M43 Musings

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 understand your dilemna regarding low light and the need for higher ISO's to boost shutter speeds.

Here downunder we are fortunate to have plenty of days of good light and when it is poor then use the option of "don't bother" for bird photography, particularly when using m4/3 bodies.

I rarely go above ISO 1600 on my E-M1 for birding as the balance between noise/detail is difficult to achieve.

However with your DSLR gear you at least have the situation covered, so all good. 

How about sharing a few of those brilliant  ISO 6400-12,800 bird images!

Cheers

Dennis

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 have no experience on the Tamron 15-600, but according to DPR here, it would not be an ideal lenses from 150mm onward and have to stop down to f/8 for best result. Would it really deliver the quality satisfying your need? I would buy your points if faster and sharper lens (but would be huge for handheld in FF land) be used? If DPR is correct, I would keep 150 at f/2.8 @3200 on M43 than 150 at f/8 @ 25600 on FF. As an old school boy I always have reservation on whether these superzooms could really deliver the quality or just the reach + cost saving?

Might the forthcoming 300 and 100-400 be a M43 answer to your need but prepare for the size and cost.

I agree winter light-levels can be difficult in the UK,

I am fortunate that I live within easy reach of my local coast, so I tend to spend much of my free time there during winter....where the light-levels tend to be a stop or two higher.

My present g6's are very similar to my old dslr, regarding the max iso that I am prepared to go to....usually 400iso, and 800iso as a last resort.

I personally do very little hand-held photography {just the occasional bif...using my dslr}, so I am reasonably comfortable using medium/slow shutter speeds of maybe 1/60sec as a minimum via my monopod or tripod {these type of shutter speeds were very common for me during my slide-shooting days...due to 50asa>100asa use, or 400asa max with b&w}.

If shooting inland during winter, I tend to spend my time in moorland/marsh/scrub habitats, so the light-levels are not too bad {compared to wooded area's}....although the sun rarely rises above my local hills in winter, so the light is often quite bland.

The reality for me is that telephoto lens speed is a much higher priority, than camera/lens weight....partly for the above reasons.

For the last few years I have become almost entirely dedicated to wildlife video though, and therefore UK winter light-levels have become far less restrictive for me, due to video shutter speed requirements.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All the best Andrew and long winded, but an interesting one you bring up.

Danny.

I am not sure it is an either/or situation. Just use the best tool for the job. If that means two cameras so be it.

Birders are a special breed in photography, as they are always attempting the near-impossible and thus are always pushing the technical envelope of photography. Thankfully, they buy a LOT of the most expensive gear, so the manufacturers pay attention to them and try to keep up with the demands.

The very idea of shooting small and fast BIFs was unheard of until just a few years ago. Almost nobody could do this with anything other than the grainiest film and early DSLRs were incompetent at the task. But, better sensors came along, with longer, faster AF lenses.

so now, the rest of us can actually shoot our non moving subjects in near darkness, while the birders complain that their images are just a tad grainy if they use crop sensors under overcast skies. Boo hoo, but it won't be long until they get their wish for a 1000mm lens on a teeny body which can do the job.

At that point, I suspect we will see a demand for a camera which can shoot BIFANs (bats in flight at night).

Thank you, birders.

Being a dual system user makes perfect sense.

M4/3 (or any system based on a cropped sensor) will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage to full frame systems. Sure, cropped sensors will get better in the future, but so will full frame sensors, and they will always be four times larger than a 4/3 sensor. So using two systems makes perfect sense. For you.

The "birder's dilemma" is that they often need very fast shutter speed in sometimes bad light, and full frame DSLRs can do this. But this comes at a high cost in terms of size, weight, and price. It means you need to spend serious money, you need to use a substantial tripod, and you might even need help carrying your gear around.

Something like this really works well in these circumstances...

Using ANY crop sensor system will be a compromise. But that is what separates amateurs from pros. We amateurs make compromises. The pros can't afford to.

...that's why I also keep a full frame DSLR for wildlife, sports and landscapes.

The EM1 is great for many things.

maljo

I do agree with you. I was out taking BIF on a rainy day. I had to up my iso to 1600, the lens 40-150 f4.0 plus 1
4xTC was wide open at f4.o and the shutter speed was 1/1000. I just don't see owning a lens slower than f4.0 for what I use long lenses for. I will be pre-ordering the 300 f4.0 when I can.

I am hoping the next generation of sensors will give us a more useful higher iso. Right now my upper iso limit is 1600. I have read that the new sensor in the GX8 is slightly better. So there is hope.

Dave
--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

The GX8 review I read (just yesterday, seeing all the "GX8 $899 posts") mentioned several times the ISO performance, so that may be an option to test/rent/buy.

Jim Salvas wrote:

Birders are a special breed in photography, as they are always attempting the near-impossible and thus are always pushing the technical envelope of photography. Thankfully, they buy a LOT of the most expensive gear, so the manufacturers pay attention to them and try to keep up with the demands.

The very idea of shooting small and fast BIFs was unheard of until just a few years ago. Almost nobody could do this with anything other than the grainiest film and early DSLRs were incompetent at the task. But, better sensors came along, with longer, faster AF lenses.

so now, the rest of us can actually shoot our non moving subjects in near darkness, while the birders complain that their images are just a tad grainy if they use crop sensors under overcast skies. Boo hoo, but it won't be long until they get their wish for a 1000mm lens on a teeny body which can do the job.

At that point, I suspect we will see a demand for a camera which can shoot BIFANs (bats in flight at night).

Thank you, birders.

So I looked at your DPR gallery. Don't sweat it mate, you don't need to worry about it

Danny.

Most would overlook the fact that an E-M1, says can shoot at ISO-1600 instead of ISO-6400 with FF, because of the E-M1 IBIS. Individual set up may vary but what I am saying is the gain, in less grain or noise from going higher ISO with FF, is now not any better than m43 at ISO-1600 due to 2-stop rise in ISO.