Why would I do that? There will be no noise advantage and I am stuck with a fixed aperture.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What FF camera would you choose to augment your m43's kit?
- Thread starter Jeff
- Start date
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,174
- Reaction score
- 4,677
Because you're using a fixed aperture lens? You could, of course, buy a faster prime for the RF mount, but it'd be larger and more expensive. Then again, you can never get a faster prime for m4/3 soo...
mostlyboringphotog
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,475
- Reaction score
- 4,003
No need to act disingenuous - I'm sure Ansel Adams would have got the similar shots with 110 instamatic.
john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,441
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,913
When I'm shooting landscape, I usually want a lot of DOF, so a fast lens is just a heavy lens. I usually use a tripod in low light, so it's not an issue with exposure times. I shoot shallow DOF at longer focal lengths, which is why I have the 35 and 85. With the Z7, I can switch to DX mode and still have lots of pixels for portraits, which gives me 50 and 135 equivalent (about) focal lengths with the primes. This is why I like the Z7; I can shoot it full or cropped.
As for the 20/1.8, it is not wide enough for me...I usually shoot 16-20 UWA. Of course, suitability is a matter of shooting style; you just need to check where you tend to shoot in the UWA range. I used Rokinon 14 and 24 for astro, but my 24 was not compatible so I traded it in and am still contemplating a replacement. I don't need AF, but the 20/1.8 could still be a candidate.
What I like about the 14-30 is that it has good overlap with the 14-70. Which means I'm less likely to swap lenses.
kenw
Veteran Member
It is excellent, the kind of performance that would be unthinkable in a lens of this size and cost in the past. That said, it is of course a zoom and not a large F/2.8 zoom so there are certainly some lenses with better corner performance but it will cost you a lot more in dollars, weight and bulk to better it. I mainly use it at F/8 or F/11 for landscape but my tests at F/4 still showed excellent performance for a UWA zoom.
Really depends on how you like to shoot. Some prime shooters always say "zoom with your feet" which I don't agree with at all. In most situations "zooming with your feet" means changing perspective and he entire composition. The only way you can truly "zoom" a prime is by cropping and that of course incurs a steep IQ penalty. So I tend to view zooms and primes as different beasts and for landscape shooting where I consider camera position to often be absolutely critical to a composition I prefer to use zooms.
The Z 20/1.8S has been getting quite good reviews so if you wanted an UWA prime then the Z system certainly has a good native answer. For astro it gets good reviews but I also know some astrophotographers prefer panorama stitching using a longer focal length lens over doing a single exposure with an ultra-wide-angle. Good discussion of the 20/1.8 and alternative techniques for astro in this thread:
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Figuring out how the FF lenses and your m43 kit will overlap or not is another thing to sort out of course!
Oh - and a heads up - dealing with high resolution FF cameras and optics means "lens variation" or "bad copies" is raised to another degree over m43. When you start dealing with some of the incredible performance FF primes now available that can be sharp into the extreme corners even wide open at 45 or 60MP things get really sensitive to even the smallest of misalignments in production or a bad test setup. So it can be hard to find a consistent opinion on any particular lens because each reviewer may be seeing slightly different performance from their particular copy under test. Nikon Z has not been immune to "bad copies" just like any other manufacturer and an astrophotograper shooting wide open star fields is going to notice slight "decentering" or tilt that a portrait photographer will never see.
Jacques Cornell
Forum Pro
I started doing this two years ago for the express purpose of no-flash event work in very dim environments. I still shoot MFT when I can keep ISO 3200 or below, but I use three Sony a7[x] bodies with primes when the light is dimmer than this.
I'm in the process of streamlining my kit. Been dithering over it for a year now, but am leaning toward designating MFT as my casual/personal ultralight outdoors kit and 35mm format as my high-rez/low-light kit.
As such, I've come to regard my a7RIII with 24-105/4 and f2 and f1.8 primes as the perfect complement to my GX8 and GX9 with itty-bitty (but sharp) 12-32/3.5-5.6 and 35-100/4.0-5.6 zooms. I'll probably keep my 20/1.7 just because it's so small and reasonably bright, but I'll likely sell my 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 zooms and 12/2, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 primes. Haven't decided yet about my 7-14/4 and 14-140.
A used a7RIII costs only $300 more than a used a7III, and the 42MP really differentiates it from MFT, whereas, IMHO, the a7III's IQ isn't' all that much greater than my GX9's. This is also part of the reason why I'm not drawn to Panasonic's S5, despite the fact that I much prefer Panasonic's ergonomics, controls and UI over Sony's. If there were a high-res version of the S5, I'd be sorely tempted to switch.
P.S.: Sony's a7RII makes a cheaper but great high-rez complement for shooting still subjects.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
Last edited:
You're raising an interesting point. I completely agree, exposure stacking, HHHR, and the various modes builtin to the Oly system really to do work. The trouble I've been having, though, is that those modes only take you so far. I'd love to get some captures of stormy lakescapes, for example, but wave motion comes out a mess with multiple exposures. And it doesn't help with the night sky.Right, which is why I said "[w]hether that's important to you or not is another story entirely,". If I was primarily shooting landscape, I might be concerned about the RP's sensor.I learned to look for good light. Sometimes it takes patience.I mean...no amount of exposing properly will allow the RP's sensor to capture the same amount of colour data as the m4/3 20 MP sensor or newer full frame cameras. Whether that's important to you or not is another story entirely.I won't argue the graph. I've seen comparisons of pushing shadows and recent m43 sensors are similar to the RP, but as you say that's not everything. Doesn't matter really if one knows what they are doing. I'm not buying my future cameras based one just one technical aspect that has not been a problem for me in a while, but I shot slide film for many years so I know how to handle this 'problem'.A minor correction, but the RP has a stop less DR than the 20 MP m4/3 sensor until ISO 800 and the same DR as the 16 MP sensor until around ISO 400. As for dynamic range, it's not just about pushing shadows. We haven't hit the point where we have reached what a human eye can see (10-14 stops at any given point in time). The more dynamic range, especially as ISOs climb, the better.
Typical post showing the great DR of some camera is in bright daylight with harsh shadows. Poster lifts shadows 5 stops and and thinks they have a good photo. They don't, they just did an experiment.
More of anything never hurts, but if more DR is the all important spec, then why use m43 cameras which overall have the worst DR in all of photography.
One could say all FF cameras are crap as MF camera have even more DR. At some point one has to use the camera as a tool and work within the limitations that are inherent in any tool.
As for the m4/3 comment, no, that is empirically not true. The DR on the m4/3 20 MP sensor is neck-and-neck with the best APS-C sensors from ISO 200 onward. Once you use HHHR or HR, it's not even close (m4/3 has more DR than non-pixel shifted FF at that point). Of all the mirrorless ILCs you can buy brand new today, the worst DR award for ISO 100 - 400 goes to the EOS RP or EOS M200. After ISO 400, it's the EOS M50 II.
So that's my interest in adding a second, larger format sensor to a kit that I'm otherwise quite happy with. It's not an overall replacement, just something to help with a wider range of lighting conditions and subjects.
While the RP looks like a decent camera, for those reason it wouldn't appear to match my needs as far as I can tell.
--
Jeff
jck_photos’s albums | Flickr
www.flickr.com
Very helpful. I had not really thought about the Rokinon 14, but makes great sense when coupled with the 14-30.
--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/
Last edited:
john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,441
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,913
My Rokinon is FX (as ws the 24, which is why there was a compatibility issue). But Rokinon have 14 and 28mm versions for Z mount now.
You seem to be drawn to the Nikon system - lots of landscape shooters are.
I forgot to mention sun stars earlier. If you like them, don’t forget to check your lens choices for flare and sun stars. Voigtländer and Zeiss tend to give the best sunstars.
I also find that micro-contrast (high frequency resolution) is more important than absolute best low frequency resolution.
The signature of my Loxia 21/2.8 is unmistakable just from a quick glance at an image.
Andrew
steveg_777
Well-known member
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 98
Canon EF makes tons of sense...
-very well built cameras with great iq
-cheap bodies and lenses. I got a 6D for <500 and very happy with it.
-can share lenses with MFT with cheap electrical adaptor
-very well built cameras with great iq
-cheap bodies and lenses. I got a 6D for <500 and very happy with it.
-can share lenses with MFT with cheap electrical adaptor
For landscape type stuff there are better solutions than the RP. I also have the R and would recommend it for that type of work (or if you're flush with cash the R5). If you read up on the R you'll still find some people harping on its DR. It is a tiny bit behind the latest Sony sensor cameras but with that model it is truly an insignificant amount. At 30MP it is a nice compromise of file size and resolution. Nice overall camera that can be found at good prices now. You'll also see some gripe about the touch bar control. Just ignore it. I have it set off on mine and it does not bother me at all.You're raising an interesting point. I completely agree, exposure stacking, HHHR, and the various modes builtin to the Oly system really to do work. The trouble I've been having, though, is that those modes only take you so far. I'd love to get some captures of stormy lakescapes, for example, but wave motion comes out a mess with multiple exposures. And it doesn't help with the night sky.Right, which is why I said "[w]hether that's important to you or not is another story entirely,". If I was primarily shooting landscape, I might be concerned about the RP's sensor.I learned to look for good light. Sometimes it takes patience.I mean...no amount of exposing properly will allow the RP's sensor to capture the same amount of colour data as the m4/3 20 MP sensor or newer full frame cameras. Whether that's important to you or not is another story entirely.I won't argue the graph. I've seen comparisons of pushing shadows and recent m43 sensors are similar to the RP, but as you say that's not everything. Doesn't matter really if one knows what they are doing. I'm not buying my future cameras based one just one technical aspect that has not been a problem for me in a while, but I shot slide film for many years so I know how to handle this 'problem'.A minor correction, but the RP has a stop less DR than the 20 MP m4/3 sensor until ISO 800 and the same DR as the 16 MP sensor until around ISO 400. As for dynamic range, it's not just about pushing shadows. We haven't hit the point where we have reached what a human eye can see (10-14 stops at any given point in time). The more dynamic range, especially as ISOs climb, the better.
Typical post showing the great DR of some camera is in bright daylight with harsh shadows. Poster lifts shadows 5 stops and and thinks they have a good photo. They don't, they just did an experiment.
More of anything never hurts, but if more DR is the all important spec, then why use m43 cameras which overall have the worst DR in all of photography.
One could say all FF cameras are crap as MF camera have even more DR. At some point one has to use the camera as a tool and work within the limitations that are inherent in any tool.
As for the m4/3 comment, no, that is empirically not true. The DR on the m4/3 20 MP sensor is neck-and-neck with the best APS-C sensors from ISO 200 onward. Once you use HHHR or HR, it's not even close (m4/3 has more DR than non-pixel shifted FF at that point). Of all the mirrorless ILCs you can buy brand new today, the worst DR award for ISO 100 - 400 goes to the EOS RP or EOS M200. After ISO 400, it's the EOS M50 II.
So that's my interest in adding a second, larger format sensor to a kit that I'm otherwise quite happy with. It's not an overall replacement, just something to help with a wider range of lighting conditions and subjects.
While the RP looks like a decent camera, for those reason it wouldn't appear to match my needs as far as I can tell.
For lenses, the RF 24-105 4L IS is a great all around lens. Very versatile and really has no big weakness at any focal length. I've had almost every high end m43 standard zoom and this lens is a noticeable upgrade over any of them. I've also had some EF L standard zoom lenses and the RF lens is still better. Here's a couple of good real world type reviews.
Review: Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - Admiring Light
Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Review - DustinAbbott.net
The highest praise I can give this lens is that I feel very confidant going out with a camera and just this lens. The combo of IQ and versatility is hard to beat.
If you like to shoot UWA I'd look for a used EF 16-35 4L IS and use it on an adapter. Very good lens. For reference I also have the PL 8-18 for my m43 setup and while I actually really like that lens, the EF lens on the R or RP is a noticeable upgrade.
Also keep in mind that any EF lens works on any R camera just as good as they did on DSLRs. Lots of high quality EF used glass available at good prices. This may be one of the best strengths of the R system, especially for a camera you don't use all the time. I use a couple of lenses adapted and have zero complaints.
Nothing wrong with Sony, Nikon or Panasonic. It is easier to overlook some shortcomings in an occasional use camera. The Z5 is nice for the price point.
No real bad choices in FF cameras today. Folks dismissing the RP here haven't used it and really don't appreciate its intended role. There are better options for landscape, but I'd still take my RP over any m43 camera for that type of work just to give it some perspective. I have a G9 that can do high res and I appreciate that but as you know it has limitations.
Good luck.
--
Jonathan
DLBlack
Forum Pro
A lot of landscape photographers that are use to the large depth of field with MFT has found the need to focus stack their FF photos.
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,174
- Reaction score
- 4,677
I agree with you up to here. I will preface what I am about to say with the statement that I really like the RP. I think Canon has nailed the ergonomics, usability and general liveability of that camera. I spent a lot of time renting full frame cameras before I ended up with the Z7.
However, if you're near base ISO and are fine with the 4:3 aspect ratio, the m4/3 bodies give you better output than the RP for landscape. That's before going into pixel shifting or shooting handheld, assuming the situation allows (e.g., not a lot of wind, etc.).
M43 cams can be fantastic for landscape especially combined with high res modes.
Remember that an OMD EM1 III and 12-100mm can take a 50mp image at F4 , hand held, no tripod, in low light at 1 second or more exposure at low ISO, with DOF equivalent to F8 on FF.
This is impossible with a FF camera.
i watched this happen with a friend while my D810 was on a tripod. The hand held OMD image was sharp and had more resolution.
Remember that an OMD EM1 III and 12-100mm can take a 50mp image at F4 , hand held, no tripod, in low light at 1 second or more exposure at low ISO, with DOF equivalent to F8 on FF.
This is impossible with a FF camera.
i watched this happen with a friend while my D810 was on a tripod. The hand held OMD image was sharp and had more resolution.
I'm not sure if you've read my other notes, but generally I agree with this. The problem I'm trying to address is when the multi-exposure strategies ... which otherwise a great feature of the Oly systems ... can't handle motion in the image, or gather the extra light needed for dark skys. So that's the part I'm trying to fix with a selective addition to an m43 that I'm otherwise very happy with.
I've got the R and RP so the RP tends to be for more casual use but I really see no big advantage to m43 over my RP other than if I am able to use the high res mode of my G9. People always think landscape is shot at base ISO. That is sometimes not the case. If there is any wind you have to bump up the SS and ISO to keep motion under control. Higher ISO on the RP is miles ahead of my G9. At base ISO my G9 may have an edge, but its probably small and I have shot them enough to know as the ISO climbs the RP is much better than the G9. So maybe either one possibly can produce better output given the circumstances. If I have a tripod and nothing is moving the G9 and high res definitely wins but that's a couple of of IFs that often don't materialize.
It's really not worth a lot of worrying if technically the lowest model FF camera model is better than m43 when any model outside of the RP will easily win the contest and the RP may also win given the exact circumstances.
If the OP just wanted a good all around FF mirrorless I still whole heartedly recommend the RP. Seems he wants it just for landscape type stuff so in that case he's better off going a step up the FF ladder for more differentiation from what he already has.
I came close to buying into the Z system but they only had the original Z6/7 then and I didn't want to deal with a different card format and already had some EF lenses so that sealed the deal for the R (got the RP later). The Z system is nice and the Z5 is probably the best budget FF camera right now. Overall I really liked the Z cameras and their physical layout, especially the tilting screen which I greatly prefer.
Just took a look at B&H. They have a 14/2.8 from Rokinon and also one from Samyang for a little more money. Is there a reason to prefer one over the other?
To be perfectly honest, my thinking has been drifting between Canon and Nikon, and even GFXs, so I've researched these the most. I really have no reason to prefer any one brand over another, just try to make an informed choice taking advantage of any experience on this forum.
I'm old enough to know better than have brand loyalty. The only loyalty I have is restricted to spouse, dogs, kids and grandkids, everyone else needs to be on notice.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum