Would you move to a full frame DSLR?

Started May 21, 2013 | Discussions
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,891Gear list
Like?
Re: Not permanently
In reply to Dheorl, May 21, 2013

Dheorl wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Basically this whole discussion could be summed up by the fact that we clearly have different needs as a photographer and therefore different cameras are clearly best for each of us.

Agreed, and the good news is that we have plenty of choices

To me the weight difference is big enough that I wouldn't consider a FF for a long while yet, however for your more demanding activities you have a different style of photography so can get away with an even smaller camera.

Not quite, for when I want best quality or shoot low light I use my FF camera. For when I want to go light and my quality requirements are not so stringent I use my X10 or DP2X (Though I have to say the DP2X produces stunning quality albeit at lower resolution and base ISO). I tried to use M4/3's as a one size fits all solution, and for what I shoot it didn't quite fit though it wasn't far off. I can see why it works well for plenty of others and no doubt I will use it again in the future if it fits for me.

I don't see how thet paragraph doesn't match what I said. You use your 5D for quality stuff. For stuff where you need a lighter camera (as in more demanding activites, which is what a very large portion of my photography is) you use a compact. That doesn't suit my style due to contrained focal lengths so I settle for a m4/3.

Ok, se we agree.

And did do 2 posts ago

Interestingly I am getting asked to shoot a lot for other people since I bought the Canon so the name and camera size are still clearly relevant in a professional sense. I personally don't buy it but there you go, perceptions clearly do matter.

I dunno, I get asked to shoot for other people using my taped up GH2. It's a small nameless camera. They ask me to shoot because of what else they've seen me shoot.

Same here, and maybe it's coincidental but people seem to respond to a Canon DSLR better, as I said, I don't care for it myself but there you go, never underestimate brand awareness and marketing. In good light I can get very similar results with many cameras.

Weirdly enough the only people who have any change in opinion regarding what camera I'm using are other photographers. The people who actually ask me to shoot/I'm shooting have never cared.

For event shooting, which is what I do on an adhoc basis, even non-photographers know the name Canon, in fact it's usually the only name they know. As long as they don't clock the flashgun I'm alright, I've never tried to explain who Yongnuo are

I do love my Yongnuo flash-guns. So much power for such little cost.

Yes they are superb value, I will definitely be getting some more.

The shoots I have done for other people are either amatuer sports, where they rarely actually see me taking the pics, just the end product, or studio-type shoots, where I roll in and set up giant flash stands all over the place etc. which kinda dwarf and take attention away from pretty much any camrea that doesn't have a big black piece of cloth you stick your head under

This true, unfortunately I'm shooting large groups of very professional people who are either smiling or grinning at me, there is nowhere to hide!

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
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
Dheorl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,637Gear list
Like?
Re: Not permanently
In reply to papillon_65, May 21, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

The shoots I have done for other people are either amatuer sports, where they rarely actually see me taking the pics, just the end product, or studio-type shoots, where I roll in and set up giant flash stands all over the place etc. which kinda dwarf and take attention away from pretty much any camrea that doesn't have a big black piece of cloth you stick your head under

This true, unfortunately I'm shooting large groups of very professional people who are either smiling or grinning at me, there is nowhere to hide!

For me it's medium sized groups of naked people. They're pretty unconcerned about stuff beyond their nakedness and are the ones with nowhere to hide so to speak.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,064Gear list
Like?
Re: I did - sold my OMD and lenses...
In reply to papillon_65, May 21, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

and bought a Canon 5D2 with the 24-105mm F4. It's a very nice set-up and overall it will get better results although the OMD does have better dynamic range at base ISO, it's metering is also more reliable than the Canon. However, I get better control over dof, access to a greater variety of lenses and overall better IQ IMHO. Higher ISO is better, colour is better maintained as is noise. I've found the 24-105mm F4 to be like shooting with a 45mm F1.8 in terms of dof. If you can imagine that prime in a zoom format then that will give you an idea of the results.

Just a few comments to put things in proper perspective.

Can we assume that, like myself, you've owned and used both Anders? a simple yes or no will do. Just so we can establish this "proper perspective" of course.

As you know we can't assume that. Nor can we, for obvious reasons, assume that you know better just because you have owned both. There is plenty of publicly available evidence for the purpose of discussing ISO performance, and as the scientist I am, I of course go by that, as science always does. What your private subjective impressions are is of course completely irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

As you say, the E-M5 has better DR at base ISO (and less problems with banding than the 5D2). At higher ISOs, the 5D2 is one stop ahead if you ignore the 5D2 banding problem (which I find it difficult to do) and as long as DoF is not in short supply. If it is, then tables are turned and the E-M5 is one stop ahead (and more than that if the banding problem is factored in).

The 5D2 doesn't have "banding" problems unless you significantly underexpose, as I know how to obtain a correct exposure then it's not an issue to me so no, I'm afraid you're well off on that one.

I am not "off" at all. DR at base ISO is an asset primarily when you have to underexpose the shadows to prevent the highlights from clipping and then push the shadows in PP. What I am pointing out is that the DR advantage of the E-M5 available for this purpose is in practice even greater than the DxO difference of about one EV indicates.

Colour accuracy and noise (both amount and type) are also better on the 5D2,

At base ISO, the color accuracy and noise on the 5D2 are better only at higher light levels. In the shadows, where the accuracy and noise problems are most pronounced, the E-M5 is significantly better.

especially when you start climbing the ISO range, as is dynamic range.

As I said, the 5D2 will be slightly ahead at higher ISOs when DoF is in short supply (although less so than the DxO figures would indicate due to the banding problem). When DoF is not in short supply, tables are turned and the E-M5 is ahead even at higher ISOs.

FF lenses sometimes suffer more from CA and distortion but they are auto-corrected in lightroom so it's no big issue. I also have 35mm F2 and 50mm F1.4 lenses which give me a look I couldn't get with m4/3's, and I like it. I also have a Sigma 12-24mm which goes wider than  anything in m4/3's, its also considerably cheaper than the Panasonic 7-14mm and doesn't suffer from purple blobs. My replacement for the M.Zuiko 40-150mm is a Tamron 70-300mm, which a better lens and has excellent image stabilisation, it is much bigger but it wasn't much more expensive.

My 7-14 doesn't suffer from purple blobs for reasons explained here

Well the 7-14mm does suffer from purple blobs/flare and it does it regularly.

Apparently you didn't read the post to which I linked. So I try again:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51377579

Obviously I no longer have it so its not an issue for me anymore.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51377579

and has better edge sharpness than the Sigma 12-24. It is of course also significantly smaller and lighther. Pricewise, it seems that the 7-14 is a bit more expensive in Europe whereas the US prices are fairly evenly matched.

I paid £620 for the 7-14mm which was a bargain at the time, you will not find it new at that price now, more likely £700+ in the UK. I paid £300 for the mk1 Sigma which has much better distortion correction, in fact remarkably so.

That's not what the Sigma 12-24 would normally cost new as far as I am aware. In that case, we are talking twice the amount you mention. The point here is hardly what you personally happened to pay for the two lenses but what people would normally have to pay for them.

As to distortion correction, the Sigma is certainly no better. What makes you think it is?

It does not suffer from purple blobs

Neither does my 7-14. See above.

and it is not especially large for a full frame lens,

I didn't say it was. I said it was significantly larger and heavier than the 7-14.

it's not quite as sharp as the 7-14mm but stopped down it's fine.

It doesn't reach the edge sharpness of the 7-14 even when stopped down. And if you need to stop it down, what's the point of carrying a lens that is much larger and heavier.

Whether the Tamron 70-300 VC is actually a better lens than the M.Zuiko 40-150 is pretty much an open issue in my opinion. As far as I know, there isn't a whole of directly comparable evidence to go by.

I'm not bothered what your thoughts are on it, I've owned and used both and the Tamron is better.

And I am not bothered by what your thoughts are either. As I pointed out, I prefer to discuss on the basis of publicly available evidence.

It is highly regarded and has better OOF areas and bokeh as well as being sharper at the long end. The m.zuiko 40-150mm is a great little lens but the Tamron is notch better. Of course, in terms of dof it's like having an F1.8-F2.8 35-150mm in m4/3's terms, which is very nice, especially for portraits.

That should be 2.0-2.8 rather than 1.8-2.8, shouldn't it? The Tamron is a 70-300/4-5.6. As to portraits, I am sure the Tamron on the 5D2 can't touch either my 45/1.8 or my 75/1.8 on MFT.

Of course my bag is heavier, but I usually carried a bag anyway and we're only talking a few kg's, nothing that really bothers me, I'm not small or frail. If you're into long telephoto then FF is not ideal, APS-C is probably a better bet but you can crop quite heavily on a camera like the Canon 5D2 etc and get excellent results.

I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than the other, just different. What's better depends on what you need, a high end P&S could be better than either if you need small and light with decent quality. I chose FF as it gives me more options creatively, so it suits me, I'm glad I made the change. If the day ever comes when the size and weight bothers me I'd quite happily go back to m4/3's. The OMD is a super camera and I got some great shots with it, I just like the additional control FF gives me. When I want to go small I just use the Fuji X10 or an old Sigma DP2X, both also get me great images. Pick your format and be assured that all of them have a compromise or two.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,064Gear list
Like?
Re: Not permanently
In reply to PerL, May 21, 2013

PerL wrote:

Anders W wrote:

PerL wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

PerL wrote:

alcelc wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

digifan wrote:

I sometimes rent it when needed, but I'd never use/buy it permanently when it's still so bulky as a system as it is today.

-- hide signature --

Digifan

A full frame camera such as the 5D series etc combined with a couple of prime lenses is really not much bigger than a GH3 or APS DSLR. Telephoto's are another matter but for prime lenses it's wash to be honest. FF doesn't have to be big and heavy if you don't want or need it to be.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

sorry sir, I afarid that it may never be the case unless we are talking about the entry level APS DSLR like EOS 100.

comparing between of GH3 (largest and heaviest among MFT) and 5DIII, it seems that GH3 is relatively smaller as below. Needless to say, OMD is even smaller.

GH3: 132.9mm x 93.4mm x 82mm vs 5DIII: 152mm x 116.4mm x 76.4mm.

So, GH3 is 13% narrower, 20% shorter and only 3% thicker due to the articulate LCD. Roughly speaking GH3 is 25% smaller in volume.

GH3 with 20 f/1.7 is 650g vs 5DIII with 40 f/2.8 is 1.08Kg (around similar eq focal length and similar dof), there is a 40% saving in weight without touching the heavy DSLR long zooms.

The 6D is 180 g lighter - so it would be 650g vs 900g in that case -(and the DOF is 2/3 stop shorter).

The EPM-2 is 280g lighter - so it would be 370 vs 900g in that case -(and the DOF will remain 2/3 of a stop shorter).

Cant argue with that - there are some very small and light m43 camera body options. But the question is if you want the handling and ergonomics of a GH3 (which is the reason for its size), is it that much of a stretch to choose a FF  - 900g vs 650g with the lens combos mentioned?

Not that much of a stretch for that particular camera-lens combo alone. Not much of a gain either.

Well, I think at least some people would consider a four times bigger sensor a gain

What would the gain be as long as we are talking about that particular camera-lens combo alone?

If you widen the scope and consider an entire lens lineup, the differences become obvious.

I fully agree with that. If you want a system with everything from super WA to long tele the difference is very big vs m43 and FF. But if you mostly shoot in the 24-85 range a FF system can more compact and affordable than many people think.

You are right that an FF camera with lens(es) covering 24-85 does not have to be particularly heavy or bulky, as I am well aware since the time I was shooting film SLRs. But in order to compare with MFT for bulk and weight, you would have to go with a single pretty slow zoom or a small set of not very fast primes such as the Canon 40/2.8 we were talking about. And in either case, that in turn largely obviates any FF advantage.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.345,381.30,ha,t

Here is another comparison. Canon 6D w 50 1.8, Panasonic GH3 w 25 1.4 and Nikon 600 w 50 1.8

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.306,381.352,378.353,ha,t

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrCrowley
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: Would you move to a full frame DSLR?
In reply to MAubrey, May 21, 2013

MAubrey wrote:

Would you likely have more resolution?

Yes.

Would you have more dynamic range?

At base ISO, you'd only have more with a Nikon or Sony. Canon is actually lower than your E-M5.

Would you have less noise?

Technically, but you wouldn't see a difference at base ISO where landscape is shot.

Would your compositions improve?

No, those are constrained by you, not your gear. Maybe FF would inspire you to put in more practice, but that seems like an incredibly odd way to go about improving your skill.

Would FF transport you to incredible landscape locations?

Nope. Not a chance, and after dropping $2000 to $3000 on a camera and then another $2000 to $3000 on new lenses, you won't be able to afford that kind of trip anyway.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

I own both systems for years and can tell you that m4/3 is nice to have and I use it often. But don't even think of comparing the two... FF quality can not be compared with any m4/3 period... and if FF quality is what you want then you need to use FF gear... anywhere you go... m4/3 is a compromise!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,064Gear list
Like?
Re: For People and reportage
In reply to PerL, May 21, 2013

PerL wrote:

Anders W wrote:

PerL wrote:

Sulis2 wrote:

kenw wrote:

I've never seen a FF take a better landscape. A bigger landscape (print size) yes, but better no. Unless you are printing very large regularly FF won't help your landscapes.

FF for landscape is sort of a myth. For pros there is a market for extremely large prints and so FF or MF makes sense. For the rest of us it doesn't get you anything but more mass to haul around.

-- hide signature --

Ken W
See profile for equipment list

That is a huge generalisation. For a straight, flat-on, bright, long-distance landscape shot - then maybe there's not much in it, but that's just resolution catching up. For anything else, FF just gives you more options, more flexibility, and more light-gathering capacity.

For a quick example, the shot below just wouldn't be possible with M4/3-  you'd need a 12mm F0.7 to get that sort of separation of foreground and background with a wide angle.

Nikon D3, 24mm f1.4

(Not sure if the image is showing up - it looks like a broken link when I view it but works fine when I click on it. Bah.)

Although a landscape, your (very nice) image is an example of what I think is a major point with FF - the ablity to work with subtle DOF differences to bring forward your main subject, yet giving a sense of the surroundings. Its also great for reportage when you want to clean up a messy background.

But I wouldn't say that the "messy background" is "cleaned up" in any of these three shots, save, possibly, for the last which would surely have been doable just as well in this environment with the 45/1.8 on an MFT camera. (Is the third a crop? It looks even noisier than the other two with clear signs of banding.)

I think the amount of background feel is just right here to give a sense of the surroundings, but if one always prefer deeper DOF the m43 is of course the best choice. To get the separation of the last one you need a 42mm F 0.7 with an m43.

I don't always prefer deep or deeper DoF. To me it's more a matter of getting enough for my needs. I have no trouble agreeing with you that FF provides more DoF control than MFT. If you think you frequently need that extra control, it makes sense to shoot FF. For me, MFT usually provides enough of it, so it makes sense for me to shoot MFT.

I also think the noise levels are good considering ISO 3200 and 6400 in indoor artficial light. I think the last one was shot in a different location in the gym, that is why the light is different. (It is not my photos BTW)

The one at ISO 3200 is up to par based on my standards. Those at 6400 are too noisy for me (at least as noisy as I would expect them to be with the E-M5 at that ISO, which surprises me a little) and shows clear signs of banding, especially the last. But it's hard to judge ISO performance here without knowing more about the way exposure and PP was handled and it was not really my intention to discuss ISO performance per se. I merely mentioned it in order to explain why I think the third might be a crop.

Anyway, I just tried to illustrate some of the different feel you get with the larger format where you can get some sense of depth not only in close portraits.

That's perfectly all right of course.

I fully understand the size argument for m43, (my ideal is really the size of an Olympus OM-1 or a Nikon FM/FE), but the DOF control could be better. Some people dont care about this, I know.

See above. I do care about DoF control in general, which is one reason why I wouldn't want to go smaller in terms of sensor size than MFT. However, the MFT sensor is still large enough to provide an amount of DoF control that is usually sufficient for my personal wants and needs (which of course doesn't mean that they are sufficient for everyone else's).

As I see it we now have the choice of cameras that are a little bit bigger than what we want, but with the right DOF control, vs right-sized cameras with a little bit less DOF control than we want. One has to pick ones compromise.

Certainly. And the way you pick your compromise should of course depend on exactly how much you value the additional DoF control in comparison with the costs in terms of bulk and weight.

For the first two, I would have liked more rather than less DoF. As shot, the background is neither here nor there. Too much detail left to be "cleaned up". Too little detail left to give the right environmental feeling.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamieTux
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,821Gear list
Like?
Re: Should consider medium format & film to start with
In reply to Dheorl, May 21, 2013

My father has an Macon/hasselblad flextight, I can get a one of price if you want? He's based in Hampshire
--
James
http://photos.jamestux.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamestux/
http://blog.jamestux.com

 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
gs94121
Forum MemberPosts: 54Gear list
Like?
Re: Would you move to a full frame DSLR?
In reply to Ollie 2, May 21, 2013

I definitely would wish move to FF DSLR (Canon 5D) but carrying the bulk of lenses & accessories are the main issue as I travel abroad (cruises, Asia and Europe) often as single person.  Furthermore, I chose OM-D as the most lightest (4 lenses: 9-18, 12-35, Fisheye & 35-100) into single sling backpack.

If I no longer fly anymore and rely on automobile for driving around USA, I'll sell OM-D & purchase Canon 5D Mark III.

 gs94121's gear list:gs94121's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm 1:2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
markymark101
Senior MemberPosts: 1,031Gear list
Like?
I switched to m43 because of landscapes
In reply to Polariser, May 21, 2013

When I'm shooting landscapes, I'm out hiking.  I'd much prefer m43 over the heavy stuff.   I had the heavy stuff once, and I happily sold it.  I now carry several pounds less gear on trips.  I'm never going back.   For the pics I take, IQ with m43 is virtually indistinguishable from larger sensors.

 markymark101's gear list:markymark101's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Vlad S
Senior MemberPosts: 3,119Gear list
Like?
qualifying the gains
In reply to Polariser, May 21, 2013

Polariser wrote:

I want to take better landscapes and portraits and so listing after a full frame dslr.

We have plenty of examples in this forum of marvelous portraits and landscapes. If you have in mind DOF control, then I would not call it "better portraits", it's just one specific style of portraits. But if it is the blurry background you are after, you need to keep in mind that the Oly 75mm lens gives a good amount of control on the telephoto end, and if it fits your desired style, then you may be able to get a better deal with it than with a FF system.

As far as landscapes are concerned, DOF is not an issue, and while you can get a better DR and resolution on a FF system than on a µ4/3 system, you also need to keep in mind that what we have today is better, or at least comparable to what the FF pros used just a few years ago, and were winning competitions and critical acclaim.

