kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
CPWarner wrote:
Thanks, interesting comparison. Difference is there, but not as much as with the 5D. Very nice images as well. With your experience with both cameras, do you still use the XT or mainly the G1? Any thoughts on user experience between them?
Actually I was shooting with the slightly more recent XTi (10MP insteand of 8MP and better AF than the XT) though for some reason the 10-22 was attached to the XT when I grabbed it for the comparison.
Anyway, to answer your question, no I essentially never touch the Rebels any more and have completely converted to my G1 setup for my landscape and travel shooting. APS-C SLR is now in my opinion (strictly for my shooting, mostly landscape) the orphan format. It brings almost nothing to the table other than more weight and bulk than m43. If I was going to haul around something as heavy as my APS-C gear I'd get a 5DmkII instead (or perhaps Sony A850) because there is a significant enough improvement in performance to be worth the weight.
Now then - the above statement must be heavily qualified with many caveats!!! Allow me to digress into a bulleted list...
- For landscape shooting where slow zooms are just fine there is a nice lens line up for m43 (I have 7-14,14-45,45-200) that have a good balance of performance/weight/cost for landscape shooting. You have one fast prime, the 20/1.7. There are no fast zooms. There are no wide primes (yet). Obviously lens selection is very limited, it just so happens I feel what they have produced is excellent for landscape/travel. The camera is wonderful with MF lenses and you can adapt essentially anything, but really this only works for normal to telephoto FOV because of the crop factor of 2. The limited lens selection could be very limiting for many shooters, it just so happens it isn't for me.
- I now love liveview and CDAF for landscapes. It has been a revelation that an OVF is actually nearly useless for landscape shooting. First off with an OVF you can't evaluate focus accurately at all unless you have a split prism and then you are forced into focus and recompose. Since in landscape I'd use lighter slow zooms the OVF is always very dim in twilight. Unless you are using the most expensive and heavy bodies the AF points are limited in location and functionality in a PDAF system. Since I'm always tripod mounted and frequently the best perspective is not from eye level the OVF is actually awkward to look through and doesn't invite careful examination and consideration of the composition. Liveview with and articulating LCD with movable (and resizeable) CDAF points and movable MF zoom just works far, far, far better for landscape than OVF. Liveview CDAF never has front/back focus problems the way PDAF can, no calibrating your lenses. Obviously a liveview implementation on a SLR could do the same thing, but at the moment the humble G1 actually has the best implementation of CDAF and liveview since its existence depends on it rather than being a paste-on feature. Bottomline, for landscapes I discovered not only do I not miss the OVF but I learned I really was encumbered using it in the past (my Rebels don't have liveview). Liveview + articulating LCD for me from now on please!
- Do not try to shoot birds in flight with a liveview system! The flip side to the above is that while wonderful for my landscapes the EVF/liveview system is just unusable in any sort of fast shooting/moving situation. OVF + PDAF just has way too many advantages. With OVF the photographer can see the scene and the AF system can run while shots are being read off the sensor in burst mode. In EVF everything is dark as the image is read, hence both you and the AF system are going to lose track. Also CDAF, while amazingly fast on the G1, doesn't have a good means to estimate motion towards/away from the camera so again tracking a moving target is hard to achieve. Not a camera for birds in flight, airshows, sports, etc. etc.
- System size is a big deal, it all adds up fast. Because the camera and lenses are so small and light I can get away with a 2 lb. Slik Sprint Pro instead of my 7 lb Manfrotto. 100-400 is a beast to carry, the 45-200 is about the size and weight of a can of Coke. When I first saw the G1 announced last year I thought, "Not really enough size/weight difference from my Rebels". For just the body and one lens maybe so, but I learned when you add it all up - especially including a tripod and ball head - the differences become larger. My APS-C kit had to go in a backpack and I carried the tripod separately and came in around 17 lbs. My G1+7-14+14-45+45-200 weighs 5 lbs, add in the light tripod and I'm at 7. I have a belt that all of this fits on (I prefer weight on my hips and now everything is accessible all the time without dropping a pack on the ground). My back is free for a day pack if there is a long hike. I never blink about bringing everything with me - so many shots I've taken at 400mm eq. focal length with the G1 when I doubt I would have hauled my 100-400 with me. One time I was stupid enough to leave the 45-200 behind and I regretted it, I was still thinking of "telephoto is heavy, might not need it". The dumb thing doesn't even weigh a pound.
- Focus by wire is how m43 works (there is a ring on the lens but it is an encoder that just sends info to the body which then moves the AF motor in the lens). This seemed stupid to me and is compounded by the fact that there are no distance scales on the lens and the camera doesn't report distance either. When I started to use the 20/1.7 or the 45-200 out at 200 I suddenly found the benefit. It appears the camera uses "acceleration" much like your mouse pointer. Move the dial suddenly and you get big movements, move slowly and the amount of fine control is excellent. The SLR lenses all have very short focus throws so that the AF can be fast but the result is fine control of MF is extremely difficult. The focus-by-wire gives the best of both worlds. Anyway, I'm undecided on the benefit/annoyance of focus-by-wire. I think if they'd put in an electronic distance scale it would suddenly become all benefit.
In summary, very significant portability benefits, very limited lens selection, wonderful landscape features, horrible sports/action features, IQ that easily keeps up with APS-C.
I'm just about to start selling most of my L glass on the B&S forum. I will keep my 100-400L and 70-200/4L and the XTi to have something more appropriate for my rare wildlife shooting. But for landscape and travel it is m43 all the way. I still drool about a FF system, but it is usually cured by picking up the backpack with my APS-C kit in it. And as someone who always though articulating LCDs were a silly gimmick (until I actually used one) I will completely understand if you think me a fool for saying this, but I'm never going to buy a camera for landscape shooting that doesn't have an articulating LCD and top notch liveview system.
That was really long winded, I hope it was modestly helpful. I think I've said many of the same things in other forums and what I always add is that a G1 kit can be had for about $600 new and sold used for nearly the same amount if you sell the body and lens separately. The 14-45 kit lens is a very good indication of the overall IQ of the system so if you are curious just pick one up and try it for awhile (carry a can of Coke for a 45-200 dummy load and something a little smaller and lighter to model the 7-14).
Ken
Edited on Jan 05, 2010 at 11:59 AM · View previous versions
|
. I realize the micro four thirds is a unique beast, but at what cost? $1100 for the 7-14 is really expensive. I would be interested in seeing if anyone has a comparison image to Seattlesteve's with a drebel vs a GF1. That would be interesting.