Okay, I know this is not a gear forum, but a landscape forum, but that being said hear me out.
It seems to me that the M4/3rds system is designed for travelers in mind. With it's smaller. lighter size it would be excellent for landscape photography, where you often have more light and are working at f stops of 8 and above. That being said, I have yet to see travel or landscape photographs from any of the M4/3rd cameras that has really impressed me, or much of any at all. Considering this system as either a back-up or replacement for my DSLR system (more likely a back up) if you have excellent landscape photos, please post em!
[That being said, I have yet to see travel or landscape photographs from any of the M4/3rd cameras that has really impressed me, or much of any at all.
-TBri
I apologize in advance if this included my pictures (that didn't impress at all) but I have had pretty good success with my GH1 + 14-140mm kit lens, especially at f/5.6 or f/8.0. These won't print as good at large sizes, but I do have some stitched shots that I'm trying to print at 24"x48" over the next week.
VErn Dewit, many thanks, they look great. First time I've seen them. Have you seen others with impressive results? How do you compare the quality to crop cameras?
Vern, just tell people those are with a 5D mkII and no one will know the difference lol.
Great work!
Is the fields of beauty shot just one frame ? What focal length if so ? I'm really impressed with the near to far sharpness you've got in that one.
The flowers look quite sharp but so do the distant peaks. Thats DOF you really can't achieve with full frame 35mm lenses usually unless you've got some tilt/shift gear.
I actually bought a 24 and 45 PC-E 2 months ago to try to solve that problem and it certainly works but going to a smaller crop factor certainly would be a far far cheaper solution if it can give a few stops effective DOF back.
millsart wrote:
Vern, just tell people those are with a 5D mkII and no one will know the difference lol.
Is the fields of beauty shot just one frame ? What focal length if so ? I'm really impressed with the near to far sharpness you've got in that one.
I think with the vast majority of photos nowadays ending up as images that only get viewed on the internet, most (I repeat most) folks simply don't need the 21 megapixels of the 5DII or the Sony A900/A850 cameras to produce great landscape shots. I'm not trying to start a flame war with that statement - I really believe it and live by it myself.
The shot you're referring to (and many others that I take) are stitched panoramas of at least 6-10, 12 megapixel images from the Panny GH1. Conservatively that is a 50-100 MP shot, downsized, slightly over-sharpenned and then downsized a bit more before being shown at only around 500-700 pixels on the short edge!
If you looked at that image at 100%, you'd be very disappointed with the "lack of detail and sharpness" - I guarantee it. I'm currently printing some of my larger panos at a large size of 2x4 feet to see how the details hold up in print. I think it'll be fine because people don't tend to stick their noses right up to a print that size but we'll see... It won't match the same shot done with a 5DII and 24mm TS-E but does it matter?
For web display and moderately sized prints the m4/3 cameras are capable of producing great images with the GH1 having by far the best sensor of the available choices right now, IMHO. I've owned the Olympus EP1, Panny G1 and Panny GF1 and sold all of those because they couldn't live up to what I expect from my GH1. I rarely use the video on the GH1 but the sensor is better than the G1 and it's too bad they didn't put it in the GF1. My issue with every single 4/3 and m4/3 sensor that I've tried (I also owned an Oly E410, E420 and Panny L1) is that they tend to smear details, especially on shots with foliage like trees and grasses. They also have limited DR, especially compared with something like the Sony A900, which I also owned briefly. I get around some of the DR shortage by using Singh-Ray GND filters whenever I can to hold back blown skies / sun.
There's a debate going on right now on the Nikon forum regarding what people carry on hikes - do they carry the 'trinity' of lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) or tone it down? I do long and difficult mountain hikes and climbs. Some of my days are over 20km of hiking with 5-6000 feet of height gain. The Panasonic comes along on those days because I can carry it around my neck, shoot 28-280mm with one lens that also does HD Video with full AF capabilities and takes my Singh-Ray filters. It's hard to beat that. The compromise is that I don't get the quality that a D700 or 5DII with a TSE would give me - but I get the shot and I get the summit!
It's an interesting debate and it's different for everyone. (The Leica M9 poses a great solution to get a small(ish) FF camera with superior lenses into the back country, but I can not afford that system and I will not be banging it off rocks if I ever do get it! It also lack AF and the weather proofing that many other FF cameras have.)
Sorry for the essay but I've spent the last 5 years trying to get the perfect back country / landscape photography system and I've realized that for my uses I need two systems. One that is 'good enough' and light enough to take anywhere and another that has maximum quality and can be taken 'almost' anywhere.
Vern, I started that other thread as well. It sounds like we do the same type of things. I am a big guy and tend to overpack, so when it comes to juggling a 6 pound system (5Dii, 17-40, 24-105, and 50 1.4) or a 3 pound system (GH1, 7-14, 20 1.7, 14-140) I have some room for maneuvering, but I am really curious, since my trips are also very long, what I can get by with for less. Good to hear about the details smudging and the fact that most of these are stitched. So do you feel that GH-1 single shots cannot hold a candle to those of FF?
Travelinbri wrote:
So do you feel that GH-1 single shots cannot hold a candle to those of FF?
I carry even less than you - only the 14-140mm and some filters. Sometimes I don't even bother with a tripod!
Personally I don't feel that my GH1 shots stand a chance against any FF camera that I've tried (5D, D700, A900) at close viewing distances or big print sizes. I think my last statement is the important one in this debate over digital sensor formats and what they're good for.
In general, for any web photo and any print size under or at 8x10 or even in a lot of cases a bit larger, the 4/3 system will produce similar images to a FF system, given all other things being equal and disregarding certain physical outcomes of each sensor (i.e. greater DOF at a given aperature on the 4/3 and shallower DOF on the FF). The one caveat to this rule, in my experience, is the smaller DR of the smaller sensor. This is a hard one to get around. If your skies are blown out or your shadows too dark you can stitch all you want and your photo will still look like crap. I mitigate some of this nastiness by using good GND filters, but of course if I was using a better system with the same filters, I could get even better range out of the landscape scene right?
People don't like hearing this, but you do get what you pay for - usually. The question is if the extra weight / cost is worth it for you. The Nikon FF system that I'm currently building up will be worth about $9,000 and my Panasonic system is worth about $2,000. The Panny does roughly 80% of what the Nikon does for 22% of the cost. I guess the '80/20' rule really does apply to cameras too!
I really like the Paradise Valley and Frozen Lake shots.
I have done the majority of my shooting with Olympus, mainly with the E3 but have just recently acquired the 5DmkII and on a Pixel-Peep level, there is no comparison. The FF wins hands down, but in a real world scenario that remains to be seen.
The photos below are from the E3 and I have a 30"x40" gallery wrap canvas print of each on the walls of my bedroom and they look fantastic even up close. I uprezzed the original 10mp Raw file to 5120px on the long side. I'm shortly going to be having some equally large prints made from the 5DmkII. It will be interesting to see the comparison.
Careful technique (tripod, mirror lock, etc) and the extremely sharp Zuiko lenses make for a formidable combo even at the 10mp of the E3, so I would think the 12mp of the latest 4:3 cams would be enough for most applications. Although I now prefer the reso of the 5DmkII, I do miss the DOF and sharp corners of my E3.
I really like the Paradise Valley and Frozen Lake shots.
I have done the majority of my shooting with Olympus, mainly with the E3 but have just recently acquired the 5DmkII and on a Pixel-Peep level, there is no comparison. The FF wins hands down, but in a real world scenario that remains to be seen.
Nice shots! And I agree 100% with your 'real world scenario' comment. One reason for me getting the Nikon FF system is that I have two young kids, a dog and a beautiful wife and I enjoy photographing them too!
The m4/3 is getting better with lenses like the 20mm f/1.7 but still not even close on high ISO and fast AF. The D3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 is gonna knock the socks off the GH-1 with the 14-140mm in a dimly lit piano recital hall! (And it should given the price difference! )
Appreciate the detailed accounts Vern. I can only speak for myself but I doubt myself or anyone else interested in this subject has any complaints over the "essay" lol. We want as much info as possible.
I just got my G1 this morning and hope to pick up a Nikon D5000 next week so I can really try them both side by side verse the D700, 24-70, PC-E's etc
Since its raining here I really can't go shoot today, even at a park or something. Just some shots from the back porch of the yard so far do show the D700 and 24-70 being a bit sharper at 100% than the G1 w/ 14-45. Basically you've got a great FX sensor on a $2700 camera body vs a $600 camera body and a $1800 zoom lens, which is the best midrange zoom on the market, against a little 5 oz kit lens so the results are about what you'd expect.
I actually think a D700 with 24-70 vs a DX crop dslr with a consumer lens would be about the same.
Whats interesting though is that you just take a little handheld 3 shot pano with the G1 (panny pano if you will lol) and then that resulting images has the sharpness and resolution to blow away a single frame D700 shot.
Now of course you could then do a D700 pano as well and then that would be even better but perhaps its not quite that simple
The G1 is such a light little rig that you could use a little Nodal Ninja 3 or similar multi row pano set up. Pretty affordable and only about a 1lb or so of extra weight
The rig for the D700 with a 24-70 needs the bigger NNL5 setup which cost twice as much, weights twice as much, and then needs a pretty solid ballhead and tripod to even support that heavy pano rig.
