Help on choosing the right gear

Hello everyone,

I've been reading in Dpreview forums for a long time now. I'm trying to learn as much as I can but I'm stumbling on some hard technical questions I can't seem to find the answer for.

I'm an armature photographer, rarely used SLRs and mostly been using point and shoots. I've been hovering for a long time over buying an SLR but I really really hated optical viewfinders. I know I'm in a minority where most love optical viewfinders but they're not for me. I couldn't believe my luck when the whole mirrorless market started out. I'm huge fan of it all and I've been closely following the market since the first digital PEN was introduced.

I mainly take photos while either traveling or hiking. I need high ISO, very fast reliable autofocus, and versatility. Micro Fourth Thirds have all these covered but I'm wondering about versatility.

I was thinking of using a camera like the Lumix FZ150 which can go from 28 to 600mm but quit frankly I'm sick and tired of the IQ of point and shoots. I currently have a Canon S95 and between the dog slow autofocus and the terrible ISO800 noise, I find myself very disappointed at a lot of my results.

I thought I would buy a Micro43 with an all around lens like the 14-150 along with the 20mm 1.7 for when I want the system compact. I want to keep my lens selection to an absolute minimum and I want to avoid as much as possible changing lenses while in the middle of a hike or a trip.

I have two questions

Q1: is it true that lenses with a large zoom range tend to be less bright than primes because they have more elements that degrade light?

Q2: when using the 14-150 lens can I use the telephoto end for some macro work? i.e. zoom out as far as I can get and hope that the magnification can overcome the minimum focus distance of the lens?

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about when I say versatility, here are two pictures I took on the same trip. One close up and one on the extreme 12X zoom of an FZ20 I used to have. I'm sure I would not have been able to get both pictures if I had to swap lenses.

Thanks in advance for all the help you give out.

Regards,

Q1: It's harder to design a bright zoom and they tend to get large quickly.

Q2: The Olympus 14-150 gets a 0.24x magnification. Not great macro, but maybe good enough for that photo.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/standard.html#i_014-150mm_f040-056_olympus

You can also their macro adapter or a screw in from any other number of companies to get a bit closer. They tend to be considerable smaller and cheaper than a dedicated macro and you don't actually have to remove the lens on your camera exposing the sensor. I use it and I've been happy with the results. Oly's is really light weight. 23g.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/accessories.html#i_mcon_p01_olympus

If you need a good ISO 800, then you've got to at least the Nikon 1 system or M43. A superzoom like a Pany FZ is not going to give you good high ISO performance.

I'm kind of in your boat.

I am in the process of retiring my trusty FZ-20 and replacing with the G3. Thought about the GX1, but wanted the built-in view finder. I now have the G3 with the 20mm f1.7 prime. Takes great pictures - even in normal room light. Looking towards doing some night street photos - seen some great examples on this forum.

Waiting on which zoom to get. I like the idea of the upcoming fixed f2.8 zooms, but can't take many photos with rumors.

highwave said:

Q1: is it true that lenses with a large zoom range tend to be less bright than primes because they have more elements that degrade light?

Click to expand...

Not only are they less bright, because they need more elements and more different correction elements, they are also less sharp tend towards greater distortion. They are however much more versatile than a large bag of primes and the need to change them all the time.

A good rule of thumb is that the more X'es a lens have in the same price group, the worse is the quality (No rule without exceptions!)

highwave said:

Q2: when using the 14-150 lens can I use the telephoto end for some macro work? i.e. zoom out as far as I can get and hope that the magnification can overcome the minimum focus distance of the lens?

Click to expand...

None of the super-zoom lenses have macro capability. There are various adapters, rings and mounts to give them that. However your flower picture is not macro, and my best guess is that the 14-150 should be capable of reproducing that result.

The definition of Macro is 1:1 so something that is 1mm wide would occupy 1mm sensor space in the capturing.

So would an E-P3 with a 20mm pancake prime and a 14-150mm be better than your point and shoot for what you do? Yes, that is my best opinion.

And as an added bonus, you can get better and faster lenses if you ever feel the need.

