at a certain DOF.
Edit: A smaller format could sometimes be better though, because of lens characteristics. Stopping down an FF f/2.8 lens to f/11 could give less good results than an f/2.8 4:3 lens @ f/5.6. But that isn't about diffraction.
Pavel wrote:
Jonas, you have to realize that I like extremely narrow dof and use it fairly frequently.
However what you gain at one end ... you lose at the other. So while I like FF, and Medium format even more, for the extremes I can get at say F2 it then is a pain at the other end. I'm used to using F8 to f11 for those times when I want a lot of dof, but find now it is like using F4 or F5.6, where it simply doesn't deliver enough. Using f 16 on ff often makes me want for more dof and f22 dies from diffraction.
micro four thirds is fantastic for large dof. At f 8 I have what I need for landscapes and macros in a liberating way. So you lose something but gain something else with each of these.
In theory there shouldn't be any disadvantages for a FF sensor for a large compared to the 4/3 sensor. It will all the way just be 2 f-stops difference, assuming the same FOV and shooting distance.
In practise this worked very well when I compared my (then) E-510 with a Zuiko 50/2 Macro to my (then) 5D with an EF 100/2.8 Macro.
Then there will be minor differences due to the quality of this or that lens, and, of course, beyond any diffraction limits where the FF lens doesn't sport f/32 or f/44...
I know people doing a lot of macro work usually work in the "diffraction limited" space and maybe 4/3 can have some advantage there.
For any sort of general shooting however I stand by what I said; It's easy to pump up the ISO and get the same as with the 4/3 camera at f/4.
Anyway, when there are some nice fast primes available I'll be happy to once again buy into the µ4/3 system.
Pavel wrote:
Yeah ... but my canon 35 f 1.4 is larger than the whole M4/3 system!
Yup. It seems as Panasonic managed to make a good pancake 20/1.7. I don't expect a lot of pancake lenses but the short register distance just may make it possible to design smaller fast wide lenses than we are used to see. Problem with corner sharpness wide open? Maybe. Otoh that may not be a big problem for most users.
Fantasies right now, I know, time will tell. Here is hope. The G1 was the most fun camera to use I have tried for a long time.
Ouch. At least the 20mm has glass in it! Pretty steep since I'm considering exactly one M-Mount lens so far.
cameraquest has it for $150 http://cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm
I just want an m42 -> m4/3's so I can use my tak, heh.
Well... it appears the 20mm f1.7 ain't cheap.... Lens is scheduled to be released 9/18/09 and the market price seems to be around $500-$550. Hopefully it will drop down to the $300-$350 range and be affordable...sorta.
pascal03 wrote:
Well... it appears the 20mm f1.7 ain't cheap.... Lens is scheduled to be released 9/18/09 and the market price seems to be around $500-$550. Hopefully it will drop down to the $300-$350 range and be affordable...sorta.