So in same ways, I'm thinking it might come down to me being able to take a light pano rig on treks with the G1, where I'd leave it home with the D700 (which actually was the case. I loved the results but it was too much extra gear for the number of panos I did)
Doing 3 G1 frames instead of taking a single one with a 5D mkII isn't always going to be a solution, nor is it a valid comparison, but its really such a subjective apples to oranges thing in the first place.
Guess it really just comes down to what gets a person the shot they want under the conditions they need and most importantly in the place they actually were able to get to.
I think Vern makes a good point about actually getting to the submit.
Whats a "better" photo overall ? A point and shoot shot taken from the submit or a shot of the base of the mountain from the parking area with a D3x from a photographer who is unwilling or unable to make such an accent with all that heavy gear ?
I got the G1 when it first came out. It's been good for what it does. Very compact and I like the viewfinder and tilt LCD.
But it has one major flaw. And that is Panasonic. They have no clue how to market, and really do not seem to care when it concerns the U.S market. If something was to happen to my kit lens I would have to hope to find one in E-bay or I would have to order from Japan. I was very interested in the 7-14 when it was announced over a year ago but Panasonic has chosen not to make it available in the U.S.
Search the web the facts are all there. I recently picked up a Canon XSi to go with my 40D. Actually the XSi is not that much larger than the G1 and Canon's support and attitude for us here in the states makes it even more attractive.
I'm selling the G1 for the new Canon 15-85 IS to go with my XSi for a light weight compact rig. And what a surprise, I can actually go on B&H or Amazon and get that lens.
I did actually get a few shots off with my G1 though.
Seems that the Ebay sellers offering the 7-14mm all have proved reputable from the accounts I've been reading. I'm going to try the G1 for a few weeks first to see what I think of it but if I like it I'll be ordering the Ebay route
Which actually is where I got the G1 in the first place lol
Travelinbri wrote:
Interesting... what is your nikon system? D700, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200?
I'm still building it - a few lenses are in the mail as of today! I've actually decided to go with the D3 instead of the D700.
The D3 is getting much cheaper on the 2nd hand market due to the D3s coming out. I got a LNIB D3 with less than 5k actuations for under $3K USD. The D3 is heavy and large but it's only 0.75 lbs heavier than the D700. If I'm going to stress out about 0.75 lbs than I will take my GH1 instead or simply lose the weight from my stomach!
I love the weatherproofing, dual CF, AF and handling of the D3 - especially with the larger lenses. Since I'll be using it for family events, the odd wedding, kids running around and presumably formal landscapes in all sorts of weather this seemed like a good choice for me. I also want to get into wildlife shooting and the FPS and 200-400mm lens are attractive for that usage.
The 5DII or the Sony A850 may seem like a more obvious choice for landscapes but I'm planning on doing way more with the camera then just that. I also love the three lenses I'll be using to start off with, the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.
millsart wrote:
Seems that the Ebay sellers offering the 7-14mm all have proved reputable from the accounts I've been reading. I'm going to try the G1 for a few weeks first to see what I think of it but if I like it I'll be ordering the Ebay route
Which actually is where I got the G1 in the first place lol
The 7-14mm lenses that are selling from Japan are legit. I ordered one and got it no problems. I had to sell it to fund the Nikon purchases...
I'm trying to put together a travel kit (I have a D700 that I took to Europe - never again ), and I'm debating between the S90, GH1, GF-1 and even the D90. I'm so torn on the latter three that I'm thinking about just getting the S90 and sucking it up for a trip to see what I'd really be missing.
how did you find the 7-14, would the focal length been enough for you hikes and was the image quality worth it for the cash? also how do you rate the other 4/3 lenses. been looking to upgrade my d200 dive set up with a gh1, make a good light weight set up along side my d700.
louis fusco wrote:
how did you find the 7-14, would the focal length been enough for you hikes and was the image quality worth it for the cash?
Louis, it's up to you if you think the $1000 is worth it for the 7-14mm but the focal length, size and IQ are about as good as you're going to get on m4/3. I also used a 9-18mm Olympus 4/3 with the m4/3 adapter. This had the advantage of taking my filters and was cheaper but was quite a bit larger and obviously not quite as wide.
Paul, S90 while a cool pocket camera is only 28mm wide and thats going to be rather lacking quite often I think. D90 on the other side of the coin is actually getting to be a rather heavy camera. Lighter than the D700 but your certainly still carrying a DSLR and you'll be well aware of that fact.
I got my G1 last week and will be posting my impression thus far shortly
I mitigate some of this nastiness by using good GND filters, but of course if I was using a better system with the same filters, I could get even better range out of the landscape scene right?