Lots of (mostly) Olympus m4/3 gear and a new d750: some initial thoughts (long)

[bobn2]

Shooting Tradeoffs

I am finding that the two cameras, OMDs and the d750, are not better or worse, just different.

* With the OMDs, I worry a lot more about how the background works with the subject; with the d750 I worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject.

* With the OMDs, it's easier to nail the exposure because I can see it while I am shooting. With the d750, I am more likely to miss the correct exposure, but I have more latitude to clean it up in post.

* With the OMDs, I worry about whether the ISO is too high; with the d750, I worry more about whether my shutter speed is high enough. For example, the other day I set up my EM5ii with a 45mm f/1.8 and the d750 with an 85mm f/1.8. I set the aperture to f/2.5 on both camera, and shot the same thing at a range of shutter/ISO combinations. At 1/60 ISO 400, the EM5ii produced a nice, sharp picture while the d750 produced a blurry mess. At 1/20 of a second, the d750 was a disaster. At ISO 6400, though, the d750 looked great and the EM5ii was drowning in noise. My takeaway is to never underestimate what IBIS can do. It's easy to forget what a difference it makes.

I think that a lot of these 'tradeoffs' are to do with your approach and thinking as to what 'ISO' and 'exposure' are. Now you're a multi-format user, time to embrace equivalence, it can really help you out in these situations.

For instance, you say that you 'worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject' on the D750. Well, you can always stop down, that's what the aperture control is for. Of course, once you stop down, you won't be getting any better image quality from the D750, but that's the basic point, compared to mFT cameras, FF cameras are trading DOF for overall light, and therefore image quality. Similarly, no need to worry about where the 'ISO is too high' on the OMD. On neither of these cameras does the ISO control do a whole load to image quality it just sets the processing for the exposure you're using. If you have the same DOF and shutter speed on each camera, you will get pretty much identical image quality. So, you also don't need to worry about whether your shutter speed is high enough on the D750.

Whatever you can do with the EM-1, you can also do with the D750, you just need to set the ISO and f-number two stops higher and the shutter speed the same. What that tells you is that over most of its shooting envelope the D750 buys you nothing whatsoever over the EM-1 (well 4 extra MP, but that's not significant). Where it buys you something is when shutter speed is constrained, the ability to trade DOF for light, because it can go to shallow DOFs that the EM-1 can't. Even the other FF advantage, the ability to trade shutter speed for light doesn't apply much, because the EM-1 has high res mode which for static subjects also does this.

So, work out over which part of the shooting envelope the cameras are equivalent, then you know where the D750 is buying you something for the extra size and weight. (not so much for the D750, it's about the smallest FF DSLR there is)

 

[Jacques Cornell]

First off, I *love* my m4/3 gear. Nothing has changed there, so please don't have a fanboy freakout. I am posting this to the m4/3 forum because other folks may benefit from my experience.

As much as I enjoy my m4/3 gear, though, there are times, especially when I am dealing with moving subjects in the dark, that I want to shoot outside the normal m4/3 envelope. I had been thinking for a while that it might be nice have a full frame option if the price was right, and the recent Nikon discounts persuaded me to pull the trigger on a d750. It helped that I already had some Nikon lenses from my pre-m4/3 days.

My basic rationale was this:

* EM-1.1 (which I own) + 25mm f/1.2 = $1200, 1.99 pounds, and gives me 1 extra stop in low light

* d750 + 50mm f/1.4 = $1500, 2.26 pounds, and gives me 2.5 extra stops in low light

So, $300 extra cash and 1/4 pound of extra weight gives me 1.5 extra stops of low light capacity (without a flash). One might argue that I could have picked another lens, or whatever. Possibly so. Still, my choice seemed to me a reasonable solution to a problem.

I will also admit that there is a part of me that wants to experience one of those 8 cylinder, 300 horsepower behemoths while I can still afford to. I don't think that the dSLR is dying, but I think it will become much more expensive and more of a niche product in the near future.

Ergonomics

I have small hands, and the smaller bodies of the OMDs remain my preference. At the same time, the ergonomics on the d750 are as good as I could as I could hope for on a large body. My first dSLR was a d90, chosen over Canon largely because of ergonomics, and the d750 feels remarkably similar. No surprise there. And, of course, the d750 is big, really big. After 15 minutes with the d750, I realized why the Black Rapid straps are so popular. The weight on my neck was far more noticeable than with m4/3. There is no way I would want to travel with the d750 on a plane either, but then again I didn't buy it for travel. No surprise there either.

Menus, Software, and Interface

People like to gripe about the Olympus menus. What I am seeing is that it is a bit easier to set up the Nikon out of the box, but Olympus allows a lot more customization over the long haul. It's a tradeoff.

Both systems could benefit from a simple Quick Start guide or video to help get new users up and going. You know, something to do during that interminable time while the new battery is charging.

The Nikon software has problems. While Olympus Viewer may be clunky, at least it installs. The Nikon equivalent (Capture NX-D) would not install on the latest Macintosh OS, and the latest OS they supported was two years old. This is inexcusable. (Fortunately, Nikon fixed the problem a couple of days ago, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. )

EVF and other Mirrorless Goodies

The OVF is lovely, but I really miss all those mirrorless goodies like exposure preview, live histograms, focus peaking, touch screens and such. I had not realized how spoiled I had become.

I haven't tried shooting any fast moving subjects; it's really not something I do ordinarily. Maybe the OVF has some advantages there.

Shooting Tradeoffs

I am finding that the two cameras, OMDs and the d750, are not better or worse, just different.

* With the OMDs, I worry a lot more about how the background works with the subject; with the d750 I worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject.

You have discovered that what a larger sensor gets you is not less noise per se, but the ability to trade DoF for noise. If you can accept less DoF, you can get less noise. (You can also make this trade by using a brighter lens on the smaller sensor.) If you cannot accept less DoF, you get the same noise. IOW, if you hold DoF constant, contemporary sensors of different sizes generate roughly the same amount of noise.

* With the OMDs, it's easier to nail the exposure because I can see it while I am shooting. With the d750, I am more likely to miss the correct exposure, but I have more latitude to clean it up in post.

* With the OMDs, I worry about whether the ISO is too high; with the d750, I worry more about whether my shutter speed is high enough. For example, the other day I set up my EM5ii with a 45mm f/1.8 and the d750 with an 85mm f/1.8. I set the aperture to f/2.5 on both camera, and shot the same thing at a range of shutter/ISO combinations. At 1/60 ISO 400, the EM5ii produced a nice, sharp picture while the d750 produced a blurry mess. At 1/20 of a second, the d750 was a disaster. At ISO 6400, though, the d750 looked great and the EM5ii was drowning in noise. My takeaway is to never underestimate what IBIS can do. It's easy to forget what a difference it makes.

Market Share and Futures

I always have had a little worry in the back of my mind about the future of M4/3. Do they have enough market share to remain viable? When I first bought in to M4/3 in 2014, the press was predicting that Olympus would disappear that year. Nikon seemed like the safe bet, and Olympus and m4/3 seemed a tad riskier. Now, three years later, Olympus is still going strong, and I have that same tinge of worry about the long term viability of Nikon. Actually, I would worry about the long term viability of almost *any* camera manufacturer nowadays — except possibly Canon. I guess I will just shoot, be happy, and not worry anymore.

Summary

For travel and most uses, m4/3 will remain my main system. At the same time, I don't have any regrets about adding a larger system for certain uses. What surprises me is that there are some distinct advantages to working with two systems. The m4/3 system makes me more disciplined about subject/background relationships and light levels while the full frame system makes me more disciplined about hand-holding/tripod technique and depth of field. It's good to work with both.

 

[Jorginho]

It was secondhand but as new and that is exactly how it arrived. So bought it from a guy in Amsterdam, send it to me for 6,50 euro so it was 256,50 in the end. He asked 330 and I thought "let's try 250 and see how it goes" and he accepted. with an extra battery, no lens. So new it is of course more expensive, sets you back 450 euro or so without a lens over here.

 

[rashid7]

"been there, done that"

D750 was a great camera, but after 2 yrs i sold it and have kept mostly to M4/3.

I am so tired of everyone knocking other formats. While 1" ILC (Nikon) is dying off, the fixed-lens options are stellar! There really isn't much IQ diff from m4/3, only a lack of ILC flexibility. The 1" big guns (Sony RX10's & Lumix FZXXXX) are amazingly good compromises... but BIG.

And for pocketability, the RX100's, LX10/FZ100, and even Canon options are unbeatable. What little they give up at the sensor they generally grab back w/ fast apertures

APSC gear is also awesome. I find the D5500 and 2 new compact AF-P kit lenses very compact... esp considering how much capability they bring. But other than the 35/50f1.8 primes, other lenses tend to ramp up quickly in size )-; It seems that the lineups of crop-sensor lenses are a bit thin. If u opt for FF ones, the size&price grow quickly

Let's not forget; "different horses for different courses"

 

[arbux]

You have discovered that what a larger sensor gets you is not less noise per se, but the ability to trade DoF for noise. If you can accept less DoF, you can get less noise. (You can also make this trade by using a brighter lens on the smaller sensor.) If you cannot accept less DoF, you get the same noise. IOW, if you hold DoF constant, contemporary sensors of different sizes generate roughly the same amount of noise.

The real point is that there is usually enough DOF on FF. F2.8 on m43 corresponds to 5.6 on FF, but there is plenty of perfect FF pictures on 2.8 (1.4 on m43) in most of real life scenarios. 2.8 zooms of FF are workhorses of event photographers. and then there are 1.4 primes on FF (0.7 on m423) that also give you good DOF assuming you're not shooting people in the face.

FOD calculator tells me that 35mm on FF at 1.4 gioves 60cm of DOF from 3m away.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Depth of field and hyperfocal distance calculator

www.dofmaster.com

The situations where we really need more DOF for moving subjects are infrequent.

 

[arbux]

There is definitely room for both systems. The APS format, however, seems to be the odd man out. APS is not as light and compact as m4/3 and only gives you an insignificant gain in image quality. Compared to full frame, APS does match the image quality and saves little in terms of size and weight.

Well, my 2.5 years old samsung nx1 with 16-50 f2-2.8 and 50-150 2.8 does just fine.

I'd imagine that X-t2 users with f1.4 and f1.2 primes would disagree with you either.

I's day m43 saves little over all in one solutions like Sony RX 10 III or II. When I see people buying big and clunky e-m1 II with 12-100 F4, i wonder in the power of marketing

--
RIP Chris Cornell

 

[jwilliams]

EM-1.1 (which I own) + 25mm f/1.2 = $1200, 1.99 pounds, and gives me 1 extra stop in low light

* d750 + 50mm f/1.4 = $1500, 2.26 pounds, and gives me 2.5 extra stops in low light

So, $300 extra cash and 1/4 pound of extra weight gives me 1.5 extra stops of low light capacity (without a flash). One might argue that I could have picked another lens, or whatever. Possibly so. Still, my choice seemed to me a reasonable solution to a problem.

Good choice. If you had to buy a camera with the 25/1.2 you would have had to spend more money than the Nikon setup. Add in an EM1 II and you are at $3200. This is a good example of choosing the right equipment to meet the need. It also shows how overpriced some m43 lenses are.

 

[CBR1100XX]

You've got a setup very close to mine so congrats on some good choices!

I came from the opposite direction starting with Nikon but your impressions are pretty spot on. Quickly the Olympus gear (EM-5.1/10.1) has become my primary setup for all but the most difficult situations or when I need the more reliable AF.

Oh and a random thought, the D7200 is a good add on as well especially with that 85 1.8G. My go-to combo for small venue concert or performance work is the D750/50 1.4 and a D7200/85 1.8 to give me a short telephoto.

 

[kaphinga]

"been there, done that"

D750 was a great camera, but after 2 yrs i sold it and have kept mostly to M4/3.

m4/3 is definitely my main system these days. We will see how I feel about the d750 in a few years. Right now, it's too early for me to tell how I will get on with it.

I am so tired of everyone knocking other formats. While 1" ILC (Nikon) is dying off, the fixed-lens options are stellar! There really isn't much IQ diff from m4/3, only a lack of ILC flexibility. The 1" big guns (Sony RX10's & Lumix FZXXXX) are amazingly good compromises... but BIG.

And for pocketability, the RX100's, LX10/FZ100, and even Canon options are unbeatable. What little they give up at the sensor they generally grab back w/ fast apertures

APSC gear is also awesome. I find the D5500 and 2 new compact AF-P kit lenses very compact... esp considering how much capability they bring.

I don't have a problem with the 1" cameras. Already having M4/3, though, it's difficult for me to justify adding a 1". Perhaps if I had started with a 1" camera, I would be looking at APSC as a complement now. But that's not the way the cards fell.

But other than the 35/50f1.8 primes, other lenses tend to ramp up quickly in size )-; It seems that the lineups of crop-sensor lenses are a bit thin.

If u opt for FF ones, the size&price grow quickly

I have no plans for large, fast zooms on FF. There is a possibility that somewhere down the line I might add a 35mm f/1.8 to the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 that I already have.

Let's not forget; "different horses for different courses"

I totally agree.

 

[kaphinga]

* With the OMDs, I worry a lot more about how the background works with the subject; with the d750 I worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject.

You have discovered that what a larger sensor gets you is not less noise per se, but the ability to trade DoF for noise. If you can accept less DoF, you can get less noise. (You can also make this trade by using a brighter lens on the smaller sensor.) If you cannot accept less DoF, you get the same noise. IOW, if you hold DoF constant, contemporary sensors of different sizes generate roughly the same amount of noise.

Yep, that is absolutely what I am finding out.

 

[kaphinga]

Shooting Tradeoffs

I am finding that the two cameras, OMDs and the d750, are not better or worse, just different.

* With the OMDs, I worry a lot more about how the background works with the subject; with the d750 I worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject.

* With the OMDs, it's easier to nail the exposure because I can see it while I am shooting. With the d750, I am more likely to miss the correct exposure, but I have more latitude to clean it up in post.

* With the OMDs, I worry about whether the ISO is too high; with the d750, I worry more about whether my shutter speed is high enough. For example, the other day I set up my EM5ii with a 45mm f/1.8 and the d750 with an 85mm f/1.8. I set the aperture to f/2.5 on both camera, and shot the same thing at a range of shutter/ISO combinations. At 1/60 ISO 400, the EM5ii produced a nice, sharp picture while the d750 produced a blurry mess. At 1/20 of a second, the d750 was a disaster. At ISO 6400, though, the d750 looked great and the EM5ii was drowning in noise. My takeaway is to never underestimate what IBIS can do. It's easy to forget what a difference it makes.

I think that a lot of these 'tradeoffs' are to do with your approach and thinking as to what 'ISO' and 'exposure' are. Now you're a multi-format user, time to embrace equivalence, it can really help you out in these situations.

For instance, you say that you 'worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject' on the D750. Well, you can always stop down, that's what the aperture control is for.

Perhaps I misstated. What I was thinking was that with m4/3 I generally don't worry about shooting wide open, except for macro or with the 75mm f/1.8. On the other hand, I do worry when I have to push the ISO into the higher ranges -- 6400+.

With the d750, I start to worry a lot sooner about whether I need to stop down, but I don't worry as much when I have to push the ISO up.

So, you also don't need to worry about whether your shutter speed is high enough on the D750.

Except that IBIS really makes a *huge* difference for static subjects, much more than I realized. (I was shooting a non-VR lens when I did my test.)

Where it buys you something is when shutter speed is constrained, the ability to trade DOF for light, because it can go to shallow DOFs that the EM-1 can't. Even the other FF advantage, the ability to trade shutter speed for light doesn't apply much, because the EM-1 has high res mode which for static subjects also does this.

Ah, but that's where I am having challenges -- when the shutter speed is constrained.

Here is the kind of subject I am trying to shoot. I have an f/1.8 prime wide open. The subject is moving. Slow shutter is not an option -- 1/100 is okay, 1/60 is iffy, less than 1/60 is consistently unusable. And what you see in the example is a best case scenario -- sometimes it's even darker. IBIS isn't much help and high res mode gives me nothing. My only option for getting more light (other than using flash) is a bigger sensor or a faster lens. It turns out that the price of a faster lens was close to the price of a bigger sensor. I picked the bigger sensor.

 

[kaphinga]

Thank you. A well written and accurate account, according to my own observations. I had been using the D750 for several years before trying m43. So I went in the opposite direction and find both systems complementary. What I didn't expect was how good and capable the m43 system would prove to be. I meant it to be a back-up low weight system. But the Nikon may be turning into my back-up low light system

I got in to m4/3 when I decided that my APSC system was too heavy for travel. Like you, I was surprised at how capable m4/3 is. Nikon is definitely my back-up low light system.

 

[bobn2]

Shooting Tradeoffs

I am finding that the two cameras, OMDs and the d750, are not better or worse, just different.

* With the OMDs, I worry a lot more about how the background works with the subject; with the d750 I worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject.