An m43 with 14-150 and 20mm 1.7 lenses makes a great kit, especially for travel.

Many of the photos in my gallery here are taken with the Oly 14.150.

The 14-150 is great, especially when used with an Oly body for IBIS.

The 20mm becomes the go-to lens for lower light.

The 14-150 does reasonable close-up shots when extended to 150mm (not really true macro shots though - certainly similar to your posted shots) and you can still crop even closer. I'm also considering the Macro add-on conversion lens that allows for even more magnification.

A quick overview of the available conversion lenses (which seem to fit the 58mm 14-150 lens) http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-pen-converter-lenses-tested-16886

highwave said:

I mainly take photos while either traveling or hiking. I need high ISO, very fast reliable autofocus, and versatility. Micro Fourth Thirds have all these covered but I'm wondering about versatility.

Click to expand...

You need to clarify what ISO is high enough, how fast autofocus you enough and what you mean by reliable autofocus.

For ISO 800 all MFT cameras are good for sure. Newer MFT cameras can even do a lot better. However, other mirrorless cameras and DSLR can probably do even better than that.

For static objects autofocus is definitely fast enough and as reliable as it gets. If your priority is moving subjects, you might want to consider a DSLR or Nikon mirrorless.

Nowadays there are large sensor non-interchangeable cameras (such as Canon G1 X and Fuji X10), which have all-purpose-lenses. If you don't plan to change lenses, they could be worth exploring.

Lenses with a very long zoom range tend to be slower and lower quality, yes.

A slow lens will probably eat up the ISO advantage you just got by selecting a bigger sensor. So the IQ will be same as you have now, more or less, but you will have a much bigger camera to hump about.

My needs sound much like yours. Most of my pictures are taken as a result of wandering about outdoors. But I don't need high ISO, and hence I'm a bit puzzled you list that as a priority?

Anyway, if you currently have a top of the range compact, the purpose of switching to an interchangeable lens camera is so you can change lenses.

If you want a one lens system, I'd stick with what you have.

For what it is worth, I normally use a GH2 (you would want a GX1), a 7-14, a 25mm f1.4, a 45mm f1.8 OR a 45mm f2.8 macro (depending on whether I think I will get macro shots), and a 100-300. If I need to travel light I dump the 100-300 and switch the 7-14 for a 12mm f2.0. Really light and I lose the GH2 and take an E-PM1 instead, and leave the 25mm at home.

I also carry graduated neutral density filters in the form of a Cokin A set.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

I upgraded a couple of years ago from the FZ-20 to a G1 for the same reasons and have been nothing but happy (except for some initial frustrations at a lack of MFT lenses which has since been addressed).Trips with the FZ20 left me constantly frustrated by the IQ of otherwise-pleasing pictures.

I now take bike trips with the G1 and 14-45 zoom (summer, sunny days) in a handlebar bag, while my friends have to use point-and-shoots or wait for the van with their DSLRs in it. Once we're in camp or out to eat, the 20mm comes out; for a hike the 45-200 comes along.

I'm shooting the same things and getting much better results. I would encourage you to make the leap.

MadsR said:

highwave said:

Q1: is it true that lenses with a large zoom range tend to be less bright than primes because they have more elements that degrade light?

Click to expand...

Not only are they less bright, because they need more elements and more different correction elements, they are also less sharp tend towards greater distortion. They are however much more versatile than a large bag of primes and the need to change them all the time.

Click to expand...

First of all for you and everyone, thanks a lot of your replies. I won't reply to you individually but I appreciate all your feedback and your posts.

as for the answer, this is exactly what I was asking about zoom lenses being less bright. Just to clarify further and make sure I'm understanding it properly, say a prim at F4 and a 14-150 at F4 would both have the same aperture opening yet the prime allows in more light because it has less elements than the zoom lens causing all sorts of reflections and losses.

Am I correct?

No,they would both let in the same light at f4.

But the point is my 45mm prime is f1.8, and long zooms tend to be around f5.6 at that point.

f1.8 will give you a big noise advantage over your compact.

f5.6 won't.

