M43 Musings

Messier Object wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Andrew Ellis wrote:

Before I start, let me say that I love M4/3, (should do, I've invested enough in it), but I also love my full frame DSLR's.

I was out shooting birds the other day and had my OMD-EM1 along with the 40-150 F2.8 Pro, matching 1.4x Converter, my Panasonic 100-300 OIS F3.5-5.6 and my Nikon 300mm F4 AFS, with a dumb M43 adapter (so manual focus).

What I found, is what I expected. M4/3 is delightfully portable, very quiet (compared to most DLR's), and with the upcoming Olympus 300mm F4 and Panasonic 100-400 F4-6.3, will no doubt be getting some excellent long lenses that are "relatively" fast (well at least in the case of the Olympus). However, he's the rub, I'm in the UK, so that's dim dark winter days (even at midday), and even when the sun does make a brief appearance, you are typically in the ISO3200-6400 bracket to get shutter speeds up to anything like what's needed to freeze small bird movement (typically around 1/180-1/250 as a minimum - faster is better).

So, whilst M4/3 has some excellent bodies capable of brilliant general photography, and some stunning lenses (with more to come), for me at least, here in the UK, for wildlife, the high ISO performance simply just doesn't cut it yet. Up to ISO1600 and a bit of NR in post, the images look pretty good, but fall off really quickly at ISO3200-6400, with fine feather detail smudged, even with in camera noise reduction set to off. So, I would personally trade more MP (and stay at 16mp) for a stop to a stop and a half better ISO performance.

As a comparison (and I know it's not a fair comparison), my Nikon D750 with a Tamron 150-600 F4-6.3, regularly shoots up to ISO 6400 and even 12,800, and with a bit of NR looks absolutely brilliant and even more so if down sampled to the EM1 size.

It doesn't of course doesn't mean I'm going to abandon M4/3, its too good in too many other theatres for that, but I do wish they could improve the ISO performance a tad (easier said than done with the size of the sensor - I know).

Anyone else feel the same, or just me ?

I can only go by those FF users I shoot with and a few I know on the net Andrew. ISO and noise is a sensor size thing for sure. Here we are fairly lucky in the light we have and I know it I can get EXIF settings even those in the US and Aussie can't work out. Not always of course and we do cop a lot of rough weather as well, but on fine days we are darn lucky. We have extremely good light most times and I do feel for those that don't.

hold on a minute Danny, are you saying that even your light is better over there ?

According to an Aussie bird shooter that visits, yep Just don't come until summer though.

There are FF DSLR's and there are other FF DSLR's from what I've seen and of course size goes with that as well. DSLR's like the Canon 1Dx have certain items in the menu that all relate specifically to their long fast tele lens range, or at least that's what Steve was saying. Takes time to sort through them all by the sounds of it, buts its there. Some of what was in the 1Dx only is now also incorporated to a large extent in the APS-C Canon 7D MKII as I understand it. A good sign

Yep, the 7D2 has a lot of trickle-down form the 1DX AF sytem.

So certainly FF DSLR's are made for exactly the reason's you mention in AF and of course the larger sensor in regard to noise.

A lot in here might not like it, but when it comes to tracking, fast PDAF and low light, the FF cameras and probably certain DSLR's are simply made for it and designed for it. Funny enough I shoot with only one motor sports shooter who uses a Nikon. The rest for that subject and birds/BIF's all use Canon here. 9 shooters in all. No idea why and maybe just a marketing thing. Nikon certainly has the bodies and lenses for it and there's no doubt about that at all.

Now the main advantages as I see it when I'm using the NEX-7 or E-M10. FF shooters can use higher ISO's and can get faster shutter speeds because of it and can shoot in lower light than I can. They can adjust the aperture because of that reason as well for more DOF. m4/3 sort of makes up for that to a certain degree though. My ISO I don't go over ISO 400, but might stretch that to ISO 800 sometimes. Steve, Bony, Chris, Toya, Colin, etc shoot way over that (ISO 1600 - 2000 easily on the 1Dx or 5D MKIII) and still get clean shots at fast frame rates and that's when I've even giving up trying AF still locks on as well with the higher spec FF cameras on dull days. So yes we do get the days with low light and that's when they do take over and show what they shine at.

I wonder if you follow Art Morris (Birds as Art). He craves overcast days for the soft even illumination. But he has the best of the best big white lenses.

I was a moderator on NPN in the macro forum years ago and Art was in the bird forum. Art used to call my macro shots "Flies as Art". I'm a member on his forum and yep, he knows his stuff all right.

I love direct sunlight at my back to get the colours to bounce off the birds and boost the shutter speeds up for BIF's. Overcast days kills that for me, but I do see and know the point for sure. Smaller sensors need that extra light IMO Peter.

The Oly 300 F/4 is the one I want to see used in here the most when it arrives and maybe on a new EM-2 or whatever, because I reckon Oly will be looking and specifying a new body to suit either that lens or other lenses in this line. Times are looking good.

My 'fear' is that f/4 (5.6 with the 1.4x) will be a tad slow, and even with the best 43 sensor available to Olympus, the new lens - as sharp as its likely to be - will fall short of being a great birding lens. And anybody owning the ZD300/2.8 won't be in a rush to trade it for the 300/4. And if Metabones continues to improve their adaptors I can see Olympus conceding the long end to 3rd party glass.

Peter

With the 800 at F/5.6 you can check the EXIF and its taken wide open at F/5.6

So those are at F/5.6. I'm fairly comfortable at that F/stop.

As mentioned the other day when the Panasonic 100-400 with F/6.3 at the long was being discussed in here, its still very workable Pete.

So at F/6.3 exactly using F/4.5 + a 1.4x TC = F/6.3 The EXIF's are there.

And more in this thread

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55758510

The 300 F/2.8L is not used often here, I find it just a little too short for where I shoot. Not the favourite focal length. If you can get close enough, you can't beat them. 400 F/2.8 would be nice though A mate here bought one and when Chris told me the cost, I just about fell over !! Phew that's a nice lens and Tom Caldwell in here has one as well.

So even at F/6.3 you can generally hit what is needed. Have used the 800 F/5.6 with a 1.4x TC and man is it sharp, but not a good idea on anything that moves with the E-M10 and that would be what ...... F/8.4, so not ideal but still workable again on static birds where you can drop the shutter speeds down.

All the best Peter.

Danny.