Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions
RichRMA
Contributing MemberPosts: 858Gear list
Like?
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 26, 2013

I would seriously consider comparing a FF Canon and the 17-40L to a m4/3rds camera and the 7-14mm.  If the 17-40L can even come close to the quality you'll get from the 7-14mm, I'd be very surprised.  What good is FF is the image starts to blur less than 1/2 way out from the centre?  The 3:2 format is very unforgiving of lenses with poor edge definition, hence part of the reason for all the cropping we see when using that format.

 RichRMA's gear list:RichRMA's gear list
Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Pentax K-01 Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamieTux
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,821Gear list
Like?
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 26, 2013

Good luck Tony, I'd love to see your results when you've played a bit

 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,717Gear list
Like?
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to RichRMA, Mar 26, 2013

RichRMA wrote:

I would seriously consider comparing a FF Canon and the 17-40L to a m4/3rds camera and the 7-14mm. If the 17-40L can even come close to the quality you'll get from the 7-14mm, I'd be very surprised. What good is FF is the image starts to blur less than 1/2 way out from the centre? The 3:2 format is very unforgiving of lenses with poor edge definition, hence part of the reason for all the cropping we see when using that format.

I already have done but consider this, I own the 7-14mm and it's not razor sharp from edge to edge either, it also has a purple blotching problem which isn't great and happens pretty often in my experience. I've seen enough from the 17-40 to know I can get decent results from it. There is a wealth of evidence on Flickr to demonstrate it can be a decent performer. The 7-14mm is no magic bullet just like the 17-40 isn't.

-- hide signature --

For the person who is good with a hammer, everything in life tends to look like a nail.....
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,717Gear list
Like?
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to JamieTux, Mar 26, 2013

JamieTux wrote:

Good luck Tony, I'd love to see your results when you've played a bit

Thanks James, I've got the gear I just need some decent light, at the moment that's a real problem!

-- hide signature --

For the person who is good with a hammer, everything in life tends to look like a nail.....
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
String
Senior MemberPosts: 1,428Gear list
Like?
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 26, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

String wrote:

Not in the least to be honest for a variety of reasons.

Sure, you can put together a "fairly" light kit using any DSLR however you much more versatility with m43. I don't want to lug a big body, lens and tripod around anymore. Ever.

The most versatile kit you can use is a decent bridge camera but that kind of talk can get you shot around here

Now if I was shooting all day in a studio, it might be a differnt answer but I'm not so enough said.

I really hate how the current higher end DSLR's seem to have forgot their roots and just keep getting bigger and heavier. I loved the original OM series and Olympus has gotten back to its roots; they made photography fun again (at least for me!) with a small and very capable system.

Now with all that being said, what does tempt me is buying into a Leica rangefinder system.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

For the person who is good with a hammer, everything in life tends to look like a nail.....
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

No problem Tony, I have so many bullet holes in me a few more wont hurt!  

My biggest issue with going back to FF is age... too many birthdays! Not to mention my chiropractic bill is almost as much as my kids university bill!

And... all the last vacations I've been on the only people I see carrying the "big" DSLR's are the complete middle aged geeks/nerds... I am NOT a geek (my wife would argue that point!).

 String's gear list:String's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
windsprite
Senior MemberPosts: 2,059Gear list
Like?
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 27, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

Hi Ted, thanks for your thoughts, I've pretty much done exactly as you suggested except I have plumped for the 5DII and 24-105mm and it's sitting here in my hands. I've kept back my 40-150mm and 45mm F1.8 lenses and we'll see how it pans out. I have to say that the shutter on the Canon isn't exactly discrete but I'll get over it :-). The focusing on the Canon also seems fine to me, heard a lot of bad things about it but it seems very quick and accurate so far.

Well, it'll be interesting to see what you think about FF after you've used it for a while.

I can't say that I was "tempted" by FF, because I kind of went the other way.  I shot four thirds for a while, then got a D700, then added a G2 later, because I wanted to use my FT lenses on a newer sensor, plus I was curious about the MFT format.  I also got a Panny 14-45, which is a nice lens.

I'll never get rid of the FF camera, because I shoot a lot of moving subjects.  I also enjoy having the option to go very shallow on the DOF, even with wide angle lenses, and I enjoy shooting after dark.  Shutter speeds can get too slow with slow lenses and IS, so I like having the larger sensor and a wide range of fast lenses to choose from.