So, it is not generally a good idea to buy an interchangeable lens camera and one long range zoom only. By all means have the 10X zoom as a travel lens or whatever, but you would be well advised to have some other lenses too.

Not everyone agrees with that, but the people who disagree tend to be the less experienced shooters with, um, one 10X zoom.

highwave said:

MadsR said:

highwave said:

Q1: is it true that lenses with a large zoom range tend to be less bright than primes because they have more elements that degrade light?

Click to expand...

Not only are they less bright, because they need more elements and more different correction elements, they are also less sharp tend towards greater distortion. They are however much more versatile than a large bag of primes and the need to change them all the time.

Click to expand...

First of all for you and everyone, thanks a lot of your replies. I won't reply to you individually but I appreciate all your feedback and your posts.

as for the answer, this is exactly what I was asking about zoom lenses being less bright. Just to clarify further and make sure I'm understanding it properly, say a prim at F4 and a 14-150 at F4 would both have the same aperture opening yet the prime allows in more light because it has less elements than the zoom lens causing all sorts of reflections and losses.

Am I correct?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

pannumon said:

highwave said:

I mainly take photos while either traveling or hiking. I need high ISO, very fast reliable autofocus, and versatility. Micro Fourth Thirds have all these covered but I'm wondering about versatility.

Click to expand...

You need to clarify what ISO is high enough, how fast autofocus you enough and what you mean by reliable autofocus.

For ISO 800 all MFT cameras are good for sure. Newer MFT cameras can even do a lot better. However, other mirrorless cameras and DSLR can probably do even better than that.

For static objects autofocus is definitely fast enough and as reliable as it gets. If your priority is moving subjects, you might want to consider a DSLR or Nikon mirrorless.

Nowadays there are large sensor non-interchangeable cameras (such as Canon G1 X and Fuji X10), which have all-purpose-lenses. If you don't plan to change lenses, they could be worth exploring.

Click to expand...

I can't really put a number on autofocus speed but I'm finding myself constantly waiting longer than I would like when my Canon S95 is trying to focus. Also it gives up focusing at all sorts of times and a lot of times. I guess I just want better autofocus overall.

And I did check out the option of Canon G1 X and Fuji X10. Both are unnecessarily expensive for what they offer. Plus if I do change my mind and want to experiment with lenses I'll be dead in the water. Fuji X10 has slow autofocus from what I can see in reviews. And the G1 X is terribly short on zoom.

Louis_Dobson said:

A slow lens will probably eat up the ISO advantage you just got by selecting a bigger sensor. So the IQ will be same as you have now, more or less, but you will have a much

Click to expand...

bigger camera to hump about.

Louis_Dobson said:

My needs sound much like yours. Most of my pictures are taken as a result of wandering about outdoors. But I don't need high ISO, and hence I'm a bit puzzled you list that as a priority?

Click to expand...

yeah I've pretty much come to the same conclusion more or less. I mean say in comparing an FZ150 at wide end compared to say a G3+14-140. the Fz150 would be at F2.8 and the G3 at F4. So overall if say the G3 has a two stop advantage in ISO you'll be down to one stop due to the slower lens at wide angle.

But then again, having the option to slap on a 20mm 1.7 and turn your camera into a portable one (something you can't to with a superzoom) that has something like a 3 stop ISO advantage is worth considering.

And about the puzzling part on my needs for high ISO. My favorite shooting time is right after rainfall. Things look so vibrant at that time and the colors are just spectacular. Unfortunately that also means high ISO more often than not. If I leave my S95 on auto it often shoots up to 800. Plus, from time to time, I do shoot at night time. I rarely do that now because of the limitations of my cameras rather than my choice.

Can I have a shot at explaining this?

I don't know the S95, but Oly do a compact called the XZ1 or something, it is well thought of, and more or less an MFT body with a zoom nailed to the front and a small sensor.

Now, the small sensor is inherently noisy. But because the sensor is tiny, the lens is tiny too. And because the lens is tiny, the glass for it is quite cheap. And weight is not an issue either. So Oly can go to town on it without making it expensive or heavy. The result is a pin sharp lens that starts at f2.

Let's take a 4/3rds camera. The sensor is bigger, so it is quieter. But now you need a much bigger lens to cover the sensor. Glass is expensive, and heavy, so to make a lens that will cover the range, not break the bank, and not weight a ton, you end up with a very compromised lens. It will not let in a lot of light and it will not be blisteringly sharp at all lengths and apertures.

Shoot the two combos side by side, and you won't see much difference. One has a compromised sensor, but a great lens. The other has a great sensor,but a compromised lens. Because the lens is slower on the MFT camera, you will have to turn up the ISO. So the advantage the bigger sensor gave you has largely been lost by the lens.

On that basis,why bother to buy it?

Because you can take OFF the 10X zoom when you need low light ability or really good sharpness, and put on a fast lens.

So, budget for a fast lens at whatever length you mainly shoot as well as the zoom. Then you will gain a lot.

If all you have is the one dim 10X zoom, then you haven't really gained much over what you have now. Better sensor, worse lens. Add some more lenses though, and you are away and flying!

highwave said:

pannumon said:

highwave said:

I mainly take photos while either traveling or hiking. I need high ISO, very fast reliable autofocus, and versatility. Micro Fourth Thirds have all these covered but I'm wondering about versatility.

Click to expand...

You need to clarify what ISO is high enough, how fast autofocus you enough and what you mean by reliable autofocus.

For ISO 800 all MFT cameras are good for sure. Newer MFT cameras can even do a lot better. However, other mirrorless cameras and DSLR can probably do even better than that.

For static objects autofocus is definitely fast enough and as reliable as it gets. If your priority is moving subjects, you might want to consider a DSLR or Nikon mirrorless.

Nowadays there are large sensor non-interchangeable cameras (such as Canon G1 X and Fuji X10), which have all-purpose-lenses. If you don't plan to change lenses, they could be worth exploring.

Click to expand...

I can't really put a number on autofocus speed but I'm finding myself constantly waiting longer than I would like when my Canon S95 is trying to focus. Also it gives up focusing at all sorts of times and a lot of times. I guess I just want better autofocus overall.

And I did check out the option of Canon G1 X and Fuji X10. Both are unnecessarily expensive for what they offer. Plus if I do change my mind and want to experiment with lenses I'll be dead in the water. Fuji X10 has slow autofocus from what I can see in reviews. And the G1 X is terribly short on zoom.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Ah, I have just written a long message explaining what you have already worked out for yourself!

Yes, I agree. MFT camera, 10X zoom, and a prime for low light.

Sorted!

Have fun

highwave said:

Louis_Dobson said:

A slow lens will probably eat up the ISO advantage you just got by selecting a bigger sensor. So the IQ will be same as you have now, more or less, but you will have a much

Click to expand...

bigger camera to hump about.

highwave said:

My needs sound much like yours. Most of my pictures are taken as a result of wandering about outdoors. But I don't need high ISO, and hence I'm a bit puzzled you list that as a priority?

Click to expand...

yeah I've pretty much come to the same conclusion more or less. I mean say in comparing an FZ150 at wide end compared to say a G3+14-140. the Fz150 would be at F2.8 and the G3 at F4. So overall if say the G3 has a two stop advantage in ISO you'll be down to one stop due to the slower lens at wide angle.

But then again, having the option to slap on a 20mm 1.7 and turn your camera into a portable one (something you can't to with a superzoom) that has something like a 3 stop ISO advantage is worth considering.

And about the puzzling part on my needs for high ISO. My favorite shooting time is right after rainfall. Things look so vibrant at that time and the colors are just spectacular. Unfortunately that also means high ISO more often than not. If I leave my S95 on auto it often shoots up to 800. Plus, from time to time, I do shoot at night time. I rarely do that now because of the limitations of my cameras rather than my choice.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

ToonOtter said:

I upgraded a couple of years ago from the FZ-20 to a G1 for the same reasons and have been nothing but happy (except for some initial frustrations at a lack of MFT lenses which has since been addressed).Trips with the FZ20 left me constantly frustrated by the IQ of otherwise-pleasing pictures.

I now take bike trips with the G1 and 14-45 zoom (summer, sunny days) in a handlebar bag, while my friends have to use point-and-shoots or wait for the van with their DSLRs in it. Once we're in camp or out to eat, the 20mm comes out; for a hike the 45-200 comes along.

I'm shooting the same things and getting much better results. I would encourage you to make the leap.

Click to expand...

That sounds very encouraging

Sort of what I would want to do.

I heard some people upgraded from superzooms to the G series and complained about the IQ and went back to superzooms. I sort of figured they were talking about the shallow depth of field (and how tricky it is to work with) when they talked about lower IQ. They also argued that the superzooms like the FZ150 use top quality lens elements because they were cheaper to make for such a small sensor. While I can attest to the amazing lens sharpness of my old FZ20 I still personally doubt this claim is true.

Louis_Dobson said:

Ah, I have just written a long message explaining what you have already worked out for yourself!

Yes, I agree. MFT camera, 10X zoom, and a prime for low light.

Sorted!

Have fun

Click to expand...

Thanks anyway though. Your effort is appreciated.

I might also consider the 45mm F1.8. I'm not a portrait person at all but man all the talk about it got me interested in what I can do with it.

It's a really nice lens and not stupidly expensive. I use it more than any other lens except the 7-14. And I get the most fun out of it!

highwave said:

Louis_Dobson said:

Ah, I have just written a long message explaining what you have already worked out for yourself!

Yes, I agree. MFT camera, 10X zoom, and a prime for low light.

Sorted!

Have fun

Click to expand...

Thanks anyway though. Your effort is appreciated.

I might also consider the 45mm F1.8. I'm not a portrait person at all but man all the talk about it got me interested in what I can do with it.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

highwave said:

I heard some people upgraded from superzooms to the G series and complained about the IQ and went back to superzooms. ...

They also argued that the superzooms like the FZ150 use top quality lens elements because they were cheaper to make for such a small sensor. While I can attest to the amazing lens sharpness of my old FZ20 I still personally doubt this claim is true.

Click to expand...

On some superzooms the lens is 'tuned' so well to the sensor/camera that it behaves like a much more expensive lens and can give superior results in certain situations than a standard long zoom lens on an interchangeable lens system.

You should get some more advice from happy modern superzoom users before spending your cash on m4/3rds ... and I'm saying this as a predominantly m4/3rds user.
Take your time.

Oh, and while we're here ;

highwave said:

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about when I say versatility, here are two pictures I took on the same trip. One close up and one on the extreme 12X zoom of an FZ20 I used to have. I'm sure I would not have been able to get both pictures if I had to swap lenses.

Click to expand...

highwave said:

I'm sure I would not have been able to get both pictures if I had to swap lenses.

Click to expand...

Right. Because that plant is moving so fast you'd miss the shot while you changed lenses? Surely not.

highwave said:

as for the answer, this is exactly what I was asking about zoom lenses being less bright. Just to clarify further and make sure I'm understanding it properly, say a prim at F4 and a 14-150 at F4 would both have the same aperture opening yet the prime allows in more light because it has less elements than the zoom lens causing all sorts of reflections and losses.

Click to expand...

No, the F value is constant over lenses. So in F4 any lens will let in the same amount of light. Which is why F values were invented.

However, the image quality will (normally) be lower on the zoom than on the prime, so the image you get will probably be sharper with less CA and less distortion from the prime.

Also, where the fastest zoom lenses you can get for large cameras are the Olympus f2.0 constant 14-35mm even the 14times cheaper 20mm prime is faster (at f1.7) and you can get primes as fast as f0.95 or more normally a stop slower at 1.4. And you can buy all of them for the price of the 14-35 f2 and still have money to spare.

The 14-150 starts at 3.5 which is a full 2 stops slower than the 20mm f1.7 and at the long end, at 5.6 it is 3 1/3 stop slower full open.