Landscape perfection?

Anders W said:

kenw said:

The other big deal for landscape photographers is that edge and corner performance can matter a lot. So when someone designs a lens with super high resolution in the center at wide apertures that is great news for a studio or portrait photographer. It is pretty useless for a landscape photographer though. Designing lenses with high resolution corners and flat fields of focus is really, really challenging. And the required filter stacks on top of digital sensors has not made the job any easier...

So I suspect many current m43 lenses would test to gangbusters resolutions in the center. But at the moment even an expensive dedicated prime like the 12/2 which should be wonderful for landscape is already a bit of a let down in the corners at just 16MP.

Click to expand...

But do you really think that MFT is any worse in this department (sharpness across the frame) than larger formats? I can't say I have such an impression.

Click to expand...

Well what is different is that there are a more lenses designed for good corner to corner sharpness at infinity (i.e. flat field at infinity) for FF cameras. Part of that is just that there are so many more lenses made for FF cameras period. I don't think it is any limitation of the technology for m43. The limitation is the size and maturity of the market is all.

In FF land you have some spectacular "slow" primes specifically designed for landscape from folks like Zeiss, Leica and CV covering UWA to normal. Simply doesn't exist to the same degree for m43. And that is presently setting an upper limit on corner resolution achievable on m43 that has nothing to do with sensor resolution and everything to do with available (as opposed to theoretical) optics. Put a Zeiss prime or Nikon 14-24 on the D810 or Leica WATE on the A7r and they are untouchable by anything m43 has to offer. On m43 we see corner softness on all the UWA and WA lenses at 16MP stopped down at infinity. With FF if you've got the bucks you can get optics keeping up with 36MP in the corners. Of course they cost astronomical sums compared to most m43 offerings and most of them are much larger too. But the point is they do exist in FF and they don't exist in m43 nor do I ever expect them to exist in m43. I will be giving the 7-14/2.8 a good close sniff when it comes out of course!

Actually seeing the same problem in telephoto at the moment. Looking at more tests of the otherwise truly excellent and amazing 40-150/2.8 it certainly appears it isn't doing anything miraculous in the corners stopped down. So still waiting for a telephoto landscape lens for m43 that can keep up with the various 70-200 offerings from Canikon. And again, I think this is just the market. The 40-150/2.8 appears to be jaw dropping amazing for what 99% of the market is going to shoot with it. Most landscape photographers aren't going to buy m43 or the 40-150 and so you end up with a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy - there aren't many landscape photographers for m43 so no one will build good landscape lenses for m43.

m43 has grown and matured enormously in the past five years, but even with all that growth when you compare it to what exists in the FF world including adapted glass and it just doesn't have the same depth for certain applications.

Again, as you know, for me I find the trade-offs in resolution for m43 to be minor for what I need out of a landscape kit. And I've got the expectation that little will change in the m43 marketplace with regards to that. But from playing with other people's RAW files with various FF lenses on the D800 and A7R it is my experience that there are definitely FF lenses with flat fields and corner sharpness that simply are not offered in any form from any vendor in m43 land.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

Anders W said:

Not sure I follow you here Ken. Of course, the filter may be made more or less stringent but I can't say I have noticed any tendency for smaller sensors to carry more lenient filters than larger, at least if we compare in the MFT to FF span. Haven't looked all that carefully at what happens further down or higher up but a brief glance at Phase One didn't suggest much of a difference even at that size.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know about the more recent Phase One backs, but from what I've read it was definitely true about the older (~40MP) backs. The other relatively clear example was when 24MP FF sensors were the hot new thing. The A900 had clearly different response from the other manufacturer (i.e. Nikon) using the "same" sensor. It seems as of this day and age there is in fact little difference between FF and smaller sensors when it comes to spectral response.

To me I've still not seen a definitive demonstration of the effect on foliage well separated from all the other vagaries of sensor comparisons. Though the A900 was closest apples to apples case that I know of - but even there the question remains about how color processing is handled by the RAW converter. Personally I think of it as "possible but not well demonstrated factor". And really it is completely out of our control, the market seems to have mostly moved as one.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

kenw said:

In FF land you have some spectacular "slow" primes specifically designed for landscape from folks like Zeiss, Leica and CV covering UWA to normal. Simply doesn't exist to the same degree for m43.

Click to expand...

Put one of them on a MFT body. Pray it's sharp enough.

If you are talking about set piece immaculate landscapes in the pictorialist tradition, then FF or even better medium format is probably is the way to go to have smother colour transitions and an easier file to post process. But if you want something stylishly more modern and “frizzante” then the ductility of the smaller formats will do the job just as well if not perhaps even better in some situations.

The 100-300 lens in M43, which would equate to a monstrous sized lens in FF gives me a highly portable “different” landscape lens for example. The crushed perspective effects which I like make up for any technical shortcomings in the M43 format.

Some M43 landscapes.

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/


Apennines Tosco Emiliano Italy



Bad weather coming in from Tuscany. Apennines Tosco Emiliano, Italy


River Po, Dosola, Italy

Gosh, thank you all so much for your many contributions to this thread. Let me assure you I am perfectly happy with my GX7 as my hands will not even open a bottle of water these days, let alone carry and manipulate a big heavy DSLR, and I am still operating at only about 50% of the camera capabiilty. It has been a joy improving my photography with this camera, and I have no complaints.

I know that if I could get a MF camera into my handbag, and could persuade the bank to lend me the money, it would take magical landscapes - but I wouldn't be able to match it. Those images of the Dolomites in MF were just fabulous! But somehow I had come to think the progress in M43 had been so great that the IQ of a DSLR was not that far away, and that all I had to do was practise, practise, practise. You've disillusioned me a bit on that score, but I've learned a great deal from all these inputs. And I'm staying with my GX7.

I think I'll go on one of my friend's workshops (yes, she's a pro who teaches, too). If you're interested to see some of her work the (south of England) workshops are on f11workshops.com, and the reason it will be interesting is that her partner in the tuition has just sold all his DSLR gear and bought into M43! His strength is in PP, but he's no slouch when it comes to pressing the shutter button either. So I'll let them argue between themselves and learn from both of them.

Goodnight, all!

http://www.firstlightworkshop.com/wheres-jay/

Boy, his pics would be sooooooooooo much better looking if they were FF.

I know, he's on Olympus' payroll.

kenw said:

Anders W said:

Not sure I follow you here Ken. Of course, the filter may be made more or less stringent but I can't say I have noticed any tendency for smaller sensors to carry more lenient filters than larger, at least if we compare in the MFT to FF span. Haven't looked all that carefully at what happens further down or higher up but a brief glance at Phase One didn't suggest much of a difference even at that size.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know about the more recent Phase One backs, but from what I've read it was definitely true about the older (~40MP) backs.

Click to expand...

Well, based on the DxO figures, one looks about as clean as current MFT sensors and the other (older) worse (the red channel more green than red):

kenw said:

The other relatively clear example was when 24MP FF sensors were the hot new thing. The A900 had clearly different response from the other manufacturer (i.e. Nikon) using the "same" sensor. It seems as of this day and age there is in fact little difference between FF and smaller sensors when it comes to spectral response.

Click to expand...

The A900 looks a bit cleaner than usual within the FF camp. But I don't see any systematic tendency for smaller to be dirtier, at least for MFT and up (don't know much about what goes on further down). Possibly, there are some manufacturer differences though. For example, Canon doesn't seem to excel in this department.

kenw said:

To me I've still not seen a definitive demonstration of the effect on foliage well separated from all the other vagaries of sensor comparisons. Though the A900 was closest apples to apples case that I know of - but even there the question remains about how color processing is handled by the RAW converter. Personally I think of it as "possible but not well demonstrated factor". And really it is completely out of our control, the market seems to have mostly moved as one.

Click to expand...

You are right that it would be nice to have a clearer grasp of the perceptual consequences.

TN Args said:

kenw said:

In FF land you have some spectacular "slow" primes specifically designed for landscape from folks like Zeiss, Leica and CV covering UWA to normal. Simply doesn't exist to the same degree for m43.

Click to expand...

Put one of them on a MFT body. Pray it's sharp enough.

Click to expand...

Well except it won't be UWA anymore then...
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

kenw said:

Anders W said:

kenw said:

The other big deal for landscape photographers is that edge and corner performance can matter a lot. So when someone designs a lens with super high resolution in the center at wide apertures that is great news for a studio or portrait photographer. It is pretty useless for a landscape photographer though. Designing lenses with high resolution corners and flat fields of focus is really, really challenging. And the required filter stacks on top of digital sensors has not made the job any easier...

So I suspect many current m43 lenses would test to gangbusters resolutions in the center. But at the moment even an expensive dedicated prime like the 12/2 which should be wonderful for landscape is already a bit of a let down in the corners at just 16MP.

Click to expand...

But do you really think that MFT is any worse in this department (sharpness across the frame) than larger formats? I can't say I have such an impression.

Click to expand...

Well what is different is that there are a more lenses designed for good corner to corner sharpness at infinity (i.e. flat field at infinity) for FF cameras. Part of that is just that there are so many more lenses made for FF cameras period. I don't think it is any limitation of the technology for m43. The limitation is the size and maturity of the market is all.

In FF land you have some spectacular "slow" primes specifically designed for landscape from folks like Zeiss, Leica and CV covering UWA to normal. Simply doesn't exist to the same degree for m43. And that is presently setting an upper limit on corner resolution achievable on m43 that has nothing to do with sensor resolution and everything to do with available (as opposed to theoretical) optics. Put a Zeiss prime or Nikon 14-24 on the D810 or Leica WATE on the A7r and they are untouchable by anything m43 has to offer. On m43 we see corner softness on all the UWA and WA lenses at 16MP stopped down at infinity. With FF if you've got the bucks you can get optics keeping up with 36MP in the corners. Of course they cost astronomical sums compared to most m43 offerings and most of them are much larger too. But the point is they do exist in FF and they don't exist in m43 nor do I ever expect them to exist in m43. I will be giving the 7-14/2.8 a good close sniff when it comes out of course!

Click to expand...

You are right that there are still more options in "FF land". But it wouldn't surprise me if the 7-14/2.8 will give the Nikon 14-24/2.8 a run for its money. And the 7-14/4 is certainly not a weak competitor although it may not be able to reach parity with the very best FF counterparts.

kenw said:

Actually seeing the same problem in telephoto at the moment. Looking at more tests of the otherwise truly excellent and amazing 40-150/2.8 it certainly appears it isn't doing anything miraculous in the corners stopped down.

Click to expand...

A little surprised to hear you say that. Haven't followed the 40-150/2.8 so carefully, and haven't looked specifically for the way it performs across the frame. But it would surprise me if it wouldn't hold up well in the corners, especially in view of how the 12-40/2.8 performs in that department. What tests/sample images do you have in mind?

kenw said:

So still waiting for a telephoto landscape lens for m43 that can keep up with the various 70-200 offerings from Canikon. And again, I think this is just the market. The 40-150/2.8 appears to be jaw dropping amazing for what 99% of the market is going to shoot with it. Most landscape photographers aren't going to buy m43 or the 40-150 and so you end up with a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy - there aren't many landscape photographers for m43 so no one will build good landscape lenses for m43.

m43 has grown and matured enormously in the past five years, but even with all that growth when you compare it to what exists in the FF world including adapted glass and it just doesn't have the same depth for certain applications.

Again, as you know, for me I find the trade-offs in resolution for m43 to be minor for what I need out of a landscape kit. And I've got the expectation that little will change in the m43 marketplace with regards to that. But from playing with other people's RAW files with various FF lenses on the D800 and A7R it is my experience that there are definitely FF lenses with flat fields and corner sharpness that simply are not offered in any form from any vendor in m43 land.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

Click to expand...

Samuel Dilworth said:

Sergey Borachev said:

UW lenses are harder to make for smaller formats, ie to give the same FOV and image quality, due to the crop factor.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Perhaps you’re thinking of wide-angle lenses for SLRs, which have to clear a mirror and are therefore harder to make (in some ways) than wide-angle lenses for non-SLRs.

But Micro Four Thirds lenses don’t have to clear a mirror. You could take a 21 mm f/2.8 SLR lens, shrink every dimension by 50 %, and you’d get a 10.5 mm f/2.8 Micro Four Thirds lens with the same performance (excepting the effects of diffraction, which aren’t very important at f/2.8). Since the lens would be smaller, you could argue it’s easier (cheaper) to make, albeit no easier to design.

In practice, Micro Four Thirds lenses often seem to aim a little higher in terms of aberration correction, allowing more viable full-aperture performance – presumably in recognition of the fact it’s more often useful to use them at full aperture. So in that sense they may be harder to design. But that’s just saying it’s harder to design better lenses.

(Still, full-frame lenses sometimes perform better even if the lens has more aberrations, since you can stop down further on the larger format – reducing aberrations – before diffraction becomes too damaging).

Samuel Dilworth said:

Photos made with these different lenses (on FF and M43 cameras respectively) therefore need to be enlarged to the same size to show the scene with the original or closer to original perspective. BUT with UW scenes, there's a need for pros to make huge prints. For a given viewing distance, the wider the FOV, the bigger the print has be, to give a more realistic perspective to the viewer. A2 is usually way too small.

Click to expand...

Good point, though today most people are accustomed to seeing wide-angle images with distorted perspective (indeed, occasionally that’s the point of a composition!) arising from a too-small or too-distant print or display.

Click to expand...

Shrinking the dimensions of a lens to yield a shorter FL lens for a smaller format camera, in the case of a UWA lens invites problems. The additional difficulty I mentioned in making an M43 UWA lens with half the FL also has to do with achieving the same end quality in print as the FF system, due to manufacturing considerations as well as theoretical ones like diffraction. Stitching is great for those who are patient, but only for certain scenes and not for seascape with waves, or landscape with leaves when there is even very gentle breeze, if you want any foreground interest involving leaves.. Also city scape with cars, ... And of course, you can do stitching with FF too. Everything being equal, there is no contest with FF.

Anders W said:

kenw said:

Anders W said:

Not sure I follow you here Ken. Of course, the filter may be made more or less stringent but I can't say I have noticed any tendency for smaller sensors to carry more lenient filters than larger, at least if we compare in the MFT to FF span. Haven't looked all that carefully at what happens further down or higher up but a brief glance at Phase One didn't suggest much of a difference even at that size.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know about the more recent Phase One backs, but from what I've read it was definitely true about the older (~40MP) backs.

Click to expand...

Well, based on the DxO figures, one looks about as clean as current MFT sensors and the other (older) worse (the red channel more green than red):

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Phase-One/P40-Plus---Measurements

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Phase-One/P45-Plus---Measurements

Anders W said:

The other relatively clear example was when 24MP FF sensors were the hot new thing. The A900 had clearly different response from the other manufacturer (i.e. Nikon) using the "same" sensor. It seems as of this day and age there is in fact little difference between FF and smaller sensors when it comes to spectral response.

Click to expand...

The A900 looks a bit cleaner than usual within the FF camp. But I don't see any systematic tendency for smaller to be dirtier, at least for MFT and up (don't know much about what goes on further down). Possibly, there are some manufacturer differences though. For example, Canon doesn't seem to excel in this department.

Anders W said:

To me I've still not seen a definitive demonstration of the effect on foliage well separated from all the other vagaries of sensor comparisons. Though the A900 was closest apples to apples case that I know of - but even there the question remains about how color processing is handled by the RAW converter. Personally I think of it as "possible but not well demonstrated factor". And really it is completely out of our control, the market seems to have mostly moved as one.

Click to expand...

You are right that it would be nice to have a clearer grasp of the perceptual consequences.

Click to expand...

I understand that the SMI rating can't be relied on too heavily for an individual camera, but there seems to be no pattern at all in the SMI ratings for various FF and cropped sensor cameras (at least between 4/3 and larger) as reported on DXOMark. Personally, I think it's more of a luminosity sensitivity issue than a color one when it comes to successful separation of leaves. The edges and veins, shadows between leaves and tonal changes due to curves in the leaves are where it's at. Color is secondary, especially when you're dealing with an overwhelming summer green canopy instead of a fall scene.

maggiemole said:

somehow I had come to think the progress in M43 had been so great that the IQ of a DSLR was not that far away, and that all I had to do was practise, practise, practise. You've disillusioned me a bit on that score,

Click to expand...

Don't be too disillusioned. If you take photos that work the strengths of MFT, then DSLR users will be hard pressed to match your IQ. Sensor worship can go too far.

knickerhawk said:

Anders W said:

kenw said:

Anders W said:

Not sure I follow you here Ken. Of course, the filter may be made more or less stringent but I can't say I have noticed any tendency for smaller sensors to carry more lenient filters than larger, at least if we compare in the MFT to FF span. Haven't looked all that carefully at what happens further down or higher up but a brief glance at Phase One didn't suggest much of a difference even at that size.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know about the more recent Phase One backs, but from what I've read it was definitely true about the older (~40MP) backs.

Click to expand...

Well, based on the DxO figures, one looks about as clean as current MFT sensors and the other (older) worse (the red channel more green than red):

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Phase-One/P40-Plus---Measurements

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Phase-One/P45-Plus---Measurements

knickerhawk said:

The other relatively clear example was when 24MP FF sensors were the hot new thing. The A900 had clearly different response from the other manufacturer (i.e. Nikon) using the "same" sensor. It seems as of this day and age there is in fact little difference between FF and smaller sensors when it comes to spectral response.

Click to expand...

The A900 looks a bit cleaner than usual within the FF camp. But I don't see any systematic tendency for smaller to be dirtier, at least for MFT and up (don't know much about what goes on further down). Possibly, there are some manufacturer differences though. For example, Canon doesn't seem to excel in this department.

knickerhawk said:

To me I've still not seen a definitive demonstration of the effect on foliage well separated from all the other vagaries of sensor comparisons. Though the A900 was closest apples to apples case that I know of - but even there the question remains about how color processing is handled by the RAW converter. Personally I think of it as "possible but not well demonstrated factor". And really it is completely out of our control, the market seems to have mostly moved as one.

Click to expand...

You are right that it would be nice to have a clearer grasp of the perceptual consequences.

Click to expand...

I understand that the SMI rating can't be relied on too heavily for an individual camera, but there seems to be no pattern at all in the SMI ratings for various FF and cropped sensor cameras (at least between 4/3 and larger) as reported on DXOMark. Personally, I think it's more of a luminosity sensitivity issue than a color one when it comes to successful separation of leaves. The edges and veins, shadows between leaves and tonal changes due to curves in the leaves are where it's at. Color is secondary, especially when you're dealing with an overwhelming summer green canopy instead of a fall scene.

Click to expand...

My impression when it comes to foliage is that it may actually be the lens that matters most of all. If the lens manages to keep microcontrast high, you get not only nice luminance detail but nice color detail too. The same foliage can sparkle with lively green color shifts if shot with a good lens but look like a dark green-gray mush if shot with a poor one. Sensor resolution (as opposed to sensor color rendering) can of course matter here too. I remember how I hated seeing the green go mushy with my 6 MP Pentax K100D as it sometimes did. Fortunately, I see that happen less frequently now.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

I understand that the SMI rating can't be relied on too heavily for an individual camera, but there seems to be no pattern at all in the SMI ratings for various FF and cropped sensor cameras (at least between 4/3 and larger) as reported on DXOMark. Personally, I think it's more of a luminosity sensitivity issue than a color one when it comes to successful separation of leaves. The edges and veins, shadows between leaves and tonal changes due to curves in the leaves are where it's at. Color is secondary, especially when you're dealing with an overwhelming summer green canopy instead of a fall scene.

Click to expand...

My impression when it comes to foliage is that it may actually be the lens that matters most of all. If the lens manages to keep microcontrast high, you get not only nice luminance detail but nice color detail too. The same foliage can sparkle with lively green color shifts if shot with a good lens but look like a dark green-gray mush if shot with a poor one. Sensor resolution (as opposed to sensor color rendering) can of course matter here too. I remember how I hated seeing the green go mushy with my 6 MP Pentax K100D as it sometimes did. Fortunately, I see that happen less frequently now.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, the lens goes to the top of the list. The other lens-related factor here is corner/border performance because so often leaves are present along the borders/corners of an image and they can look like mush with lenses that aren't sharp edge-to-edge.

Anders W said:

You are right that there are still more options in "FF land". But it wouldn't surprise me if the 7-14/2.8 will give the Nikon 14-24/2.8 a run for its money. And the 7-14/4 is certainly not a weak competitor although it may not be able to reach parity with the very best FF counterparts.

Click to expand...

The 7-14/4 is no slouch and keeps up well with many "excellent" APS-C and FF UWA zooms. Its performance was what made me give m43 a serious try years ago and it has kept me happy all that time! It gets a bit soft in the corners but so do most UWA zooms. But there are those few "amazing" lenses like the 14-24 and the WATE that get sharp corners. I've got my fingers crossed for the 7-14/2.8 as it seems like they got the 12-40/2.8 right. And it would simply be ridiculously bad form if Olympus released a 7-14/2.8 that wasn't excellent in the corners since the primary markets would seem to be landscape and architecture.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Actually seeing the same problem in telephoto at the moment. Looking at more tests of the otherwise truly excellent and amazing 40-150/2.8 it certainly appears it isn't doing anything miraculous in the corners stopped down.

Click to expand...

A little surprised to hear you say that. Haven't followed the 40-150/2.8 so carefully, and haven't looked specifically for the way it performs across the frame. But it would surprise me if it wouldn't hold up well in the corners, especially in view of how the 12-40/2.8 performs in that department. What tests/sample images do you have in mind?

Click to expand...

I was surprised too, and I am really reserving judgement as it is so early right now it is hard to tell what is typical behavior and what is "bad copy" behavior or even "bad testing" behavior. But here is a review and a thread showing "acceptable" but not "excellent" corner performance in my opinion:

http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_M_Zuiko_Digital_40-150mm_f2-8/sharpness.shtml
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1331905/1

And again, given how much else it appears to not only be "excellent" at but even "exceptional" it seems like not having razor sharp corners which only a small fraction of photographers care about in a telephoto is a reasonable trade off.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

knickerhawk said:

Anders W said:

knickerhawk said:

I understand that the SMI rating can't be relied on too heavily for an individual camera, but there seems to be no pattern at all in the SMI ratings for various FF and cropped sensor cameras (at least between 4/3 and larger) as reported on DXOMark. Personally, I think it's more of a luminosity sensitivity issue than a color one when it comes to successful separation of leaves. The edges and veins, shadows between leaves and tonal changes due to curves in the leaves are where it's at. Color is secondary, especially when you're dealing with an overwhelming summer green canopy instead of a fall scene.

Click to expand...

My impression when it comes to foliage is that it may actually be the lens that matters most of all. If the lens manages to keep microcontrast high, you get not only nice luminance detail but nice color detail too. The same foliage can sparkle with lively green color shifts if shot with a good lens but look like a dark green-gray mush if shot with a poor one. Sensor resolution (as opposed to sensor color rendering) can of course matter here too. I remember how I hated seeing the green go mushy with my 6 MP Pentax K100D as it sometimes did. Fortunately, I see that happen less frequently now.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, the lens goes to the top of the list. The other lens-related factor here is corner/border performance because so often leaves are present along the borders/corners of an image and they can look like mush with lenses that aren't sharp edge-to-edge.

Click to expand...

Personally I find the lower resolution files of mFT compared to my FF gear a pain for landscapes as they make fine detail in wide landscapes grass leafs on trees etc look like mush. I am really hoping for a jump in resolution in the next gen of mFT .

markymark101 said:

http://www.firstlightworkshop.com/wheres-jay/

Boy, his pics would be sooooooooooo much better looking if they were FF.

I know, he's on Olympus' payroll.

Click to expand...

They may not be aesthetically better but they would have higher resolution, better DR, better tonality and lower noise . Even at the small size these images are displayed at the noise is very obvious and actually distracting from the image.

kenw said:

TN Args said:

kenw said:

In FF land you have some spectacular "slow" primes specifically designed for landscape from folks like Zeiss, Leica and CV covering UWA to normal. Simply doesn't exist to the same degree for m43.

Click to expand...

Put one of them on a MFT body. Pray it's sharp enough.

Click to expand...

Well except it won't be UWA anymore then...
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

Click to expand...

Canon 17 f4 L TS-E on one of the better M4/3 bodies might be nice for landscapes and sharp enough!

24 3.5 TS-E II might be a tad too long on M4/3 (though might be ok).



I don't have a EF-M4/3 adapter yet other wise I would try the 24.

I know a few pro shooters and some use like 8 year old FF cams...Yes..well..I don't see much advantage there.

The GH4 with 12,8 eV would be a bit closer if it had 30 Mpixels istead of 16. But what sets FF apart is also colour depth, tonal range etcetc.

In the end some of the nicest sub 10.000 € cams is the 645Z with MPixels. For landscapes with a good lens it is just great...No m43s will come close to that in till 2020 at least I think.

Oh dear, thread thoroughly derailed now, meaningless platitudes abound.

Bigger sensors are better. yawwwn. Deary deary me, is it that late already? How time slips away.

OTOH if you want to share how well MFT can be utilized for excellent landscape photography, I'm all ears and the clock stops.