100-300: is the OIS this bad??

[luisflorit]

If you do 100% pixel-peeping you are effectively using digital zoom, which means an increase of the crop-factor. For example if you watch a picture from the GH2 on a FullHD-screen at 100% you get an effective focal-length of about 1600mm, so your rule of thumb results in a necessary shutter speed of 1/1600s, not 1/600s.

Interesting. Never thought in this way, but it does make perfect sense.

And 1/500s then will be about 2 stops too slow, and this is what you can expect from an IS-system, but not much more (I know manufacturers like to tell you 4 stops or even more improvement, but in reality no IS-system will give you much more than 2 stops)

You bet!

I also doubt you compared them correct, which would mean at the same output-size. The lower resolution of the FZ50 means images will look sharper when they are viewed at 100%.

This is not the problem. The E3 and the FZ50 have identical resolution (10MP). The E5 a bit more (12MP), but not enough to compensate for the much smaller FL. It is actually the opposite, the FZ50+TCON gives you more 'digital zoom', as you called it.

When the flash is the main-exposure the shutter-speed is irrelevant. You could shoot at 1/10s and the image still will be sharp. When light-levels are low and you use the flash exposure isn´t influenced (significantly) by the shutter-speed, the flash makes the exposure and it is very fast (estimated about 1/10000s)

I never use the flash as main source of light, because wildlife pictures come out horrible. I always try to hide it as much as I can.

A IS-system always can just react. So with shutter-speeds where camera-shake becomes significant there will always be some blurring. IS will decrease this blurring but it will not prevent it completely.

Of course.

Camera-shake will also be different in each photo, and an IS-system will increase your rate of usable photos, but it will never guarantee it, so in critical situations it is always best to shoot more pictures.

Yep. All wildlife shooters have learned the hard way that you always need to take as many pictures as you can.

Thanks!
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[luisflorit]

No, definetely not that bad at all...

I've only shot handheld with this lens so far... here's a few (mostly snapshots and fairly poor light, but you get the idea)

Nice pictures. I would need 1/160s, though. But I indeed "got the idea".

Thanks!
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[deep7]

This sounds pretty strange to me. The rule of thumb says that, at 600mm EFL, you should get sharp results at 1/600s without any stabilization. I use(d) my old Pany FZ50+TCON17 (714mm EFL) at 1/250s without any problem. I use E5 + 50-200 + EC14 at 560mm EFL @1/250s, although less reliably than the FZ50, still Ok. Yes, I found the FZ50 stabilization way more reliable than the Oly """"""pro"""""" setup, even at longer focal lengths (!!!?).

Then, how can the 100-300 OIS be so much worse than an old P&S of the same brand?

And there is another issue. As you read above, I wrote several times 1/250s. This number is important, since it is the fastest flash sync of all my cameas. In rainforests, with a non FF camera, flash is a must. But the GH2 has flash sync of 1/160s ($%%#@$#^!!!!), so I should have to shoot at 600mm EFL and 1/160s, with flash...

Thanks!

Cheers,
L.

-
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

I've got four things to add to this:

One - is the IS on your E5 working? On my E3, with the 50-200 at 200, 1/80 pretty much guarantees no camera shake with IS1 selected and it's even worth trying at 1/30 because I can get keepers that slow. Maybe my natural technique resonates well with the IS but I don't see why you need to shoot at 1/250, even allowing for a 1.4 converter.

Two - If you use the right flash, you can use high speed mode and have flash sync at a higher shutter speed, any speed you like in fact, on your E5. I'd be amazed if the GH2 didn't allow that.

Three - the 100-300 is a very slow lens for shooting in forests!

Four - I had a Panasonic 45-200 and the lens based anti-shake was pretty ineffective at longer focal lengths. Just 'cos a lens has it, doesn't mean it's particularly useful...
--
Don.

A Land Rover, a camera ... I'm happy!

 

[Peter Nelson]

Anders,

I get the feeling you do not understand the properties of a telephoto lens judging by your last question below.

"BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?"

So here is something I'm sure you will understand.

If you hand hold your camera/lens combo and take a photo of a small bird imobile at 25 feet distance with a 24mm lens at f/5.6 and ISO 100 using shutter speed of 1/100 sec. lens you will not see blur.

Now switch out your lens to an 800mm f/5.6 supertelephoto (OIS set to off), have the camera settings the exact same, f/5.6, ISO 100, Tv 1/100 and take another picture of the same imobile bird still 25 feet away while hand holding the camera/lens combo. The entire image will show blur, the grass and the bird. Ask yourself how could this be?
Think on what changes you made and how that change effect image sharpness.

Hint: what are the properties of an supertelepho 800mm lens and what are the properties of a 24mm wide angle lens?
If you are unable to figure this out I suggest you read up on it.

I really hope you do some reading as it's no supprise to me how many uneducated in photography consumers belong to this web site.
You are not alone, you fit the dpr mold very well.
-Peter

Subject movement is the culprit more times than not. IS does nothing for subject movement. Sometimes even 1/4000 of a second isn't enough at the extreme telephoto lengths the GH2 can obtain.

IS is not a cure all. In fact most of the time it really isn't helping you at all.

I think most of us are already well aware that camera shake is not the only source of blur. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with what you say. Unless you are a dedicated action shooter or carry a tripod wherever you go, camera shake is a very significant source of blur, and IS helps a lot (provided it works as intended). It is particularly helpful for long teles where camera shake rather than subject motion often determines how far down you can go in terms of shutter speed.

BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[luisflorit]

Luis,

I covered some of this subject in this thread - which may be useful.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=38013476

I feel that my EPL-1 and 100 - 300mm combo are less forgiving of bad holding technique.

I cannot even think about myself using your combo. I am sure I would be unable to handhold it even at 1/600s. I love EVFs, and this is in fact one of the main reasons why I am planing to switch. The LCD of my GH2 would be almost always facing inwards.

I am now much more discipled in how I hold the camera and I have bought an VF-2, both have substantially enhanced the value of this lens to me.

No surprise at all. And I would expect that a GH1/2 would rise your keepers rate even more.

I also think that while sharp is good, looking for for absolute sharpness at 100% pixel peeping is not the way to go as animal shots can look 'too digital' by over sharpening.

Mmmm... certainly not my feeling. For me, lens+camera sharpness and fine detail are never enough, specially for wildlife, although certainly not for portraits. Of course oversharpening in PPing is always quite awful, but that is something completely different.

Thanks!
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[EXR]

Your logic totally ignores the fact that camera shake is not the only thing that causes blurry photos. Subject movement is the culprit more times than not. IS does nothing for subject movement. Sometimes even 1/4000 of a second isn't enough at the extreme telephoto lengths the GH2 can obtain.

Subject-movement is independent of the focal-length. If 1/200s will be enough to freeze subject-movement it will be enough at 100mm and at 300mm. (Of course always assuming your subject will be the same size on the final picture.

 

[453C]

Three - the 100-300 is a very slow lens for shooting in forests!

Luis, it sounds like you're a candidate for the native "pro" lenses some m43 users have been asking for. A faster, weather sealed lens would seem a better match for your use, but none exist yet.

Have you looked into any non-system lenses? If you don't need AF or zoom, a faster telephoto prime in this FL range might be the way to go. I'm one of the derided novices around here, so someone else will have to make specific recommendations. Maybe there's a few 300mm prime options that would give you the speed and IQ you're after, but without having too much of a size & weight penalty.

 

[luisflorit]

One - is the IS on your E5 working?

Exactly in the same way as my E3.

On my E3, with the 50-200 at 200, 1/80 pretty much guarantees no camera shake with IS1 selected and it's even worth trying at 1/30 because I can get keepers that slow. Maybe my natural technique resonates well with the IS but I don't see why you need to shoot at 1/250, even allowing for a 1.4 converter.

Well, perhaps it depends on our subjects. My birds are always tiny, so I always crop a lot. It's not only the 1.4 TC (or the 2.0TC that I also use frequently). Sometimes, I even end up with a final picture that is a 100% crop yet not filling 1/4 of the screen monitor. So much that a 50-200 is completely useless for me without a TC.

It also depends on how picky we are. And I am extremely picky...

And, as you said, it also depends how stable we hold our cameras, of course.

Two - If you use the right flash, you can use high speed mode and have flash sync at a higher shutter speed, any speed you like in fact, on your E5. I'd be amazed if the GH2 didn't allow that.

Yep, I know. Oly calls it "FP mode". But then you end up with a much weaker flash, and one that recycles quite slowly. Two absolute killer problems for a wildlife shooter, so much that I never use the FP mode.

Three - the 100-300 is a very slow lens for shooting in forests!

Well, my 50-200+EC1.4 is F4.9 @ 283mm, while the 100-300 is F5.6. The better high ISO of the GH2 relative to the E5 will compensate this easily.

Of course a 300 F2.8 would be better. But have you walked in rainforests with such a lens for 6, 7 or more hours? I'm not a strong man... that is not an option for me, unfortunately.

Four - I had a Panasonic 45-200 and the lens based anti-shake was pretty ineffective at longer focal lengths. Just 'cos a lens has it, doesn't mean it's particularly useful...

MMm... not a good sign...

Thanks!

Cheers,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[453C]

Your logic totally ignores the fact that camera shake is not the only thing that causes blurry photos. Subject movement is the culprit more times than not. IS does nothing for subject movement. Sometimes even 1/4000 of a second isn't enough at the extreme telephoto lengths the GH2 can obtain.

Subject-movement is independent of the focal-length. If 1/200s will be enough to freeze subject-movement it will be enough at 100mm and at 300mm. (Of course always assuming your subject will be the same size on the final picture.

Is it completely independent?

Based on personal observations, longer FLs magnify the image and the subject's perceived movement, which is why it can be difficult to keep a shot framed properly at long FL. The true distance between the sensor and subject may not change, but as FL increases, the relative, observed movement, and the speed of the subject's movement, does change.

Sounds like something I'll have to read up on, as was suggested from on high.

 

[julieng]

BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?

Without going into exact numbers and formula:
A) at distance x, a pixel will represent y square units of area on 14mm equiv.
B) at distance x, a pixel will represent z square units of area on 800mm equiv.
C) Everything else being equal, z

The wider the angle, the more tolerant to movements, shakes and slow shutter speed.

 

[Anders W]

The rule of thumb is from old times, when people viewed their photos on paper. The rule of thumb means an acceptable sharpness at typical sizes, not pixel-peeping on 16MP-images.

If you do 100% pixel-peeping you are effectively using digital zoom, which means an increase of the crop-factor. For example if you watch a picture from the GH2 on a FullHD-screen at 100% you get an effective focal-length of about 1600mm, so your rule of thumb results in a necessary shutter speed of 1/1600s, not 1/600s.

And 1/500s then will be about 2 stops too slow, and this is what you can expect from an IS-system, but not much more (I know manufacturers like to tell you 4 stops or even more improvement, but in reality no IS-system will give you much more than 2 stops)

Have you ever worked in a darkroom with an enlarger and a loupe? I have, and I can assure you that my standards for sharpness were just as high 40 years ago as they are today. The old 1/FL rule (which translates to 1/2xFL for m43) is still a perfectly good one (without IS) for a person with average steadiness. Of course, it does not guarantee that you get it right every time. It merely gives you decent odds.

A reasonably good IS system gives you the same decent odds two stops below the level given by the standard rule. With my current Pentax K100D in-body IS, for example, I have a fair chance of nailing it at 1/125 and 300 mm, which is roughly two stops below the value given by the 1/1.5xFL rule appropriate for APS-C. The best lens-based systems can give you a bit more than that, between 3 and 4 stops. And this is not based on marketing hype. It has been tested statistically. Look for example at the lens reviews published by Lenstip.

What the OP as well as I want to know is simply how the 100-300 performs in this respect. Is it worse than the two stops you would expect at the minimum? Is it in line with that expectation? Is it better? That's all there is to it really.

No surprise. The FZ50 has a central shutter, µ4/3 has a focal-plane-shutter which will inevitable induce some shake. With DSLRs it is much worse the mirror + shutter will create even more shake.

It is well-known that the mirror may induce a small amount of shake (unless you put it up in advance as you preferably should when working on a tripod). But that a focal-plane shatter would create the same kind of problems, and do so to a greater extent than a central (leaf) shutter is news to me. Do you have an authoritative source for this? If so, please let me know where I can find it.

When the flash is the main-exposure the shutter-speed is irrelevant. You could shoot at 1/10s and the image still will be sharp. When light-levels are low and you use the flash exposure isn´t influenced (significantly) by the shutter-speed, the flash makes the exposure and it is very fast (estimated about 1/10000s)

When you are using the flash in daylight, especially with a lens like this which implies some subject distance, you will in practice have a mix of flash- and daylight (unless you are doing real macro work). So the OPs concern is certainly relevant.

The OIS is good (at least I expect it to be, I don´t have the lens, but I have never seen a Panasonic-lens with bad IS)
The problems are the expectations of some people.

How do you know that the problem is with the expectations of me and other people rather than the lens, particularly since you don't have a shred of directly relevant evidence to go by. We already knew that the OIS was good on previous Panasonic lenses. What we want to know now is whether the 100-300 is an exception or not.

A IS-system always can just react. So with shutter-speeds where camera-shake becomes significant there will always be some blurring. IS will decrease this blurring but it will not prevent it completely.

The farther you are away from the needed shutter-speed to prevent blur, the bigger the difference will be.

Camera-shake will also be different in each photo, and an IS-system will increase your rate of usable photos, but it will never guarantee it, so in critical situations it is always best to shoot more pictures.

The next thing is, that especially with long focal-lengths there are several environment-influences that will prevent photos from being sharp in 100%-view. There is always dust in the air and when you shoot over long distances, the dust will "accumulate" and cause the picture to be soft.

What else is new?

 

[luisflorit]

Three - the 100-300 is a very slow lens for shooting in forests!

Luis, it sounds like you're a candidate for the native "pro" lenses some m43 users have been asking for. A faster, weather sealed lens would seem a better match for your use,

You bet!! I would be extremely happy with a 300 or even 350mm F4 lens, even weighting 1.5kg or so. Yet, sensor technology will certainly improve and make this less important, since you will be able to shoot at higher ISOs. I think in the future we will have 300mm F5.6 lenses costing $2,000.00 or even more, but with outstanding optics.

but none exist yet.

Yeah... that's a problem, isn't it...

Have you looked into any non-system lenses? If you don't need AF or zoom,

Zoom is important, but not a must. Now, AF is indeed a must for wildlife.

a faster telephoto prime in this FL range might be the way to go. I'm one of the derided novices around here, so someone else will have to make specific recommendations. Maybe there's a few 300mm prime options that would give you the speed and IQ you're after, but without having too much of a size & weight penalty.

There are two options that I already considered: Canon and Nikon 300mm F4. But none has AF in m43rds. Nikon lens does not even have IS. This is why I have not ruled out the possibility of a 7D + 300F4 + TC1.4, or 100-400. But I don't like OVFs, and I do believe that mirrorless is the future.

Thanks,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[timiano]

Using the 100-300 @ 1/100

I find at 1/100, the keeper rate is satisfactory, but it requires good technique. At 1/250 the keeper rate requires considerably less technique.





I don't know too many wildlife togs that shoot 600mm completely unstabilised - although most 600mm lenses weigh a tonne to be fair.

 

[Anders W]

I get the feeling you do not understand the properties of a telephoto lens judging by your last question below.

"BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?"

So here is something I'm sure you will understand.

If you hand hold your camera/lens combo and take a photo of a small bird imobile at 25 feet distance with a 24mm lens at f/5.6 and ISO 100 using shutter speed of 1/100 sec. lens you will not see blur.

Now switch out your lens to an 800mm f/5.6 supertelephoto (OIS set to off), have the camera settings the exact same, f/5.6, ISO 100, Tv 1/100 and take another picture of the same imobile bird still 25 feet away while hand holding the camera/lens combo. The entire image will show blur, the grass and the bird. Ask yourself how could this be?
Think on what changes you made and how that change effect image sharpness.

Hint: what are the properties of an supertelepho 800mm lens and what are the properties of a 24mm wide angle lens?
If you are unable to figure this out I suggest you read up on it.

I really hope you do some reading as it's no supprise to me how many uneducated in photography consumers belong to this web site.
You are not alone, you fit the dpr mold very well.
-Peter

Subject movement is the culprit more times than not. IS does nothing for subject movement. Sometimes even 1/4000 of a second isn't enough at the extreme telephoto lengths the GH2 can obtain.

IS is not a cure all. In fact most of the time it really isn't helping you at all.

I think most of us are already well aware that camera shake is not the only source of blur. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with what you say. Unless you are a dedicated action shooter or carry a tripod wherever you go, camera shake is a very significant source of blur, and IS helps a lot (provided it works as intended). It is particularly helpful for long teles where camera shake rather than subject motion often determines how far down you can go in terms of shutter speed.

BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Peter,

I think you missed one important word in the question I asked mpgxsvcd, although I underlined it. I said subject motion. I did not say camera shake, or effects of camera shake, which will of course increase with increasing focal length. I let others judge which of us better fit this or that DPR stereotype.

 

[tinternaut]

Regarding the effectiveness of OIS at the long end of this lens?

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

 

[Anders W]

BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?

Without going into exact numbers and formula:
A) at distance x, a pixel will represent y square units of area on 14mm equiv.
B) at distance x, a pixel will represent z square units of area on 800mm equiv.
C) Everything else being equal, z

The wider the angle, the more tolerant to movements, shakes and slow shutter speed.

Like Peter Nelson, I think you overlooked that I said subject motion, although I underlined the word. If I shoot a person walking by 5 meters away from me with a 50 mm lens, the shutter speed I will need to freeze the action will, to my knowledge, be exactly the same as if I shoot the same person walking by 20 meters away from me using a 200 mm lens. The shutter speed I will need to avoid blur due to camera shake, by contrast, will differ (shorter for the 200 than for the 50). As EXR has already pointed out, the shutter speed required to freeze action of a subject at a given magnification is independent of the shutter speed required to eliminate blur due to camera shake.

 

[luisflorit]

If you do 100% pixel-peeping you are effectively using digital zoom, which means an increase of the crop-factor. For example if you watch a picture from the GH2 on a FullHD-screen at 100% you get an effective focal-length of about 1600mm, so your rule of thumb results in a necessary shutter speed of 1/1600s, not 1/600s.

Anyway, independently of all this, the only thing I want to know is how effective the 100-300 OIS is compared to other lenses of similar FL of other manufacturers. I can handhold a 600mm EFL way below 1/600s.

Thanks,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[RicksAstro]

I get the feeling you do not understand the properties of a telephoto lens judging by your last question below.

"BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?"

So here is something I'm sure you will understand.

If you hand hold your camera/lens combo and take a photo of a small bird imobile at 25 feet distance with a 24mm lens at f/5.6 and ISO 100 using shutter speed of 1/100 sec. lens you will not see blur.

Now switch out your lens to an 800mm f/5.6 supertelephoto (OIS set to off), have the camera settings the exact same, f/5.6, ISO 100, Tv 1/100 and take another picture of the same imobile bird still 25 feet away while hand holding the camera/lens combo. The entire image will show blur, the grass and the bird. Ask yourself how could this be?
Think on what changes you made and how that change effect image sharpness.

Hint: what are the properties of an supertelepho 800mm lens and what are the properties of a 24mm wide angle lens?
If you are unable to figure this out I suggest you read up on it.

I really hope you do some reading as it's no supprise to me how many uneducated in photography consumers belong to this web site.
You are not alone, you fit the dpr mold very well.
-Peter

Subject movement is the culprit more times than not. IS does nothing for subject movement. Sometimes even 1/4000 of a second isn't enough at the extreme telephoto lengths the GH2 can obtain.

IS is not a cure all. In fact most of the time it really isn't helping you at all.

I think most of us are already well aware that camera shake is not the only source of blur. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with what you say. Unless you are a dedicated action shooter or carry a tripod wherever you go, camera shake is a very significant source of blur, and IS helps a lot (provided it works as intended). It is particularly helpful for long teles where camera shake rather than subject motion often determines how far down you can go in terms of shutter speed.

BTW: Why would shorter shutter speeds (even shorter than 1/4000) be required to stop subject motion with "extreme telephoto lengths" than with shorter focal lengths?

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Peter,

I think you missed one important word in the question I asked mpgxsvcd, although I underlined it. I said subject motion. I did not say camera shake, or effects of camera shake, which will of course increase with increasing focal length. I let others judge which of us better fit this or that DPR stereotype.

Absolute subject motion will actually be more magnified with a telephoto as well. If a bird moves 1/8", this will translate to 33x the number of pixels of blur with an 800mm vs a 24mm lens FROM THE SAME DISTANCE. Of course, if you were able to move such that the subject subtends the same # of pixels with each lens, then you are of course correct.

--
Rick Krejci
http://www.ricksastro.com

 

[luisflorit]

Nice shot, probably better to what I would expect from me at 1/100s. Then, perhaps, 1/160s would be ok for me, at least if we have more or less the same steadiness.

Thanks,
L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photos



Oly E5 + E3 + 12-60 + 50-200 + EC14 + FL50R
Pany FZ50 + Oly FL50 + TCON17 + Raynox 150 & 250

 

[453C]

OK, non-system lenses won't AF for you, so that's that.

How about using some support with the 100-300? I know you don't want to drag a tripod along, but would a monopod work for you?

For example, I added a MagMount mini-ball head to a trekking pole (the grip is a self-arresting device). Something like that provides useful support, and the MagMount is very fast to engage. I'm sure there are other lightweight monopod options that may work better - my Frankenpod is a little short. If you think that type of support and shooting wouldn't spoil a good walk in the woods, it might get you by until someone makes the right m43 lens for you.