Just out of morbid curiosity ...

I have had the wonderful 200/2.8 for a couple of weeks now - the sort of gold (platinum?) plated lens that is “far too expensive” for the M4/3 system. I have been using it on a G9 body as it is quite a large heavy lens. But going on dark here my morbid curiosity gets the better of me so I slap it on a GM5 body and try it out in the gathering darkness. As I have never had any real reluctance to mount large lenses on my GM5 bodies it was not completely out of character. Just hold the lens in one hand and the camera body on the other - balances nicely.

The results are - notwitstanding scratching for suitable subject matter - I am in love - this lens does work well on any M4/3 camera body - including rhe GM5.

Tom Caldwell said:

Just hold the lens in one hand and the camera body on the other - balances nicely.

Click to expand...

Yes, not many believe this is so. That is why I hope there will be continuity in the E-M5 line. I dislike large grips ...

Quite a few (not brand-specific of course) do not seem to understand / realise that there are people who prefer it this way. But most of the new bodies that come out feature oversized grips. The only reason for myself to have a large grip would be to hold a larger battery. Even with a small camera like the LX100 I avoid shooting with just one hand.

Regards

Light almost gone (ISO 3200) <10 minutes later as black as pitch.

Example random shots sooc GM5 camera body.

















--
Tom Caldwell

I think the "issue" with a lens like this is the intended audience. A 400mm eqv. FoV lens (or 560mm with the 1.4x TC) is intended for sports and wildlife (400 is a bit short for wildlife, but 560 is suitable).

However, m43 cameras are at a disadvantage IMO when it comes to shooting sports against the likes of CaNikon with their DSLRs. The E-M1 II is the best sports camera the m43 system has to offer, and while the the AF is much better post FW 2.0, the lingering "issue" is the noise performance of m43 sensors.

When you can control your light (i.e. portraits), shoot from a tripod (i.e. landscapes), or are working in good natural light (i.e. sunny wildlife), m43 is perfectly acceptable. But it's once you get away from good light where m43 cameras begin to struggle, and cameras like the D500 or D5 really come in to their own.

When you're shooting sports, shutter speed is critical. You need to freeze the action to get a sharp shot, but if you can't control the light, that means you need to rely on your ISO to get the shutter speed up to where it needs to be. Sometimes that means shooting at 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc., and no matter how you try to slice it, m43 cameras will not compete at these higher ISO's against larger, less pixel-dense sensors.

Don't get me wrong, I love my m43 gear. I have two E-M1 II's, PRO primes and zooms, etc. Great gear. But like anything else, there's a proper tool to do the job, and when it comes to sports shooting, convincing sports professionals who put food on the table by covering these events is going to be a tall ask. I applaud Panasonic (and Olympus with their 300/4 PRO) for making this lens, but I really don't know how well it'll sell based on its intended market. Having said that, the 300/4 PRO seems to have sold very well to amateurs/enthusiasts for birding.

Indeed just looking for something to shoot at. Works well. stabilisation of that lens is excellent too. But not realy a marriage made in heaven, is it now?

ijm5012 said:

I think the "issue" with a lens like this is the intended audience. A 400mm eqv. FoV lens (or 560mm with the 1.4x TC) is intended for sports and wildlife (400 is a bit short for wildlife, but 560 is suitable).

However, m43 cameras are at a disadvantage IMO when it comes to shooting sports against the likes of CaNikon with their DSLRs. The E-M1 II is the best sports camera the m43 system has to offer, and while the the AF is much better post FW 2.0, the lingering "issue" is the noise performance of m43 sensors.

When you can control your light (i.e. portraits), shoot from a tripod (i.e. landscapes), or are working in good natural light (i.e. sunny wildlife), m43 is perfectly acceptable. But it's once you get away from good light where m43 cameras begin to struggle, and cameras like the D500 or D5 really come in to their own.

When you're shooting sports, shutter speed is critical. You need to freeze the action to get a sharp shot, but if you can't control the light, that means you need to rely on your ISO to get the shutter speed up to where it needs to be. Sometimes that means shooting at 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc., and no matter how you try to slice it, m43 cameras will not compete at these higher ISO's against larger, less pixel-dense sensors.

Don't get me wrong, I love my m43 gear. I have two E-M1 II's, PRO primes and zooms, etc. Great gear. But like anything else, there's a proper tool to do the job, and when it comes to sports shooting, convincing sports professionals who put food on the table by covering these events is going to be a tall ask. I applaud Panasonic (and Olympus with their 300/4 PRO) for making this lens, but I really don't know how well it'll sell based on its intended market. Having said that, the 300/4 PRO seems to have sold very well to amateurs/enthusiasts for birding.

Click to expand...

The m43 telephotos are sharp, slow, and comparably priced to FF lenses. But there aren't any m43 lenses that compete with the 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4, or 600 f/4, either in speed or price.

The old 43 lenses did compete. The 300 f/2.8 is an awesome lens. It competes well with the 400 f/2.8 and TC, or 500 f/4. But when you are at that weight and price point in lenses, the camera body comparisons in terms of cost and weight are mostly irrelevant. All that matters is noise and AF speed and accuracy.

If you are going to push the limits, then you need to pony up the dollars. And work out so you can carry the gear.

What does make a reasonable combination is the 100-300 on the GM5, here's one I did earlier, unadjusted in LR6 (except horizon)

I'll see your 200 and raise you a 300/4. I did it primarily to observe the OIS behavior independent of Oly hybrid IS and just as you note, you hold the lens and essentially forget a tiny, tiny camera is hosted at one end. No complaints on the result.


A long way off, yet not unnoticed.

Cheers,

Rick

p.s. much easier with the tripod foot removed.

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

ijm5012 said:

I think the "issue" with a lens like this is the intended audience. A 400mm eqv. FoV lens (or 560mm with the 1.4x TC) is intended for sports and wildlife (400 is a bit short for wildlife, but 560 is suitable).

However, m43 cameras are at a disadvantage IMO when it comes to shooting sports against the likes of CaNikon with their DSLRs. The E-M1 II is the best sports camera the m43 system has to offer, and while the the AF is much better post FW 2.0, the lingering "issue" is the noise performance of m43 sensors.

When you can control your light (i.e. portraits), shoot from a tripod (i.e. landscapes), or are working in good natural light (i.e. sunny wildlife), m43 is perfectly acceptable. But it's once you get away from good light where m43 cameras begin to struggle, and cameras like the D500 or D5 really come in to their own.

When you're shooting sports, shutter speed is critical. You need to freeze the action to get a sharp shot, but if you can't control the light, that means you need to rely on your ISO to get the shutter speed up to where it needs to be. Sometimes that means shooting at 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc., and no matter how you try to slice it, m43 cameras will not compete at these higher ISO's against larger, less pixel-dense sensors.

Don't get me wrong, I love my m43 gear. I have two E-M1 II's, PRO primes and zooms, etc. Great gear. But like anything else, there's a proper tool to do the job, and when it comes to sports shooting, convincing sports professionals who put food on the table by covering these events is going to be a tall ask. I applaud Panasonic (and Olympus with their 300/4 PRO) for making this lens, but I really don't know how well it'll sell based on its intended market. Having said that, the 300/4 PRO seems to have sold very well to amateurs/enthusiasts for birding.

Click to expand...

I take all you say as a reasonable appraisement and fair comment.

Where I come from is not to praise something as the best of everything but more the best of M4/3 which is pretty good.

Using the 200/2.8 on arguably the best current M4/3 bodies will make them assuredly produce better images across the board. My post was merely to offer a granule of surprise at how well it handeld on a GM5 camera body and that it did not do too badly in the faint rays of “last light” in a sub-tropical land’s fast acting winter twilight. In less than half an hour we go from bright sunny day to pitch black.

I don’t think I will need ISO 3200 often - I was just apologising for it in advance.

john isaacs said:

ijm5012 said:

I think the "issue" with a lens like this is the intended audience. A 400mm eqv. FoV lens (or 560mm with the 1.4x TC) is intended for sports and wildlife (400 is a bit short for wildlife, but 560 is suitable).

However, m43 cameras are at a disadvantage IMO when it comes to shooting sports against the likes of CaNikon with their DSLRs. The E-M1 II is the best sports camera the m43 system has to offer, and while the the AF is much better post FW 2.0, the lingering "issue" is the noise performance of m43 sensors.

When you can control your light (i.e. portraits), shoot from a tripod (i.e. landscapes), or are working in good natural light (i.e. sunny wildlife), m43 is perfectly acceptable. But it's once you get away from good light where m43 cameras begin to struggle, and cameras like the D500 or D5 really come in to their own.

When you're shooting sports, shutter speed is critical. You need to freeze the action to get a sharp shot, but if you can't control the light, that means you need to rely on your ISO to get the shutter speed up to where it needs to be. Sometimes that means shooting at 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc., and no matter how you try to slice it, m43 cameras will not compete at these higher ISO's against larger, less pixel-dense sensors.

Don't get me wrong, I love my m43 gear. I have two E-M1 II's, PRO primes and zooms, etc. Great gear. But like anything else, there's a proper tool to do the job, and when it comes to sports shooting, convincing sports professionals who put food on the table by covering these events is going to be a tall ask. I applaud Panasonic (and Olympus with their 300/4 PRO) for making this lens, but I really don't know how well it'll sell based on its intended market. Having said that, the 300/4 PRO seems to have sold very well to amateurs/enthusiasts for birding.

Click to expand...

The m43 telephotos are sharp, slow, and comparably priced to FF lenses. But there aren't any m43 lenses that compete with the 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4, or 600 f/4, either in speed or price.

The old 43 lenses did compete. The 300 f/2.8 is an awesome lens. It competes well with the 400 f/2.8 and TC, or 500 f/4. But when you are at that weight and price point in lenses, the camera body comparisons in terms of cost and weight are mostly irrelevant. All that matters is noise and AF speed and accuracy.

If you are going to push the limits, then you need to pony up the dollars. And work out so you can carry the gear.

Click to expand...

I do have an EF 400/2.8 - all 5.5 Kg and its own huge case. Works well in theatre. Mostly used on a Canon 5D with battery pack I did adapt it once to a GM1 “for a laugh”. Quite astonishingly it focused quickly and accurately and seemed happy enough as the cute little dog on th eend of a very large tail. I am sure that it could get some great images ... but I am a serious photographer ....

I did wonder just how long the GM battery might last whilst driving such a large lens.

I was using this lens not so long ago for a shoot attached (focal reduced) to a G9 with battery pack. No issues - just another camera/lens combo for anyone interested in ponying up the dollars for such an exotic outfit. (568/2.0 FF FL eq)

Jorginho said:

Indeed just looking for something to shoot at. Works well. stabilisation of that lens is excellent too. But not realy a marriage made in heaven, is it now?

Click to expand...

I would suggest that we should stop moaning that M4/3 bodies are just as big as FF bodies and that they are nearly as expensive. We should be williing to pay top dollar for truly compact high performing camera bodies the size of the GM series and willing to pay an appropriate price for that quality. In that process we must be able to accept that such cameras might have fixed lcd screens, physically small evf units, basic video. However as cameras they will be full-function, only compromised in the “twiddly bit” department in order to become that small. No way that FF cameras can ever match these cameras - only in areas where users insist that proper cameras need to be the size of wheel chocks and M4/3 “lumps” will fit into the same size box as small FF ML “bricks”.

M4/3 users have to stop referring to GM bodies as “toys” - they are in fact full function stills cameras that can do a bit of video at a pinch. There is probably no reason why they could not use a 20mp sensor and cope with burst captures.

I know that many feel that the GM body is too small for them. This is fair comment and the M4/3 mount is a system with many bodies and there is hope that there will always be a body size for all tastes. The real issue is not that the largest M4/3 bodies rival Nikon Z or Sony A7/9 in size but that the M4/3 mount system can support many body types - this makes it even stronger than other systems who only make one body type and often a limited level of lenses to suit.

So Panasonic needs the confidence that if it does have another crack at the GM series with a high performing body that the M4/3 user base (in general) will whoop it up for its technical bravura and not see “small size” as “toys for entry level use”. Panasonic has rewarded this attitude with the GF7-GX850 series.

As far as a marriage made in heaven is concerned .... well, (shrug) ... depends on whose heaven .... handles well, works well, it is a four year down the track 16mp sensor with AA filter - but that sensor always took quite good images anyway. It is a boost to the images that are created as it is such a good lens. The latest sensor in a G9 gives that camera an edge - long term use on a day out the grip might be less tiring - the GM5 allows the combination to slip into a smaller bag - but it is a large lens and you are not going to get it into a really tiny bag .... The size of northern winter overcoats might suggest that some could just manage a lop sided gait with it pocketed (grin). But I figure it just too much for even loose fitting jeans pockets.

Skeeterbytes said:

I'll see your 200 and raise you a 300/4. I did it primarily to observe the OIS behavior independent of Oly hybrid IS and just as you note, you hold the lens and essentially forget a tiny, tiny camera is hosted at one end. No complaints on the result.

A long way off, yet not unnoticed.

Cheers,

Rick

p.s. much easier with the tripod foot removed.

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

Click to expand...

Well done Rick. The tripod foot on the 200/2.8 also tends to get in the way as well. The stub also has a tripod screw anyway.

Glad to see that others can accept that the GM series are proper cameras and not just tiny-toys for entry level and small lenses exclusively.

--
Tom Caldwell

Richandhiscat said:

What does make a reasonable combination is the 100-300 on the GM5, here's one I did earlier, unadjusted in LR6 (except horizon)

Click to expand...

Well done Richard - I hope to get some “more interesting” images with the GM5/200 combo later. I do have a G9 as well but it is refreshing to see others treat the GM series bodies as versatile cameras that can be used on virtually any lens that can be mounted to them.

--
Tom Caldwell

Jorginho said:

Indeed just looking for something to shoot at. Works well. stabilisation of that lens is excellent too. But not realy a marriage made in heaven, is it now?

Click to expand...

A lens as big as the 100-400 won't really balance on any m4/3 body, but some are better than others. That said, we can easily adapt our hold on the camera/lens combination and have no problem using it. I shoot one on an E-M1.2 with no issues at all.

Tom Caldwell said:

Jorginho said:

Indeed just looking for something to shoot at. Works well. stabilisation of that lens is excellent too. But not realy a marriage made in heaven, is it now?

Click to expand...

I would suggest that we should stop moaning that M4/3 bodies are just as big as FF bodies and that they are nearly as expensive.

Click to expand...

You can turn around that observation and say that some FF bodies are just small as M4/3 bodies.



So what? Suppose we were to stop making these comparisons at all!!

Both of those bodies have a use for me. And so does this system when wanting tiny:

Tom Caldwell said:

M4/3 users have to stop referring to GM bodies as “toys” - they are in fact full function stills cameras that can do a bit of video at a pinch.

Click to expand...

They certainly are, but the fixed LCD caused me to pass it by. We all have our favorite camera features!

So let's just photograph with what we like and not get upset by how someone refers to our equipment. (The GX7 attracted all types of comments, some bordering on the vulgar). Who cares!

- Richard

--

Works fine with Em1.2.

There loads of lenses that do not balance well even on the largest FF camera's. So...

[No message]

Tom Caldwell said:

Glad to see that others can accept that the GM series are proper cameras and not just tiny-toys for entry level and small lenses exclusively.

Click to expand...

GM5 is an indispensable piece of my kit and until such time as we see another circa 200-250 gram full-featured body it's not going anywhere. Admittedly it doesn't often get paired with my larger lenses but I find it a pleasure to use with, for example, the 75/1.8, which isn't exactly pocket material.

I'd welcome a refresh but until somebody can convince one of the makers there's a market, mine still works perfectly and I'm well stocked with batteries--a week's worth by my arithmetic.

Cheers,

Rick

...it's that the GM really needs something you can hold onto with your left hand leaving the right hand completely free to fiddle with the annoying controls, and hence the larger the lens you mount, the more usable the GM becomes.

What I am saying is that in M4/3 we have everything from GM series to GH5 and E-MIii - so we are spoiled by choice and lucky to be able to pick a camera body style/size that suits us. I am not suggesting “only” GM series bodies and myself have a foot in several camps - GM, GX7/GX85, E-MI, G9 - they all have their uses and being able to choose my body to suit a use purpose is excellent. But size-wise the largest M4/3 body always risks comparisons with the smallest FF ML bodies. But there is more to the camera system than this sort of arm wrestle - that is where this argument both starts and stops.