* With the OMDs, it's easier to nail the exposure because I can see it while I am shooting. With the d750, I am more likely to miss the correct exposure, but I have more latitude to clean it up in post.

* With the OMDs, I worry about whether the ISO is too high; with the d750, I worry more about whether my shutter speed is high enough. For example, the other day I set up my EM5ii with a 45mm f/1.8 and the d750 with an 85mm f/1.8. I set the aperture to f/2.5 on both camera, and shot the same thing at a range of shutter/ISO combinations. At 1/60 ISO 400, the EM5ii produced a nice, sharp picture while the d750 produced a blurry mess. At 1/20 of a second, the d750 was a disaster. At ISO 6400, though, the d750 looked great and the EM5ii was drowning in noise. My takeaway is to never underestimate what IBIS can do. It's easy to forget what a difference it makes.

I think that a lot of these 'tradeoffs' are to do with your approach and thinking as to what 'ISO' and 'exposure' are. Now you're a multi-format user, time to embrace equivalence, it can really help you out in these situations.

For instance, you say that you 'worry about whether I have enough DOF to convey the subject' on the D750. Well, you can always stop down, that's what the aperture control is for.

Perhaps I misstated. What I was thinking was that with m4/3 I generally don't worry about shooting wide open, except for macro or with the 75mm f/1.8. On the other hand, I do worry when I have to push the ISO into the higher ranges -- 6400+.

With the d750, I start to worry a lot sooner about whether I need to stop down, but I don't worry as much when I have to push the ISO up.

You were thinking the way I thought you were thinking. It's the idea of starting to 'worry'. In general, the best quality with any camera will come with the thinnest DOF and longest shutter speed you can stand. More, the same DOF and shutter speed will give you the same quality with any camera of equal efficiency (and most cameras of a generation have that). So, in a sense, you choose the thinnest DOF and longest shutter speed that suits your needs and stop worrying. ISO is never something to worry about, you just set it to get the right output brightness from your exposure.

So, you also don't need to worry about whether your shutter speed is high enough on the D750.

Except that IBIS really makes a *huge* difference for static subjects, much more than I realized. (I was shooting a non-VR lens when I did my test.)

Yes, IBIS is pretty good. Not as good as the combined lens IS and IBIS I have on my Panasonic ;-). Still, my Nikon's lens IS works pretty well, I haven't come across many situations it won't stabilise where the movement in some part of the subject (leaves in the wind, for instance) wouldn't have given some blurring.

Where it buys you something is when shutter speed is constrained, the ability to trade DOF for light, because it can go to shallow DOFs that the EM-1 can't. Even the other FF advantage, the ability to trade shutter speed for light doesn't apply much, because the EM-1 has high res mode which for static subjects also does this.

Ah, but that's where I am having challenges -- when the shutter speed is constrained.

That is always where there are challenges.

Here is the kind of subject I am trying to shoot. I have an f/1.8 prime wide open. The subject is moving. Slow shutter is not an option -- 1/100 is okay, 1/60 is iffy, less than 1/60 is consistently unusable. And what you see in the example is a best case scenario -- sometimes it's even darker. IBIS isn't much help and high res mode gives me nothing. My only option for getting more light (other than using flash) is a bigger sensor or a faster lens. It turns out that the price of a faster lens was close to the price of a bigger sensor. I picked the bigger sensor.

In the end, your only solution to getting more light is to use a thinner DOF, which you get with a wide aperture diameter for the angle of view, which you get either with a bigger sensor or a lens with a smaller f-number and the same size sensor. Actually, the latter can be limited, because the f-number of the sensor's microlenses can provide the light acceptance limit rather than the objective lens' f-number. They generally give out somewhere between f/1.4 and f/2, lower for BSI sensors.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

 

[knickerhawk]

As much as I enjoy my m4/3 gear, though, there are times, especially when I am dealing with moving subjects in the dark, that I want to shoot outside the normal m4/3 envelope. I had been thinking for a while that it might be nice have a full frame option if the price was right, and the recent Nikon discounts persuaded me to pull the trigger on a d750. It helped that I already had some Nikon lenses from my pre-m4/3 days.

My basic rationale was this:

* EM-1.1 (which I own) + 25mm f/1.2 = $1200, 1.99 pounds, and gives me 1 extra stop in low light

* d750 + 50mm f/1.4 = $1500, 2.26 pounds, and gives me 2.5 extra stops in low light

So, $300 extra cash and 1/4 pound of extra weight gives me 1.5 extra stops of low light capacity (without a flash). One might argue that I could have picked another lens, or whatever. Possibly so. Still, my choice seemed to me a reasonable solution to a problem.

I will also admit that there is a part of me that wants to experience one of those 8 cylinder, 300 horsepower behemoths while I can still afford to. I don't think that the dSLR is dying, but I think it will become much more expensive and more of a niche product in the near future.

There's nothing to be ashamed about wanting to buy new equipment. Just do it with your eyes open and watch for the rationalizations. For starters, I'm assuming the Nikon f/1.4 you're referring to is the "D" since it's the only one that gets you close to your claim of 2.26 lbs (it's still off but not as much as would be the case with the "G"). I've owned the f/1.4D for years and very quickly gave up trying to shoot it wide open. It simply isn't very good until f/2.8. The Oly f/1.2 or the much lighter and much cheaper Panny f/1.4 would both be sharper at f/1.4 by a considerable degree (even taking into account the higher resolution of the D750 relative to the EM1i). Thus, your solution not only trades off DOF to gain the noise advantage, it also trades off sharpness. The Nikon f/1.4G looks to be considerably sharper wide open, but then we're talking more weight and money too. I suspect you'll find yourself digging deeper into your pocket than you originally anticipated to really solve your specific lowlight needs.

 

[kaphinga]

As much as I enjoy my m4/3 gear, though, there are times, especially when I am dealing with moving subjects in the dark, that I want to shoot outside the normal m4/3 envelope. I had been thinking for a while that it might be nice have a full frame option if the price was right, and the recent Nikon discounts persuaded me to pull the trigger on a d750. It helped that I already had some Nikon lenses from my pre-m4/3 days.

My basic rationale was this:

* EM-1.1 (which I own) + 25mm f/1.2 = $1200, 1.99 pounds, and gives me 1 extra stop in low light

* d750 + 50mm f/1.4 = $1500, 2.26 pounds, and gives me 2.5 extra stops in low light

So, $300 extra cash and 1/4 pound of extra weight gives me 1.5 extra stops of low light capacity (without a flash). One might argue that I could have picked another lens, or whatever. Possibly so. Still, my choice seemed to me a reasonable solution to a problem.

I will also admit that there is a part of me that wants to experience one of those 8 cylinder, 300 horsepower behemoths while I can still afford to. I don't think that the dSLR is dying, but I think it will become much more expensive and more of a niche product in the near future.

There's nothing to be ashamed about wanting to buy new equipment. Just do it with your eyes open and watch for the rationalizations. For starters, I'm assuming the Nikon f/1.4 you're referring to is the "D" since it's the only one that gets you close to your claim of 2.26 lbs (it's still off but not as much as would be the case with the "G"). I've owned the f/1.4D for years and very quickly gave up trying to shoot it wide open. It simply isn't very good until f/2.8. The Oly f/1.2 or the much lighter and much cheaper Panny f/1.4 would both be sharper at f/1.4 by a considerable degree (even taking into account the higher resolution of the D750 relative to the EM1i). Thus, your solution not only trades off DOF to gain the noise advantage, it also trades off sharpness. The Nikon f/1.4G looks to be considerably sharper wide open, but then we're talking more weight and money too. I suspect you'll find yourself digging deeper into your pocket than you originally anticipated to really solve your specific lowlight needs.

Actually, it's the 50mm f/1.4G. According to the spec numbers I pulled off B&H:

* D750: 26.4 ounces

* 50mm f/1.4G: 9.8 ounces

Gives me 36.2 ounces or 2.26 pounds.

I forgot to add in parens that I already have the 50mm f/1.4G --- no new purchase necessary there.

 

[knickerhawk]

As much as I enjoy my m4/3 gear, though, there are times, especially when I am dealing with moving subjects in the dark, that I want to shoot outside the normal m4/3 envelope. I had been thinking for a while that it might be nice have a full frame option if the price was right, and the recent Nikon discounts persuaded me to pull the trigger on a d750. It helped that I already had some Nikon lenses from my pre-m4/3 days.

My basic rationale was this:

* EM-1.1 (which I own) + 25mm f/1.2 = $1200, 1.99 pounds, and gives me 1 extra stop in low light

* d750 + 50mm f/1.4 = $1500, 2.26 pounds, and gives me 2.5 extra stops in low light

So, $300 extra cash and 1/4 pound of extra weight gives me 1.5 extra stops of low light capacity (without a flash). One might argue that I could have picked another lens, or whatever. Possibly so. Still, my choice seemed to me a reasonable solution to a problem.

I will also admit that there is a part of me that wants to experience one of those 8 cylinder, 300 horsepower behemoths while I can still afford to. I don't think that the dSLR is dying, but I think it will become much more expensive and more of a niche product in the near future.

There's nothing to be ashamed about wanting to buy new equipment. Just do it with your eyes open and watch for the rationalizations. For starters, I'm assuming the Nikon f/1.4 you're referring to is the "D" since it's the only one that gets you close to your claim of 2.26 lbs (it's still off but not as much as would be the case with the "G"). I've owned the f/1.4D for years and very quickly gave up trying to shoot it wide open. It simply isn't very good until f/2.8. The Oly f/1.2 or the much lighter and much cheaper Panny f/1.4 would both be sharper at f/1.4 by a considerable degree (even taking into account the higher resolution of the D750 relative to the EM1i). Thus, your solution not only trades off DOF to gain the noise advantage, it also trades off sharpness. The Nikon f/1.4G looks to be considerably sharper wide open, but then we're talking more weight and money too. I suspect you'll find yourself digging deeper into your pocket than you originally anticipated to really solve your specific lowlight needs.

Actually, it's the 50mm f/1.4G. According to the spec numbers I pulled off B&H:

* D750: 26.4 ounces

* 50mm f/1.4G: 9.8 ounces

Gives me 36.2 ounces or 2.26 pounds.

I forgot to add in parens that I already have the 50mm f/1.4G --- no new purchase necessary there.

I looked it up on B&H as well but I think I grabbed the package weight for the G. Sorry about that. I don't have the G, so I can't advise on its wide-open performance, but the reviews look like it'll be much better than the D. Good luck.

 

[bobn2]

As much as I enjoy my m4/3 gear, though, there are times, especially when I am dealing with moving subjects in the dark, that I want to shoot outside the normal m4/3 envelope. I had been thinking for a while that it might be nice have a full frame option if the price was right, and the recent Nikon discounts persuaded me to pull the trigger on a d750. It helped that I already had some Nikon lenses from my pre-m4/3 days.

My basic rationale was this:

* EM-1.1 (which I own) + 25mm f/1.2 = $1200, 1.99 pounds, and gives me 1 extra stop in low light

* d750 + 50mm f/1.4 = $1500, 2.26 pounds, and gives me 2.5 extra stops in low light

So, $300 extra cash and 1/4 pound of extra weight gives me 1.5 extra stops of low light capacity (without a flash). One might argue that I could have picked another lens, or whatever. Possibly so. Still, my choice seemed to me a reasonable solution to a problem.

I will also admit that there is a part of me that wants to experience one of those 8 cylinder, 300 horsepower behemoths while I can still afford to. I don't think that the dSLR is dying, but I think it will become much more expensive and more of a niche product in the near future.

There's nothing to be ashamed about wanting to buy new equipment. Just do it with your eyes open and watch for the rationalizations. For starters, I'm assuming the Nikon f/1.4 you're referring to is the "D" since it's the only one that gets you close to your claim of 2.26 lbs (it's still off but not as much as would be the case with the "G"). I've owned the f/1.4D for years and very quickly gave up trying to shoot it wide open. It simply isn't very good until f/2.8. The Oly f/1.2 or the much lighter and much cheaper Panny f/1.4 would both be sharper at f/1.4 by a considerable degree (even taking into account the higher resolution of the D750 relative to the EM1i). Thus, your solution not only trades off DOF to gain the noise advantage, it also trades off sharpness. The Nikon f/1.4G looks to be considerably sharper wide open, but then we're talking more weight and money too. I suspect you'll find yourself digging deeper into your pocket than you originally anticipated to really solve your specific lowlight needs.

Actually, it's the 50mm f/1.4G. According to the spec numbers I pulled off B&H:

* D750: 26.4 ounces

* 50mm f/1.4G: 9.8 ounces

Gives me 36.2 ounces or 2.26 pounds.

I forgot to add in parens that I already have the 50mm f/1.4G --- no new purchase necessary there.

I looked it up on B&H as well but I think I grabbed the package weight for the G. Sorry about that. I don't have the G, so I can't advise on its wide-open performance, but the reviews look like it'll be much better than the D. Good luck.

I have a G. It's pretty good wide open (can't find an example right now) but not up to the standard of the new breed of humongous 50/1.4 lenses a la Sigma.

 

[knickerhawk]

As much as I enjoy my m4/3 gear, though, there are times, especially when I am dealing with moving subjects in the dark, that I want to shoot outside the normal m4/3 envelope. I had been thinking for a while that it might be nice have a full frame option if the price was right, and the recent Nikon discounts persuaded me to pull the trigger on a d750. It helped that I already had some Nikon lenses from my pre-m4/3 days.

My basic rationale was this:

* EM-1.1 (which I own) + 25mm f/1.2 = $1200, 1.99 pounds, and gives me 1 extra stop in low light

* d750 + 50mm f/1.4 = $1500, 2.26 pounds, and gives me 2.5 extra stops in low light

So, $300 extra cash and 1/4 pound of extra weight gives me 1.5 extra stops of low light capacity (without a flash). One might argue that I could have picked another lens, or whatever. Possibly so. Still, my choice seemed to me a reasonable solution to a problem.

I will also admit that there is a part of me that wants to experience one of those 8 cylinder, 300 horsepower behemoths while I can still afford to. I don't think that the dSLR is dying, but I think it will become much more expensive and more of a niche product in the near future.

There's nothing to be ashamed about wanting to buy new equipment. Just do it with your eyes open and watch for the rationalizations. For starters, I'm assuming the Nikon f/1.4 you're referring to is the "D" since it's the only one that gets you close to your claim of 2.26 lbs (it's still off but not as much as would be the case with the "G"). I've owned the f/1.4D for years and very quickly gave up trying to shoot it wide open. It simply isn't very good until f/2.8. The Oly f/1.2 or the much lighter and much cheaper Panny f/1.4 would both be sharper at f/1.4 by a considerable degree (even taking into account the higher resolution of the D750 relative to the EM1i). Thus, your solution not only trades off DOF to gain the noise advantage, it also trades off sharpness. The Nikon f/1.4G looks to be considerably sharper wide open, but then we're talking more weight and money too. I suspect you'll find yourself digging deeper into your pocket than you originally anticipated to really solve your specific lowlight needs.

Actually, it's the 50mm f/1.4G. According to the spec numbers I pulled off B&H:

* D750: 26.4 ounces

* 50mm f/1.4G: 9.8 ounces

Gives me 36.2 ounces or 2.26 pounds.

I forgot to add in parens that I already have the 50mm f/1.4G --- no new purchase necessary there.

I looked it up on B&H as well but I think I grabbed the package weight for the G. Sorry about that. I don't have the G, so I can't advise on its wide-open performance, but the reviews look like it'll be much better than the D. Good luck.

I have a G. It's pretty good wide open (can't find an example right now) but not up to the standard of the new breed of humongous 50/1.4 lenses a la Sigma.

Yeah, as an old timer, I'm not sure I'd ever get used to the idea of a "normal" lens the size of the Sigma 50mm (or the Oly 25mm f/1.2, for that matter).

 

[HM_04]

I used E-M5 for nearly 4 years, and still it's good enough for me. Then recently, i did some interiorshot for my new company.

They have a set of Nikon D810 and 14-24 2.8, 50 1.8G, and a 5DmkII and 135 f2L, and 16-35 II . Have to say, the result is very impress with D810, and the bokeh of 135f2L is blow my mind. So i can say that i have the lucky to used two or maybe three system at this time. And each have they advantage.

For serious serious, i feel more confidence with Nikon,Canon, the bigger body the better grip with big lens, and i think DSLR still very hard to beat. They have fine tune the design very long time, you have a very trusty system to work.

Come back to M43 for my personal used. I find it still very compelling, the reason you very well said. Difference tool for difference needs. And dual system is best if you can afford it.

And why Olympus don't make a new fullfame system? With what they can do with m43, i think they're very capable.

 

[dgrogers]

And why Olympus don't make a new fullfame system? With what they can do with m43, i think they're very capable.

Olympus is certainly very capable, but they would lose money on a new format. The camera market is shrinking after the digital explosion and it's getting harder and harder to make a profit in the industry.