Who only shoots MFT? Do you miss something?

I have an extensive MFT setup, but use Canon for bird photography and also have Sony for full-frame, high ISO and high resolution (and to a certain extent lessening depth of field).

I hope that some time in the future, I will be able to pare all this down. At the moment, I find myself taking my MFT and Canon gear when I go out and think I might do some bird stuff. And when I travel, I take the MFT gear and a Sony with a few small primes in case I want to shoot at dusk or see a landscape that I want to capture in full detail.

I hope that the next generation of the E-M1 combined with the upcoming 300mm f/4 will be good enough for bird photography, so I can ditch Canon.

I also hope that the sensor-shift technology will bump the resolution on Olympus cameras to where I sometimes want it for landscapes and such.

I do, however, not see a solution for shooting in low light or capturing high resolution when a subject is not static.

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

I do, however, not see a solution for shooting in low light or capturing high resolution when a subject is not static.

Looks like the crux of your question revolves around "how low/how high?"

Oly IBIS allows handholding at very long shutter speeds. Combine with a fast lens and reasonable ISO and one can shoot in very low light today. Doesn't mean other cameras can't go even lower but IBIS seems to trump a lot of that theoretical advantage offered by ISOs of 24k or higher. Gain stops here, give them up somewhere else. Sony's latest IBIS seems to give them an edge, however.

Even if I max out at 16MP I don't seem to need even higher resolution. It doesn't limit me, but if I had a pesky art director demanding 50MP I guess it would be off to a rental place. Many are presuming the E-M1 replacement will allow real-time high res rather than the M5II tripod requirement. Even though Oly has stated that as a goal, I'm taking a wait-and-see position regarding whether it will be ready by then.

Other than my 4/3 and m4/3 I just have advanced compacts. Seems adequate and I don't have to juggle systems.

Cheers,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

The DOF control from FF (easier to control shallow DOF)

Better battery life

Better CAF

Everything else MFT can do if not better

Cheers,

john van rosendaal said:

I have an extensive MFT setup, but use Canon for bird photography and also have Sony for full-frame, high ISO and high resolution (and to a certain extent lessening depth of field).

I hope that some time in the future, I will be able to pare all this down. At the moment, I find myself taking my MFT and Canon gear when I go out and think I might do some bird stuff. And when I travel, I take the MFT gear and a Sony with a few small primes in case I want to shoot at dusk or see a landscape that I want to capture in full detail.

I hope that the next generation of the E-M1 combined with the upcoming 300mm f/4 will be good enough for bird photography, so I can ditch Canon.

I also hope that the sensor-shift technology will bump the resolution on Olympus cameras to where I sometimes want it for landscapes and such.

I do, however, not see a solution for shooting in low light or capturing high resolution when a subject is not static.

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact I do. My neck and shoulders feel much better.

In the end, it is to each their own. What matters is the result in the end.

It seems you want the ultimate system that can do everything well but still be small, unfortunately it probably will never exist. I shoot only m4/3 after being a Canon shooter, I've come to accept the limitations of my system as good tradeoffs for the size and weight.

Using the EM1 with the 50-200 and EC14, I now get very acceptable BIFs if they're fairly large or slow moving, just not the swifts, etc. For static birds or wildlife I feel confident my quality is extremely close to that of a larger sensor, subject to my limitations in post processing though as there may be some additional noise in low light conditions.

For landscape, I would hope the high res option does in fact go down to 1/60th as is the stated goal, if so I think that would be great.

FOR ME, I found I needed to spend more time on composition and learning post processing and less time pixel peeping, but your milage may vary!

john van rosendaal said:

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

Click to expand...

I do know that I miss the fabulous depth of field of the 1/2.33" sensors, really brought home when trying to shoot model trains and small stuff like that.

Obviously I need to experiment with image stacking, but often things are moving.....

Regards....... Guy

My use case seldom goes to ISO3200 or over, and I've learned some decent PP tricks to control noise well within a level worthy of my particular clients and my own personal hobby. I miss having more DoF control at focal lengths of 35mm or wider (in equiv FF), would be nice to have a slightly more competent C-AF (though I haven't shot with an E-M1 or GX8 so... it might already be up to my needs).

Some of the birders here can work very well within the limits of m43's C-AF, but I can understand why others just wouldn't bother and would just keep shooting their DSLR for action like that. Same goes for those that constantly shoot in low light for a portion of their work (ie: Bob Tullis, whose nightscapes have made him a resident celebrity around here).

John --

Like thee i maintain more than a MFT kit, though -- having little need these days for tele work -- i have dumped the APSC gear: a d600-based FF and variouis m4/3 bodies and lenses. (Well, also i bought a gawd-awfully expensive but good 80-400VR . . .)

Neither my FF nor my m4/3 kits are state-of-the-art, but both are, shall i say, cost-effectively contemporary. I've got, in addition to my d600 body, various f1.8g primes, a couple of new-ish Nikkor zooms, and a pair of CLS Nikon flashes. On the m4/3 side it is five bodies -- the newest of which are EM5 and PL7 -- coupled with a 12-40f2.8, a triplet of Sigma primes, an Oly FL36R, and various kit and tele zooms.

Right now on any given assignment it is a question of portability vs, umm, a lot of photographic benefits on the FF side of the ledger. Perhaps a look at those items are useful to see how far m4/3 must come to displace my FF gear (if ever). In no particular order i'd say m4/3 loses to FF in these areas:

• ergonomics; none are as easy or quick to use (and change parameters on!) as a dSLR body for me, sorry;
• CAF that actually works faster than walking speed;
• practical, delivered, image resolution and DR; look, i can get 20x30 images from m4/3 but i have to work harder for them -- particularly with exposure comp -- and they lack the best i can get in FF;
• consistent, reliable, wireless flash (this is really huge for me on certain applications); and
• reilable, consistent, battery life.

Looking at this from the standpoint of the progress of technology, only the third one seems immutable. And, obviously weight is unyielding on the other side of the argument. Also note what is NOT in my list: the VF. The 2.3 megapixel VF4-style EVF (and the Panny equivalents i assume) is fully the equal of OVFs in my view.

In my view right now FF is roughly where we used to think of medium format in the film era. It is the thing you went to when max quality was needed. You could make a decent 11x14 (or even, stretching it, 16x20) in 35mm, but good-golly it was easier to take the Hasselblad or Rolliecord. Of course that medium format gear was much heavier and more expensive (including the film!) than 35mm. But if you were headed out on a fast-moving photo journo assignment (moi!) it was 35mm & tri-x all the way, resolution-be-darned.

We've moved the goal posts: 35mm-sized FF yields gorgeous 20x30s with little work, and at ridiculous ISOs, while m4/3 can do it too when all is right. So for now, when i *must* get the shot it will be FF. When i have to lug the gear everywhere it will be m4/3, which is maybe 60% of my shooting now. And i get some lovely shots with it, too.

i would drop the FF if i could, but for now i prefer it for much of my work when i can tote the gear to the site. My "customers" (okay, they don't pay me, thank-gawd) only view the files. And they see a difference in FF vice m4/3, or at least i think so.

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.

The DOF is something I can work around, either with focal length or in post, an extra step, but not a hardship.

The C-AF I find is lens dependent, some are very optimized for that, and others are optimized for instant AF

As far as battery life, I pretty much only use the viewfinder that has a proximity switch, so I can shoot all day with a wasabi battery - around a thousand shots, and still have some battery left .

I have taken a liking to selecting the focus point on the screen while using the viewfinder, like tapping on the model's eye for instance, I havent tracked the number of shots since I started doing that.

john van rosendaal said:

I have an extensive MFT setup, but use Canon for bird photography and also have Sony for full-frame, high ISO and high resolution (and to a certain extent lessening depth of field).

I hope that some time in the future, I will be able to pare all this down. At the moment, I find myself taking my MFT and Canon gear when I go out and think I might do some bird stuff. And when I travel, I take the MFT gear and a Sony with a few small primes in case I want to shoot at dusk or see a landscape that I want to capture in full detail.

I hope that the next generation of the E-M1 combined with the upcoming 300mm f/4 will be good enough for bird photography, so I can ditch Canon.

I also hope that the sensor-shift technology will bump the resolution on Olympus cameras to where I sometimes want it for landscapes and such.

I do, however, not see a solution for shooting in low light or capturing high resolution when a subject is not static.

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

Click to expand...

I shoot only m4/3. No, I don't feel like I'm missing anything. I'm aware of the compromises and happy with them.

You can check my gallery for what I shoot.

I don't use any DSLRs anymore. When I feel like I am missing something from using my m4/3 gear I use my Canon G16 & S95 to make up for it.

john van rosendaal said:

I have an extensive MFT setup, but use Canon for bird photography and also have Sony for full-frame, high ISO and high resolution (and to a certain extent lessening depth of field).

I hope that some time in the future, I will be able to pare all this down. At the moment, I find myself taking my MFT and Canon gear when I go out and think I might do some bird stuff. And when I travel, I take the MFT gear and a Sony with a few small primes in case I want to shoot at dusk or see a landscape that I want to capture in full detail.

I hope that the next generation of the E-M1 combined with the upcoming 300mm f/4 will be good enough for bird photography, so I can ditch Canon.

I also hope that the sensor-shift technology will bump the resolution on Olympus cameras to where I sometimes want it for landscapes and such.

I do, however, not see a solution for shooting in low light or capturing high resolution when a subject is not static.

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

Click to expand...

I do not shoot MFT only, but I want to reply:

I've failed to compare your shots at dusk and "full detail" captured landscapes with what I do. This is a big disappointment for me.

:-(

Spectre38 said:

I have taken a liking to selecting the focus point on the screen while using the viewfinder, like tapping on the model's eye for instance, I havent tracked the number of shots since I started doing that.

Click to expand...

I went from "why do I need that?" to loving the capability, once I used it. Pretty brilliant with a remote screen via wifi, too.

Cheers,

Rick

Turn the lights on or use a flash! Just kidding but most of us think the same as you. m43 is great, but having a full frame too would be nice. Too bad Sony lenses suck and they don't seem to have as much 3rd party lenses, otherwise the Sony 6000 or 5100 would suffice for all needs. Fairly small, and awesome sensor.

johnvanr said:

I do, however, not see a solution for shooting in low light or capturing high resolution when a subject is not static.

Click to expand...

Not a thing. my gx7 and noktons are smaller than the equivalent full frame kit and perform the same for my uses.

Lowlight street and I mean deep night I am very happy with my gx7 and 25mm and soon when I start trying nightscapes I expect similarly good performance

resolution is high enough to print massively and I dont usually need to crop severely.

dof my 25mm and 10.5mm nokton do spectacularly as does my 85mm f1.8 and speedbooster.

Ease of use, I guess I have small hands because those ff monsters (minus the a7 which doesnt feel big enough for its lenses ) are way too big for me. I can barely get my fingers to all the controls. And optical viewfinders are a massive step backwards.

There isnt anything that would tempt me to get a full frame camera besides needing to shoot a noctilux at iso 52000 on an a7s for some reason. And then I think Id rather carry and use a flash...alot cheaper.

john van rosendaal said:

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

Click to expand...

Yeah, a sore back at the end of the day...

john van rosendaal said:

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

Click to expand...

So far, the only thing that really bugs me about m43 is that the flash system just doesn't seem as good as the Nikon flash system. I particularly miss fv-lock and also the better flash metering. The Nikon system was very good about automatically handling fill-flash. I find myself frequently dialing in -1ev for flash exposure. Wireless flash was more reliable with my Nikon system as well.

Fast action photography is also a bit of an issue but I rarely do that, anyway.

Still, I'm happy that I'm moved 100% into the m43 system because I can easily carry what I want and all of my lenses see more use. With my Nikon system, my big 2.8 zooms were rarely used due to their weight/size.

john van rosendaal said:

I have an extensive MFT setup, but use Canon for bird photography and also have Sony for full-frame, high ISO and high resolution (and to a certain extent lessening depth of field).

I hope that some time in the future, I will be able to pare all this down. At the moment, I find myself taking my MFT and Canon gear when I go out and think I might do some bird stuff. And when I travel, I take the MFT gear and a Sony with a few small primes in case I want to shoot at dusk or see a landscape that I want to capture in full detail.

I hope that the next generation of the E-M1 combined with the upcoming 300mm f/4 will be good enough for bird photography, so I can ditch Canon.

I also hope that the sensor-shift technology will bump the resolution on Olympus cameras to where I sometimes want it for landscapes and such.

I do, however, not see a solution for shooting in low light or capturing high resolution when a subject is not static.

To the people here who only use MFT, do you ever feel you're missing something?

Click to expand...

For my E-M1 I have purchased the (43) 50-200 F2.8-3.5 and 1.4X teleconvertor. At maximum zoom, that gives me a 280mm F4.9 lens; I don't see myself buying the 300mm F4 for a 1/3 stop & 7% magnification improvement; I'd rather have the zoom.

I miss a few things in M43 but I've also gained a few things. In my view this system is the one that gets me reasonably close to "having it all" for a reasonable price, and with a weight that I'm willing and able to carry.

For example, I have an FDn 400mm F4.5 lens with 1.4x TC which I purchased for about $600. It's true that I could have a fully automatic 800mm F4.5 lens if I had a Full Frame camera but I would have to pay $2000 or more for a used lens, and $6000 new, which is more than I'm willing to spend.

This lens goes on my E-M1 or GX7 in Aperture mode, and the image stabilization works just fine.

At the other end of the scale I have a GM1 which pairs really well with a 12-32 zoom or my 15F1.7 or the Rokinon 7.5mmF3.5. But I can also use those lenses on my E-M1. Or I can tripod mount my 100-300, and then put the GM-1 on the back.

I have a FDn to M43 speedbooster which turns my old FD 50mm F1.4 and FD 85mm F1.8 lenses into 35mm F1.0 and 60mmF1.3

I have the FD24mm F2 lens which I purchased for the purpose of mounting it on the FD to M43 shift adapter, but it also mates with the speedbooster to make a 15mm F1.4 lens which I will use for astro-photography.

What I'm missing is time to play as much as I want to.

Can only afford one system, but that makes life simpler. Know theoretically the pros and cons of FF mirrorless, but but am happy to remain blissfully ignorant in practice.

F.

Yep I am only shooting m43 em5 ll, and I have the 15 mm 20 mm 25 mm 1.4 and 45 mm 1.8. I soo miss a 15 mm f 1.2 or faster with af