There are several MFT lenses I would like to have, as well as an E-M5, but my funds are limited, and after the initial G2 purchase, I've found that I end up spending my money on FF every time.  The D700 is just a very nice camera to use.  I upgraded bodies every year while I was shooting four thirds, always looking for something "better," but finally the D700 is one that I want to stick with for a while.  It has been three years so far, and I'll be happy to use it for another two or three years at the very least.  The IQ is great.  The focus is fast and accurate.  I like using an OVF.   The variety of lenses available is more interesting to me than MFT ... and they are very often cheaper.  Of course I would love to have an Oly 75/.18, but having both systems, I can't help but think, "I can take essentially the same image with a $300 180/2.8 on my D700."

I'm not saying FF is the only way to go, and the size is definitely not for everybody, but the system just works for me.  I am a middle-aged woman, not at all fit or athletic, but I will keep carrying the D700 as long as I can, and it's not as hard as some people here make out.  There are MFT users who have just one or two primes for their walkabout kit; why can't FF users do the same?   There's no law saying you have to carry the "holy trinity" of f/2.8 zooms all the time.

Since I'm shooting Nikon, I can only comment on third-party lenses, but the 28-75 is really nice, especially considering the price, size, and weight (all about the same as the Oly 14-54).  It looks like you've already opted for a normal zoom from Canon, though.

rrr_hhh also recommended the Tamron 90mm macro above, and again I agree.  A very sharp lens, with beautiful bokeh for portraits.

As far as a fast 50, I don't know what the Canon choices are like, but I settled on the Sigma 50/1.4, because of the super-creamy bokeh.  It is a big, heavy lens for what it is, but I'm stuck carrying it a lot of the time, because I love the IQ.

For UWA, the Sigma 12-24 is very interesting.  I don't think you would like it because it also has purple blob issues, and it needs to be stopped down quite a bit.  However, I love that lens.  There's something undefinable about the IQ that I find pleasing, and 12mm is fun to play with.  It's scary how well corrected it is.  You almost don't even feel you're shooting with an extreme UWA.  (The MkII version seems like a better lens overall, but it is less well corrected -- though still pretty good.)

The Sigma 28/1.8 macro is another fun lens, as it allows for shallow DOF with a wide angle.

The Tamron 28-300 VC is my "P&S" lens.  It is also similar in size and weight to the Oly 14-54.  You can get one for $300.  It's not the best lens, but you can get "sharp enough" images out of it (A3 prints are fine), and the Tamron VC is pretty amazing.  I use it mainly for dog walks and other times when I can't change lenses.

Every system has its pluses and minuses.  You might as well give Canon FF a try and see if it works for you.  The only problem is, the more you try, the more picky and demanding you become, because you have seen the best traits of every system and know what is possible!

Julie

 windsprite's gear list:windsprite's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F100fd Fujifilm FinePix F550 EXR Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Nikon D2H Nikon D300 +36 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrScorpio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,351Gear list
Like?
FF is FF
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 27, 2013

The OMD is undoubtedly very good. But in pure IQ, nothing beats FF and L glass. And nothing beats OMD in portability in relation to IQ.

600 mm FF for example. Possible for who?

-- hide signature --
 MrScorpio's gear list:MrScorpio's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,858Gear list
Like?
Re: FF is FF
In reply to MrScorpio, Mar 27, 2013

MrScorpio wrote:

The OMD is undoubtedly very good. But in pure IQ, nothing beats FF and L glass.

Except a M9 with Leica Glass 

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

For the curmudgeons amongst you, I agree in advance a 5D model is more flexible than a rangefinder.

More seriously, I find I carry my M9 less and less these days. It's partly down to having a son who travels at light speed, and partly down to the fact I live in fear of dust spots whenever I change the lens. Mind you, my A900 was the same and that purportedly had a sensor cleaning system.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D750
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,832
Like?
I'm watching D700 prices
In reply to papillon_65, Mar 27, 2013

It's still quite a powerhouse, and the price is decent. I've borrowed a friend's D700 once or twice, but would really like to give one a thorough workout over the course of a few months.

When I can get a clean D700 plus at least one good prime lens for under $1k... shouldn't be too much longer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
teseg
Senior MemberPosts: 2,065Gear list
Like?
Re: FF is FF
In reply to sgoldswo, Mar 27, 2013

sgoldswo wrote:

MrScorpio wrote:

The OMD is undoubtedly very good. But in pure IQ, nothing beats FF and L glass.

Except a M9 with Leica Glass 

And the RX1 with Zeiss Glass, according to DxO anyway, against the EF 35mm f/1.4L on a 1Ds MarkIII:

33 to 27

Of course, apples to oranges, would also offer the exceptional M. Zuiko 1.8/75mm scores a 23, to put things in perspective.

None of the Leica glass has scores On the DxO site.

 teseg's gear list:teseg's gear list
Sony RX1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads