Why their is a need for a Pro m4/3 body

SUPERHOKIE said:

I don't want to get in a ping-pong argument with you, but have you ever compared a 50mm "normal" field of view shot taken with a 50mm on FX and 25mm on MFT or legacy Four Thirds? The two shots will have the same FOV, but the rendering of the composition will be totally different due to the lack of bokeh on the MFT shot. The 50mm shot is just an example to illustrate the point.

For any wedding photographer, this "mid range" is a very critical focal range, and FX allows you to extract maximum benefits by using a lens sush as the CaNikon 24-70s. Bokeh and control over DOF is not the end all be all, but it is an absolutely critical part of composition, and the lack of that capability is a big handicap when it comes to wedding photography and other similiar events. Cost for cost, lens size for lens size, MFT just lacks this important tool in the area of mid focal range. How do you replicate on MFT system a portrat shot with a 85mm 1.4 lens on a FX body? It's simply not possible because the MFT equivalent lens is impossible to manufacture.

I really like wide 3-5 people group shots taken with a with 35mm f2.0 prime lens on FX, because the subjecs stand out even though it's a relatively wide FOV. Because the lens is wide, enough background is captured to tell the surrounding, but blurred enough to create a pleasant looking composition. And if I want everthing in focus, then I just need to tighten the aperture. But with the panny 17mm on MFT, I can take a 3-5 people group shot and everything will be in focus and there will be no subject isolation at all nor is that option available. For many event situations, FX is simply the superior tool for not much more money.

MFT excels in the extreme ends of the focal range, the ultrawide and extreme telephoto. In those ranges, MFT lenses are much smaller and just as capable as it's FX and DX counterparts, especially on a body like the GH2. It makes far more sense to carry the panny 100-300 than a Nikon 300 f4.0 with a 2x teleconverter on a D700. And in those extreme telephoto ranges, there is not much difference in DOF between FX and MFT.

MFT has its places even among pros, but to insist that it doesn't give up anything to FX in weddings and other similiar events is just silly.

Click to expand...

I don't want to go into measurebating with you. I know what equippement I have and what it is capable of. I take photographs I don't dissect cameras. Also I didn't say I do everything with (M)FT but that it's sufficient for 80-90% of my work, the other occasions I rent my tools. I don't care what the 24-70 can do, because I don't own one. Before mid 2004 I owned Canon cameras the previous say 20 years, I started digital DSLR with a 20D due to the fact I had more than a few EF lenses. Those got sold after I bought the E-1, since then I only own Olympus cameras, and I have not been dissapointed yet. Like I said before, not only the technical side of a camera is of influence, you have to know your camera(s) to be able to use them to the full. FT is in no way crippled, the adaptation possible are immense and the lenses are of very good quality.

I will definately buy the E-5, earlier I was reserved about the bulk of E-3 and thus E-5, I rented the E-5 recently and I like what's coming out of it, it's also very fast. I might also buy a Nikon D700, due to the fact that I would then have a setup (MFT/FT and 35mmFF) that would cover 98% of my business. The occasion I really need Medium Format I will still rent it.

But the Nikon with a few appropriate lenses will allready be an investment of say
€5000-€6000, and the occasions I would need it for are few.

--
Digifan

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

Right now the only other alternative we have for fast lenses is old manual lenses. Not a problem for me but some people can't figure out how to turn that ringy thingy on the lens-just too complicated. Also, those lenses really arn't weather sealed and there are lots of amature situations (e.g. skiing, hiking, sailing, etc) where weather sealing whould be much appreciated.

SUPERHOKIE said:

I don't want to get in a ping-pong argument with you, but have you ever compared a 50mm "normal" field of view shot taken with a 50mm on FX and 25mm on MFT or legacy Four Thirds? The two shots will have the same FOV, but the rendering of the composition will be totally different due to the lack of bokeh on the MFT shot. The 50mm shot is just an example to illustrate the point.

For any wedding photographer, this "mid range" is a very critical focal range, and FX allows you to extract maximum benefits by using a lens sush as the CaNikon 24-70s. Bokeh and control over DOF is not the end all be all, but it is an absolutely critical part of composition, and the lack of that capability is a big handicap when it comes to wedding photography and other similiar events. Cost for cost, lens size for lens size, MFT just lacks this important tool in the area of mid focal range. How do you replicate on MFT system a portrat shot with a 85mm 1.4 lens on a FX body? It's simply not possible because the MFT equivalent lens is impossible to manufacture.

I really like wide 3-5 people group shots taken with a with 35mm f2.0 prime lens on FX, because the subjecs stand out even though it's a relatively wide FOV. Because the lens is wide, enough background is captured to tell the surrounding, but blurred enough to create a pleasant looking composition. And if I want everthing in focus, then I just need to tighten the aperture. But with the panny 17mm on MFT, I can take a 3-5 people group shot and everything will be in focus and there will be no subject isolation at all nor is that option available. For many event situations, FX is simply the superior tool for not much more money.

MFT excels in the extreme ends of the focal range, the ultrawide and extreme telephoto. In those ranges, MFT lenses are much smaller and just as capable as it's FX and DX counterparts, especially on a body like the GH2. It makes far more sense to carry the panny 100-300 than a Nikon 300 f4.0 with a 2x teleconverter on a D700. And in those extreme telephoto ranges, there is not much difference in DOF between FX and MFT.

MFT has its places even among pros, but to insist that it doesn't give up anything to FX in weddings and other similiar events is just silly.

Click to expand...

Need more subject wedding subject isolation for u 4/3? Use a longer lens. 90mm Rokkor M F4.0, plenty of subject isolation:





Need more isolation? Get the Elmarit F 2.8.

Done

The point he's trying to make is that you'll get equal DOF with a 180mm F/8 on FF.

What if you want to have the field of view and DOF of a 85mm F/1.2/F/1.4 on full-frame? There aren't any 42mm F/0.7 lenses that I know of.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wingmanzero/4937934922/in/set-72157624818595036/

Even something as mundane as a 50mm F/1.4 is impossible to emulate on m43, as there are no 25mm F/0.7 lenses.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4930492870/

You can't compensate by using a longer focal-length, as the FOV changes, and if you want the same magnification, then the perspective changes as well.

tedolf said:

Need more subject wedding subject isolation for u 4/3? Use a longer lens. 90mm Rokkor M F4.0, plenty of subject isolation:

Need more isolation? Get the Elmarit F 2.8.

Done

Click to expand...

tedolf said:

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

Right now the only other alternative we have for fast lenses is old manual lenses. Not a problem for me but some people can't figure out how to turn that ringy thingy on the lens-just too complicated. Also, those lenses really arn't weather sealed and there are lots of amature situations (e.g. skiing, hiking, sailing, etc) where weather sealing whould be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

Amateur, not 'amature' for God's sake.

And then what would you need MF lenses weathersealed for? Their electrical contacts don't work anymore, if they have any. My East Germany Zeisses can take aany kind of weather.

Yoiu can simply put them by the stove when you are back home, and they'll keep chirping like 30 yrs. ago

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Yup yup, that is exactly my point, but it seems like some M43 fanatics refuse to belive that a FF camera is the superior tool for weddings and othe events, IF YOU OR YOUR CLIENTS WANT THAT CREAMY BOKEH AND CONTROL OVER DOF, so that you may be more creative with composition and framing.

In the shot above, that FOV and subject isolation is only equal to a 180mm F8.0, yes, F8.0 on a FX body. Mount a CaNikon 70-200 2.8 on either a D700 or 5DMKII and try the same shot at 180mm 2.8 and 180mm 8.0, and see if there is a difference. I can assure you that there will be a very big difference. And what if you cannot back up enough to be able to use a 180mm focal length? And using a long lens will give you a totally different perspective and background compression, something you may not be looking for.

One poster seems to belive that it's the lens (CaNikon 24-70s) that makes the diffrence, but it's not. It's the larger sensor of FX cameras. The larger sensor allows you to get closer to the subject, either by zooming in or by physically getting closer. The closer to the subject you are, the more blurred the background will be. This does not make much difference for macro photography, but for people photography it does. Even something as small and cheap as a CaNikon 50mm 1.8 cannot be replicated on M43. Is there any M43 25mm f1.2 lens out there? And even if there was, it will be BIGGER than it's FX counterpart 50mm 1.8 lens. So where is the size advantage then? and the cost advantage? 25mm F1.2 lens will be a very expensive and big lens.

M43 excels in some areas, and in some areas it does not. The Oly 35-100 and the 14-35 are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than it's FX 24-70 and 70-200 counterparts. So where is the advantage?? sure, at F2 it has one more stop of light, but with FX sensors and their high ISO capability, it's better to have a smaller f2.8 lens than a monster f2.0 lens. Look how big the front element of the 35-100 is. If someone had $6000 to spend on a new system, would it make any sense to get the E-5 and the Oly 35-100 and 14-35? Over a D700 and the 24-70 and 70-200? Or a 5DMKII and the Canon 24-70 and 70-200? The cost for all 3 options are about the same. You can get some incredibly creative shots with the FX 24mm 1.4 lens on a FX body. To emulate the same on m43, well, you can't.

You can still get very good images with the E3 and E5, after all Olympus has the industry's best JPEG engine, and JPGS out of EPL1 are amazing. Image quality wise, it's probably second to none when comparing JPEGS. But COMPOSITION wise, it gives up a lot to the FX system in the critical 24mm to 200mm "event" range, because it simply cannot generate the bokeh.

Anyways i'm done with my argument. If anyone wants to continue to shoot events and portraits with M43 or Four Thirds, it's your choice. After all, it's your business and your money, but I will stick with FX and the 24-70s, the 70-200s and the primes, because it's actually cheaper, the lenses are smaller, and gives me more control over composition. If Four Thirds makes so much sense, then why did Olympus announce they will stop it's developement?

Oh, let's not forget that in-lens stabilization is superior to in-body stabilization when it comes to telephoto lenses too.

Jon Rty said:

The point he's trying to make is that you'll get equal DOF with a 180mm F/8 on FF.

What if you want to have the field of view and DOF of a 85mm F/1.2/F/1.4 on full-frame? There aren't any 42mm F/0.7 lenses that I know of.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wingmanzero/4937934922/in/set-72157624818595036/

Even something as mundane as a 50mm F/1.4 is impossible to emulate on m43, as there are no 25mm F/0.7 lenses.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4930492870/

You can't compensate by using a longer focal-length, as the FOV changes, and if you want the same magnification, then the perspective changes as well.

tedolf said:

Need more subject wedding subject isolation for u 4/3? Use a longer lens. 90mm Rokkor M F4.0, plenty of subject isolation:

Need more isolation? Get the Elmarit F 2.8.

Done

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SUPERHOKIE said:

M43 excels in some areas, and in some areas it does not. The Oly 35-100 and the 14-35 are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than it's FX 24-70 and 70-200 counterparts. So where is the advantage?? sure, at F2 it has one more stop of light, but with FX sensors and their high ISO capability, it's better to have a smaller f2.8 lens than a monster f2.0 lens.

Click to expand...

You're echoing my point about the Micro 43 lenses being too large. There is no point in making them larger than they are, in order to make a faster lens for depth of field etc. The only reason to make a faster lens, is to be able to shoot a subject in a darker setting without flash. They can't compete with the larger sensor cameras in this area. What they can do is make the current lenses smaller to provide a niche market for those of us where size really matters.

Although it's not a 4/3rds or M43 format camera, the pro camera roughly in this size of camera body/lenses is called a Leica M9

SUPERHOKIE said:

Yup yup, that is exactly my point, but it seems like some M43 fanatics refuse to belive that a FF camera is the superior tool for weddings and othe events, IF YOU OR YOUR CLIENTS WANT THAT CREAMY BOKEH AND CONTROL OVER DOF, so that you may be more creative with composition and framing.

In the shot above, that FOV and subject isolation is only equal to a 180mm F8.0, yes, F8.0 on a FX body. Mount a CaNikon 70-200 2.8 on either a D700 or 5DMKII and try the same shot at 180mm 2.8 and 180mm 8.0, and see if there is a difference. I can assure you that there will be a very big difference. And what if you cannot back up enough to be able to use a 180mm focal length? And using a long lens will give you a totally different perspective and background compression, something you may not be looking for.

One poster seems to belive that it's the lens (CaNikon 24-70s) that makes the diffrence, but it's not. It's the larger sensor of FX cameras. The larger sensor allows you to get closer to the subject, either by zooming in or by physically getting closer. The closer to the subject you are, the more blurred the background will be. This does not make much difference for macro photography, but for people photography it does. Even something as small and cheap as a CaNikon 50mm 1.8 cannot be replicated on M43. Is there any M43 25mm f1.2 lens out there? And even if there was, it will be BIGGER than it's FX counterpart 50mm 1.8 lens. So where is the size advantage then? and the cost advantage? 25mm F1.2 lens will be a very expensive and big lens.

Click to expand...

Shallow DOF is not silver bullet. Your photographs do not be better if you use 5D+85/1.2. This DOF myth comes from pros using FF gear and posting on flickr. By that one can have impression that quality comes from gear, not from photographer who uses it. I find better photos on 20/1.7 group(filickr) than one with a850. There were nice portraits on Olympus SLR forum done using 150/2.

Now look at these samples:
MF 80/1.9 equal to Leica M9 + Noctilux 50/0.95 in terms of DOF:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269295917/

Sigma SA7(FF) + Sigma 50/2.8 equal to uFT 25/1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269288459/

GF1+20/1.7:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269347951/

As you see shallow DOF do not helps at all in getting better pictures

Jon Rty said:

The point he's trying to make is that you'll get equal DOF with a 180mm F/8 on FF.

What if you want to have the field of view and DOF of a 85mm F/1.2/F/1.4 on full-frame? There aren't any 42mm F/0.7 lenses that I know of.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wingmanzero/4937934922/in/set-72157624818595036/

Even something as mundane as a 50mm F/1.4 is impossible to emulate on m43, as there are no 25mm F/0.7 lenses.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4930492870/

You can't compensate by using a longer focal-length, as the FOV changes, and if you want the same magnification, then the perspective changes as well.

tedolf said:

Need more subject wedding subject isolation for u 4/3? Use a longer lens. 90mm Rokkor M F4.0, plenty of subject isolation:

Need more isolation? Get the Elmarit F 2.8.

Done

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

All theoretical poppycock. In the real world it doesn't matter. If the subject is isolated, the subject is isolated. Beyoud that the customer won't know the difference. Your are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I don't think you understanding my point.

DOF is not the silver bullet of photography, and it certainly is not all there is in photography. But it is a very important aspect of photography and the ability to control it is a very important tool to have. And the plain fact it, with M43, there isn't as much DOF to control in the normal ranges compared to FF.

This has nothing to do with gear fancy, it has nothing to do with pros spreading FF pictures on flickr, I mean, it's just simple physics. FF cameras produce more bokeh and shallow DOF for a given focal length, and to emulate the same on M43 would require lenses that will never be produced, and if produced, the lenses would have to be bigger and heavier than it's FF counterparts, thus contradicting the whole idealogy of smaller and lighter concept of M43. I don't know what you are trying to say with your examples. There is no M43 25mm 1.4 lens out there.

There is no "myth" about shallow DOF on FF cameras, it's just physics. And I'm talking about having an extra "tool" in your photography tool box that can aid with your composition. I'm sure thare are many people producing excellent pictures with the 20mm 1.7 and GF1. But that has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. What i'm saying is that bigger sensored cameras give you a LOT MORE room for playing around with DOF compared to M43, for the equivalent focal length. And to emulate the same on M43 require lenses that are near impossible to make.

And for a wedding photographer, FF actually yields you a smaller and cheaper lens line up for th effect you are trying to create compared to M43. For example, the bread and butter of wedding photography is a 70-200 2.8. To emulate the same effect on M43, you would need a 35-100 1.4.

But like I've been saying all week, if you don't need maximum subject isolation or the prettiest bokeh in the crucial 24-200mm event range, M43 offers an excellent alternative. For example, the Pany 7-14 and the Oly 9-18. Those two lenses are true gems and it's all about the advantages M43 has to offer. I also like the Pany 100-300 because it is so much smaller than any 600MM solutions out there. (600mm or FX or 400mm on DX)

Grzegorz Maj said:

Shallow DOF is not silver bullet. Your photographs do not be better if you use 5D+85/1.2. This DOF myth comes from pros using FF gear and posting on flickr. By that one can have impression that quality comes from gear, not from photographer who uses it. I find better photos on 20/1.7 group(filickr) than one with a850. There were nice portraits on Olympus SLR forum done using 150/2.

Now look at these samples:
MF 80/1.9 equal to Leica M9 + Noctilux 50/0.95 in terms of DOF:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269295917/

Sigma SA7(FF) + Sigma 50/2.8 equal to uFT 25/1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269288459/

GF1+20/1.7:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269347951/

As you see shallow DOF do not helps at all in getting better pictures

Click to expand...

Just to note.. you can emulate a 50mm f1.8 on the m4/3, there is a 25mm f0.95.

Also fast lens don't have to be big, look at how small the lens elements are in the 20mm f1.7, they could easly make that faster without making the lens that much bigger... and have you seen the size of the pentax 110 f2.8 len's?

At the longer focal length's and ultra wide's i will be hard to make fast glass without it growing to large but there is a sweet spot there that could be used to give high quality glass at a low size.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31735225@N02/

But look how big that Voigtlander 25mm is and how much it protrudes from the body. It is way bigger than a FX 50mm 1.8 and it's manual focus too. There definitely is a sweet spot for M43 lenses in terms of size and benefits, but not when you need ultra fast apertures.

Meuh said:

Just to note.. you can emulate a 50mm f1.8 on the m4/3, there is a 25mm f0.95.

Also fast lens don't have to be big, look at how small the lens elements are in the 20mm f1.7, they could easly make that faster without making the lens that much bigger... and have you seen the size of the pentax 110 f2.8 len's?

At the longer focal length's and ultra wide's i will be hard to make fast glass without it growing to large but there is a sweet spot there that could be used to give high quality glass at a low size.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31735225@N02/

Click to expand...

Subject isolation is just a midbrow taste, or a way a marriage picture taker has to make money.

Personally I always prefer to have the subject appear in relation to its context.

One could say I have a journalisitic mind, but I prefer truth to beautification, or at least instant composition, not dreamy poses.

That is why i never had problems with 4/3 and quietly laughed at the poor taste of those who had, and tried to illustrate it in theories of equivalence.

You should have had a more modern education

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Reposted for Truth!!!

SUPERHOKIE said:

I don't think you understanding my point.

DOF is not the silver bullet of photography, and it certainly is not all there is in photography. But it is a very important aspect of photography and the ability to control it is a very important tool to have. And the plain fact it, with M43, there isn't as much DOF to control in the normal ranges compared to FF.

This has nothing to do with gear fancy, it has nothing to do with pros spreading FF pictures on flickr, I mean, it's just simple physics. FF cameras produce more bokeh and shallow DOF for a given focal length, and to emulate the same on M43 would require lenses that will never be produced, and if produced, the lenses would have to be bigger and heavier than it's FF counterparts, thus contradicting the whole idealogy of smaller and lighter concept of M43. I don't know what you are trying to say with your examples. There is no M43 25mm 1.4 lens out there.

There is no "myth" about shallow DOF on FF cameras, it's just physics. And I'm talking about having an extra "tool" in your photography tool box that can aid with your composition. I'm sure thare are many people producing excellent pictures with the 20mm 1.7 and GF1. But that has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. What i'm saying is that bigger sensored cameras give you a LOT MORE room for playing around with DOF compared to M43, for the equivalent focal length. And to emulate the same on M43 require lenses that are near impossible to make.

And for a wedding photographer, FF actually yields you a smaller and cheaper lens line up for th effect you are trying to create compared to M43. For example, the bread and butter of wedding photography is a 70-200 2.8. To emulate the same effect on M43, you would need a 35-100 1.4.

But like I've been saying all week, if you don't need maximum subject isolation or the prettiest bokeh in the crucial 24-200mm event range, M43 offers an excellent alternative. For example, the Pany 7-14 and the Oly 9-18. Those two lenses are true gems and it's all about the advantages M43 has to offer. I also like the Pany 100-300 because it is so much smaller than any 600MM solutions out there. (600mm or FX or 400mm on DX)

Click to expand...

Superhokie is exactly right. You can still isolate your subject with micro 43 using certain techniques, but a full frame camera will always be more effective at isolating the subject in any given scenario. It is one of the trade offs for having smaller equipment, including a smaller sensor.

You may be perfectly happy with the amount of isolation that you are achieving with your micro43 and if that is the case, then ignore the above post because it doesn't apply to you. But for those of us that want to understand how things work, the above post is an excellent break down on one very important aspect of photography and how your equipment will affect it.

Hardly. To some, perspective might not mean much. But I don't know a single enthusiast photographer who isn't concerned about both perspective and DOF. And FF allows combinations not available in other formats. The two shots I showed are not possible with smaller formats.

And ironically, thanks to the abundance of digital P&Ss shallow DOF has come somewhat of a trademark for professional photography for those who do not know much about photography. This is because shallow DOF is something that they can't ever get with their P&S cameras.

tedolf said:

All theoretical poppycock. In the real world it doesn't matter. If the subject is isolated, the subject is isolated. Beyoud that the customer won't know the difference. Your are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Click to expand...

Actually, even the 25mm F/0.95 isn't quite comparable with a 50mm F/1.8 on FF. It's about a 50mm F/2. But even then you've got a 1000$ lens thats huge for m43 standards, manual focus, and all but unusable wide open. This compared to the 100$ auto-focus that's 50mm F/1.8 decent wide open, and is half as short and almost three times lighter.

Just to put that in perspective, you can get a Canon 5DI with the 50mm F/1.8 for the same the Nokton alone costs.

Meuh said:

Just to note.. you can emulate a 50mm f1.8 on the m4/3, there is a 25mm f0.95.

Also fast lens don't have to be big, look at how small the lens elements are in the 20mm f1.7, they could easly make that faster without making the lens that much bigger... and have you seen the size of the pentax 110 f2.8 len's?

At the longer focal length's and ultra wide's i will be hard to make fast glass without it growing to large but there is a sweet spot there that could be used to give high quality glass at a low size.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31735225@N02/

Click to expand...

SUPERHOKIE said:

I don't think you understanding my point.

DOF is not the silver bullet of photography, and it certainly is not all there is in photography. But it is a very important aspect of photography and the ability to control it is a very important tool to have. And the plain fact it, with M43, there isn't as much DOF to control in the normal ranges compared to FF.

Click to expand...

It is true that using FF you have more control on DOF. But using MF you have more control than using FF. All is about trade-offs. u43 is smaller, unobtrusive, photographer can be more efficient in getting decisive moments.

SUPERHOKIE said:

This has nothing to do with gear fancy, it has nothing to do with pros spreading FF pictures on flickr, I mean, it's just simple physics. FF cameras produce more bokeh and shallow DOF for a given focal length, and to emulate the same on M43 would require lenses that will never be produced, and if produced, the lenses would have to be bigger and heavier than it's FF counterparts, thus contradicting the whole idealogy of smaller and lighter concept of M43. I don't know what you are trying to say with your examples. There is no M43 25mm 1.4 lens out there.

Click to expand...

Yes u43 probably never would get such shallow DOF like FF. Why should it? On examples I posted you can see duds no matter how shallow DOF is. More DOF in u43 means only that photographer need to use different means, different workflow to get good photo.

SUPERHOKIE said:

There is no "myth" about shallow DOF on FF cameras, it's just physics. And I'm talking about having an extra "tool" in your photography tool box that can aid with your composition. I'm sure thare are many people producing excellent pictures with the 20mm 1.7 and GF1. But that has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. What i'm saying is that bigger sensored cameras give you a LOT MORE room for playing around with DOF compared to M43, for the equivalent focal length.

Click to expand...

FF has more DOF control than m43 it is, as you wrote, physical truth. Is it needed to have good photos? No. In my opinion in wedding photos most important are moments, then composition, then subject isolation. Every one of them plays its part. Subject isolation using DOF is cheaper one - because it is easiest to do. In this FF advantage over u43 is not that strong. Focal length have much more important role, tele just stretches background removing distractions. Writing "myth" I meant, that to achieve good photo you need only to blur background. Every P&S upgrader to DSLR thinks about it, this leads to questionable results like eye in focus(just like some HDRs)

SUPERHOKIE said:

And to emulate the same on M43 require lenses that are near impossible to make.

And for a wedding photographer, FF actually yields you a smaller and cheaper lens line up for th effect you are trying to create compared to M43. For example, the bread and butter of wedding photography is a 70-200 2.8. To emulate the same effect on M43, you would need a 35-100 1.4.

But like I've been saying all week, if you don't need maximum subject isolation or the prettiest bokeh in the crucial 24-200mm event range, M43 offers an excellent alternative. For example, the Pany 7-14 and the Oly 9-18. Those two lenses are true gems and it's all about the advantages M43 has to offer. I also like the Pany 100-300 because it is so much smaller than any 600MM solutions out there. (600mm or FX or 400mm on DX)

Click to expand...

True.

SUPERHOKIE said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

Shallow DOF is not silver bullet. Your photographs do not be better if you use 5D+85/1.2. This DOF myth comes from pros using FF gear and posting on flickr. By that one can have impression that quality comes from gear, not from photographer who uses it. I find better photos on 20/1.7 group(filickr) than one with a850. There were nice portraits on Olympus SLR forum done using 150/2.

Now look at these samples:
MF 80/1.9 equal to Leica M9 + Noctilux 50/0.95 in terms of DOF:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269295917/

Sigma SA7(FF) + Sigma 50/2.8 equal to uFT 25/1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269288459/

GF1+20/1.7:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grzegorz_maj/5269347951/

As you see shallow DOF do not helps at all in getting better pictures

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

for interiors and bounce flash, you need a powerful flash. The Oly FL50 in combination with EP1/2 etc renders excellent results, however, the flash is as big as the camera body.

Both the 2/50 macro and the Panaleica produce very nice bokeh. I don't understand the scolastic DOF discussion. As my objects are usually 2-5 meters away, and I shoot in low light a lot, I'm always struggling to get things in focus. Wouldn't know what to do with a 0.95 MF lens. It wouldn't work

the discussion professional/non-professional is typical amateur. Professionals use all kinds of devices. I remember a guy who shot a promo for Leitz with an Olympus Point and shoot - nobody noticed that the pics had not been done with a Leica

s_grins said:

Ive read all your reasons why M43 does not need "pro" body: system does nor deserve it.

Well, you can look for something else, and let me decide what I want. I prefer simple approach to that complex matter: I want it, so tell me how much and give me what I want. If there is a demand, here must be offering.

And I do not care about "niche", "mainstream", "profit margins", etc. As for example, looks at low cost SLRs made by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, look at NX10 by Samsung. All of them are better quality than my G1.

Click to expand...

You are forgetting one side of the equation : it's not enough to say that there is a demand. That demand has to be solvable (people should have the money to pay for it) : aka those who demand it should be able to cash enough money to allow benefits for the producer.

Personnally I don't think that there will be many people agreeing to pay much more for a "pro-body" which will have many shortcomings with respect to the other more traditional DSLRs.

Also, I think that with respect to Panasonic GF : the probody is the GH2.

Let's see with what Olympus will come out next year : they have announced a "pro-body" and I wonder whether it will be a rangefinder style body or just another Panasonic G shape.

Personnally, I'm ready to pay more if a) it is a rangefinder styled body and b) if its viewfinder is as good as that of the Panasonic Gs, c) if the lcd is fully articulated and d) if the AF is more responsive. 3 images per second is enough for my style of photography.. but it shouldn't go under that.

If no, then I'll update my DSLRs (Canon 5D) and keep the E-P1 and G1 for casual pictures.

--
rrr_hhh