One area where I feel the limitation of the current µ4/3 cameras is impossible to overcome, is the bit depth of the raw files. The possibilities for color manipulation with the 14 bit files are so much better than the µ4/3 12bit files, it's not even funny. But you do not need a FF system to get 14 bit files - APS-C can deliver that at a much lower cost.

Vlad

 Vlad S's gear list:Vlad S's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FrankS009
Senior MemberPosts: 2,488Gear list
Like?
Re: Should consider medium format & film to start with
In reply to Laszlo13, May 21, 2013

If we are sharing perspectives, after a long hiatus from photography, I bought a good compact point and shoot which subsequently suffered from water damage. By this time, I was getting interested in photography as something more important, and looked at APC-S DSLRs to replace the damaged point and shoot. I found that I just was not interested in a camera-lens combination that big, let alone full frame. I find DSLRs ugly, obtrusive in social situations, and heavy. I wanted something I could put in my jacket pocket or a small bag.  I did not want to carry a tripod, or a big bag of gear.

From this perspective, even the G1 I bought then was a big compromise made necessary by the size of m4/3rds lenses, particularly zooms. The grip is needed to balance these lenses and I preferred the internal EVF. But it is not what I really wanted. On the other hand, the GF1 that I also bought fitted that ideal. With the 20mm, I could put it in a parka or jacket pocket or small bag easily, and it was fun to take photographs with.

At least a few Olympus lenses are small enough to use on a GF1 sized camera, and Panasonic is revising its zoom lineup to make most of it smaller and lighter.  Panasonic continues with both large and small bodies. Olympus produced a compromise camera with the EM5 which is heavier than the GH3 with the optional grip necessary to balance the larger m 4/3rd lenses but which does not have equally good ergonomics to the Panasonic larger bodies. I look forward to a Panasonic EM5 rangefinder style camera rival with internal EV that I can use with pancakes and small lenses.If I want to use a larger body with a grip for bigger lenses, I will have to compromise again with something like a G6, but do not entirely look forward to that - as well designed and as excellent a camera as the G6 seems to be.

But to get to the point, if I was going to go bigger, why should I stop at FF? If bigger is really better, medium format seems to be the way to go. If slow moving, gear-heavy, tripod-based photography is the path, then doing it the right way seems to be medium format. It seems partly a cultural issue - light and portable versus a particular style of traditional photographic practice. There are street photography traditions as well, but they are not built on big heavy DSLR style cameras either.

So will I be going full frame? No. Too big and not big enough at the same time.

F.

 FrankS009's gear list:FrankS009's gear list
Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,891Gear list
Like?
Re: I did - sold my OMD and lenses...
In reply to Anders W, May 21, 2013

Anders W wrote:

Can we assume that, like myself, you've owned and used both Anders? a simple yes or no will do. Just so we can establish this "proper perspective" of course.

As you know we can't assume that. Nor can we, for obvious reasons, assume that you know better just because you have owned both. There is plenty of publicly available evidence for the purpose of discussing ISO performance, and as the scientist I am, I of course go by that, as science always does. What your private subjective impressions are is of course completely irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

So thats a no then, that's I just wanted to establish that you've never shot with the 5D2 so actually have no practical hands on experience with it, that explains why you don't know what you're talking about.

As you say, the E-M5 has better DR at base ISO (and less problems with banding than the 5D2). At higher ISOs, the 5D2 is one stop ahead if you ignore the 5D2 banding problem (which I find it difficult to do) and as long as DoF is not in short supply. If it is, then tables are turned and the E-M5 is one stop ahead (and more than that if the banding problem is factored in).

The 5D2 doesn't have "banding" problems unless you significantly underexpose, as I know how to obtain a correct exposure then it's not an issue to me so no, I'm afraid you're well off on that one.

I am not "off" at all. DR at base ISO is an asset primarily when you have to underexpose the shadows to prevent the highlights from clipping and then push the shadows in PP. What I am pointing out is that the DR advantage of the E-M5 available for this purpose is in practice even greater than the DxO difference of about one EV indicates.

There is no advantage because I never have to under-expose to the degree where I would even have a problem, so no, you're still wrong. But hey, don't take my word for it, look at the terrible shots the 5D2 is capable of here , there's just so much noise going on lol

Colour accuracy and noise (both amount and type) are also better on the 5D2,

At base ISO, the color accuracy and noise on the 5D2 are better only at higher light levels. In the shadows, where the accuracy and noise problems are most pronounced, the E-M5 is significantly better.

Lets cut the BS, you love data, here's the data, firstly tonal range, notice any difference?

Now we have signal to noise ratio - seeing any difference yet?

Uh-oh here's your trump card, so yes, as I said, at base ISO a bit better, however, after ISO 400 things change quite a bit don't they, still,not a bad performance from the OMD.

Now we have colour sensitivity, just as I said ( and as we'd expect ) the Canon is better and opens the gap at higher ISO's, but not really a surprise, its what you should expect.

So there you have it, the data supports my own experience of both cameras.

especially when you start climbing the ISO range, as is dynamic range.

As I said, the 5D2 will be slightly ahead at higher ISOs when DoF is in short supply (although less so than the DxO figures would indicate due to the banding problem). When DoF is not in short supply, tables are turned and the E-M5 is ahead even at higher ISOs.

I've never had a "short supply" of dof there's always some there, I adjust the camera/lens and distance to subject as necessary, depending on the lens I'm using.

FF lenses sometimes suffer more from CA and distortion but they are auto-corrected in lightroom so it's no big issue. I also have 35mm F2 and 50mm F1.4 lenses which give me a look I couldn't get with m4/3's, and I like it. I also have a Sigma 12-24mm which goes wider than  anything in m4/3's, its also considerably cheaper than the Panasonic 7-14mm and doesn't suffer from purple blobs. My replacement for the M.Zuiko 40-150mm is a Tamron 70-300mm, which a better lens and has excellent image stabilisation, it is much bigger but it wasn't much more expensive.

My 7-14 doesn't suffer from purple blobs for reasons explained here

Well the 7-14mm does suffer from purple blobs/flare and it does it regularly.

Apparently you didn't read the post to which I linked. So I try again:

No I read about your hack, how does that work out with the warranty? Personally I'd rather shoot with a lens and not have to jerry rig it, alternatively I prefer a cheaper lens that goes wider and doesn't have a purple blob issue. See how terrible the 12-24mm is here, truly an awful lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51377579

Obviously I no longer have it so its not an issue for me anymore.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51377579

and has better edge sharpness than the Sigma 12-24. It is of course also significantly smaller and lighther. Pricewise, it seems that the 7-14 is a bit more expensive in Europe whereas the US prices are fairly evenly matched.

I paid £620 for the 7-14mm which was a bargain at the time, you will not find it new at that price now, more likely £700+ in the UK. I paid £300 for the mk1 Sigma which has much better distortion correction, in fact remarkably so.

That's not what the Sigma 12-24 would normally cost new as far as I am aware. In that case, we are talking twice the amount you mention. The point here is hardly what you personally happened to pay for the two lenses but what people would normally have to pay for them.

It's still a good £200 cheaper new, not much of difference then (for a lens that is wider of course).

As to distortion correction, the Sigma is certainly no better. What makes you think it is?

Because it is, the Sigma is optically corrected, the Panasonic isn't. Either way, the Sigma is wider and remarkably distortion free for such a wide angle lens, as per the reviews and my experience of it.

It does not suffer from purple blobs

Neither does my 7-14. See above.

But it does, unless you want to hack it and void the warranty of course. I don't need to do that with the Sigma and many people won't want to hack their expensive in-warranty 7-14mm either. Thats without sticking some plastic in front of the sensor which is not going to improve image quality.

and it is not especially large for a full frame lens,

I didn't say it was. I said it was significantly larger and heavier than the 7-14.

As well as being wider, which is what ultra wide angle lenses are for remember?

it's not quite as sharp as the 7-14mm but stopped down it's fine.

It doesn't reach the edge sharpness of the 7-14 even when stopped down. And if you need to stop it down, what's the point of carrying a lens that is much larger and heavier.

How does the 7-14mm perform at 6mm? how have you found the Sigma 12-24mm?

Whether the Tamron 70-300 VC is actually a better lens than the M.Zuiko 40-150 is pretty much an open issue in my opinion. As far as I know, there isn't a whole of directly comparable evidence to go by.

I'm not bothered what your thoughts are on it, I've owned and used both and the Tamron is better.

And I am not bothered by what your thoughts are either. As I pointed out, I prefer to discuss on the basis of publicly available evidence.

Here  you go, fill your boots.

It is highly regarded and has better OOF areas and bokeh as well as being sharper at the long end. The m.zuiko 40-150mm is a great little lens but the Tamron is notch better. Of course, in terms of dof it's like having an F1.8-F2.8 35-150mm in m4/3's terms, which is very nice, especially for portraits.

That should be 2.0-2.8 rather than 1.8-2.8, shouldn't it? The Tamron is a 70-300/4-5.6. As to portraits, I am sure the Tamron on the 5D2 can't touch either my 45/1.8 or my 75/1.8 on MFT.

F1.8 or F2 it doesn't matter, there's no visible difference, and of course it can touch the 45mm F1.8, in fact it can better it because you choose your focal length, you're not restricted. It's not as sharp as the 75mm F1.8 but it's also a lot cheaper and more versatile.

Of course my bag is heavier, but I usually carried a bag anyway and we're only talking a few kg's, nothing that really bothers me, I'm not small or frail. If you're into long telephoto then FF is not ideal, APS-C is probably a better bet but you can crop quite heavily on a camera like the Canon 5D2 etc and get excellent results.

I wouldn't say one is necessarily better than the other, just different. What's better depends on what you need, a high end P&S could be better than either if you need small and light with decent quality. I chose FF as it gives me more options creatively, so it suits me, I'm glad I made the change. If the day ever comes when the size and weight bothers me I'd quite happily go back to m4/3's. The OMD is a super camera and I got some great shots with it, I just like the additional control FF gives me. When I want to go small I just use the Fuji X10 or an old Sigma DP2X, both also get me great images. Pick your format and be assured that all of them have a compromise or two.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

As usual Anders you'll promote your own world view on gear you've neither owned nor used but you won't believe someone else who has if it doesn't concur with your own thoughts. I've enjoyed both cameras and have no bias on either, I just know what they can and can't do because I've owned and used them. The 5D2 is a full frame camera so you'd expect it mostly outperform the OMD, and it does, no question. Whether the difference matters to someone is up to them, it does to me, especially with the additional dof control. Of course you can continue with your own particular brand of dogma and I'm sure you will, just don't presume to tell me how the Canon performs against the OMD when you've never even used one. My credentials are open, my work can be found here , I'll leave it to others to judge whether I can take a shot and have a valid opinion or not.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
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
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,845
Like?
I'd like to add, not move
In reply to Polariser, May 21, 2013

A good friend owns a D700, and I have used it on several occasions. I keep waiting for him to get terminal D800 lust and sell it to me cheap, but so far, no luck.

I really like the D700. As has been covered ad infinitum in several fora, it offers much better DOF control. For shallow DOF shots, the quality of the bokeh is more pleasing than what a 4/3 sensor with fast glass can produce. It's also a very well built system, handles well, has a very nice solid feel to it. If you're going big with your camera gear, this is how to do it.

But... it's also a brick. It's big and heavy, and so is the glass. It dominates your day when you take it out. It draws attention to you. It doesn't have IBIS, though the sheer weight of the kit does add a bit of stabilization. And it does have a deficit in sharpness, when compared to really good glass, like SHG ZD, on the OMD. This can be mitigated somewhat by stopping down, and boosting sharpness in PP.

For dreamy portraits, the D700 is the hands down winner, no question about it. Still life with limited DOF - D700, unquestionably. For long telephoto, the D700 stinks - glass is larger for the AOV, and that shallow DOF works against you, it's too shallow and you have to stop down. Haven't really been able to get a serious UWA lens on the D700, but the OMD with ZD 7-14 is hard to beat with its uniform sharpness and absence of distortion and artifacts. Fisheye - an 8FE on FF gives you a much wider range. On the OMD, the 8FE is more 'mildly suspicious' than 'really fishy'. Different shots for different purposes. Macro - OMD gets the edge here, where the inherently sharper shot is what you're after, and the deeper DOF means no stopping down to get DOF back. Having three terrific native macro lenses doesn't hurt, either.

I'd love to find a steal of a deal on a D700 with one or two good lenses that play to the system's strengths. But, give up the OMD to get it? Don't think so. I'm spoiled, by the size, the weight, the wicked sharp photos with really good glass.

I'd like to have both.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mferencz
Regular MemberPosts: 233Gear list
Like?
Re: I did - sold my OMD and lenses...
In reply to papillon_65, May 21, 2013

Looked them over, nice.  I vote for less yapping and more practising though.  The more somebody talks/types the less interesting and more importantly the less convincing they become.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,891Gear list
Like?
Re: I did - sold my OMD and lenses...
In reply to mferencz, May 21, 2013

mferencz wrote:

Looked them over, nice.  I vote for less yapping and more practising though.  The more somebody talks/types the less interesting and more importantly the less convincing they become.

Thanks, I just get a bit pi$$ed when people who've never used something I own and use tell me how it performs based on.....well bugger all to be honest.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
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
ed2002
Regular MemberPosts: 254
Like?
Re: Not for landscape
In reply to Ulric, May 21, 2013

Ulric wrote:

Ollie 2 wrote:

Either way, the poster submitted the photo as an example of a photo that couldn't be taken with m43 simply because there is no lens wide and fast enough to take it.

Three shots with 25/1.4, stitch, add heavy noise in post to mimic the Nikon.

The proper way to do it is a tripod.  Take a picture of landscape without the child, but focus close to get background blur.  Then have child enter, focus on her.  Move the person into the first picture.  Or you could simply green screen the portrait and add it to any front focused landscape.

For sure if you want shallow depth of field you need a prime, and when that is not good enough you need a bigger sensor.  A 1.8 lens on the m4/3 becomes 3.6 for depth of field on FF, or similar depending on cropping.  If that is your wish, you need to go FF and primes.  It is not my style though.  Many of us in our travel photos want people and the scenery in focus.  For us f3.6 35mm equivalent depth of field is fine.  If portraits are your thing and you require more shallow depth of field, there isn't much choice.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,531
Like?
Re: Calm down....
In reply to papillon_65, May 21, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

digifan wrote:

I sometimes rent it when needed, but I'd never use/buy it permanently when it's still so bulky as a system as it is today.

A full frame camera such as the 5D series etc combined with a couple of prime lenses is really not much bigger than a GH3 or APS DSLR.

You can justify FF based on its wider shooting envelope, but there's no way to claim that it's "not much bigger" than M43.

I'm merely pointing out that if you carried the GH3 or an APS camera then there isn't a huge amount of difference between carrying them and a camera like the 5D2, unless you're a 7 stone weakling of course.

You seem to be taking a very slanted interpretation of digifan's comment by basing your comparison on the one M43 camera that's significantly larger than all the others.

It's as if I claimed that compact cars weren't as cramped as many people think, and then you counter it by using a Smart Car as an example.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,891Gear list
Like?
Re: Calm down....
In reply to Sean Nelson, May 21, 2013

Sean Nelson wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

digifan wrote:

I sometimes rent it when needed, but I'd never use/buy it permanently when it's still so bulky as a system as it is today.

A full frame camera such as the 5D series etc combined with a couple of prime lenses is really not much bigger than a GH3 or APS DSLR.

You can justify FF based on its wider shooting envelope, but there's no way to claim that it's "not much bigger" than M43.

I'm merely pointing out that if you carried the GH3 or an APS camera then there isn't a huge amount of difference between carrying them and a camera like the 5D2, unless you're a 7 stone weakling of course.

You seem to be taking a very slanted interpretation of digifan's comment by basing your comparison on the one M43 camera that's significantly larger than all the others.

No it's really simpler than that, to me, it's hardly much more effort carrying a 5D2 than it is carrying a crop DSLR or a camera like the GH3. If you're using them with multiple lenses then they all need a bag, and within reason, you're just carrying a bit more with the FF camera, thats it.

It's as if I claimed that compact cars weren't as cramped as many people think, and then you counter it by using a Smart Car as an example.

Not really, a 5D2 with a couple of primes just isn't a big deal in size and weight for me personally. Even with the 24-105mm it isn't a hardship, if it was I would never have gone over to it in the first place, it's not like its a secret is it.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
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
pinnacle
Senior MemberPosts: 2,445Gear list
Like?
No. The recent IQ improvements in M43 are too compelling to ignore.
In reply to Polariser, May 21, 2013

Polariser wrote:

Really enjoying photography .. Would say I'm an advanced beginner.

Have had a string of m4/3 and love my OMD. I have a cupboard full of m 4/3 lenses too.

I want to take better landscapes and portraits and so listing after a full frame dslr.

Would anyone recommend this? If yes then why? And if not then why not?

1. IQ is now close enough if not equal.

2. I just picked up a Canon FF with a small zoom lens yesterday at Costco and wow, way too big and way too heavy...If I had to carry a similar range of lenses to my M43 gear for FF, it would be senselessly heavy and way to bulky.

3. I don't want to be bothered with two systems anymore. Some people opt for having both available and deciding which to go with based on various situations. M43 is just too versatile anymore and the IQ as stated earlier is too close to discount (for me).

Time has marched on and I am marching to the beat of a smaller drummer...;-)

Dan

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

 pinnacle's gear list:pinnacle's gear list
Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
veroman
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,381Gear list
Like?
Re: No. The recent IQ improvements in M43 are too compelling to ignore.
In reply to pinnacle, May 21, 2013

pinnacle wrote:

1. IQ is now close enough if not equal.

Not close. Not equal. And as you go higher and higher up the ISO ladder, the differences become even more noticeable. At just about any ISO, most of the differences are in the areas of noise, tonality, dynamic range and color accuracy. If M4:3 is getting close to anything, it's APS-C ... which is saying a lot.

2. I just picked up a Canon FF with a small zoom lens yesterday at Costco and wow, way too big and way too heavy...If I had to carry a similar range of lenses to my M43 gear for FF, it would be senselessly heavy and way to bulky.

Yes, size and weight are two of the advantages of M4:3. But that's about it. What about looking through the finder of a full frame Canon vs. looking through the EVF of the OM-D? What about the crazy placement of the strap lugs on the OM-D? What about ... oh, never mind.

3. I don't want to be bothered with two systems anymore. Some people opt for having both available and deciding which to go with based on various situations. M43 is just too versatile anymore and the IQ as stated earlier is too close to discount (for me).

Time has marched on and I am marching to the beat of a smaller drummer...;-)

Seems you are marching to the beat of the smallest drummer.

-- hide signature --

SteveG
'When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece.'
— Found in a Chinese Fortune Cookie
www.stephenmichaelgarey.com

 veroman's gear list:veroman's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS 40D Olympus E-1 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads