M43 vs canon apsc

HeyItsJoel wrote:

MShot wrote:

For short reach only, I think I'd lean ASP-C or FF. For short and long, or long only, MFT is the only way for me.

Interesting. I'm the opposite of this mindset. For long, I'd reach for the FF since it yields better bokeh (portraits) and better resolution for cropping (landscapes). For short reach, APS-C is fine.

The problem with FF long reach is weight. For landscapes, I suppose it could work if not carried too far.  But for and kind of hiking, especially wildlife where I am tromping around for hours and holding focus for minutes (or more) at a time to get the right shot, it just doesn't work for me.  But then I'm not some young guy with ripping biceps...
By the way, I am  happy with the bokeh of my m43 lenses.  Particularly the PL100-400. See below.

MShot wrote:

Very nice. I thought it had to be a restaurant at the beach. It would have been a lot of work to set up lights on an empty beach though I'm sure it's been done.

I like the 40-150PRO so much I just bought the 12-40. I'm holding on to the Rokinon 12 f/2 MF until I can try the 12-40. I suspect .8 will not make much of a difference, but I might keep the Rokinon because it's lighter.

I have the 17 f/2.8, bought before faster primes were available. I like it though I'm thinking of buying the f/1.8, might keep the f/2.8 though because its fast enough sometimes and its a pancake.

Really nice that you can do this hand held with confidence. Thanks for sharing the photo.

Nice thing about the 17mm f/1.8, it's a fairly low cost lens. $500 base price but often with a $100 discount and I got a further $50 off at a show. That was an impulse buy but am very glad I did.  Right now, it's only got $50 off. There is a similar Panasonic one - 15mm f/1.7 that people seem to like a bit better but it's $600 and not discounted as much or often (right now it's $50 off).

HeyItsJoel wrote:

phil from seattle wrote:

HeyItsJoel wrote:

MShot wrote:

For short reach only, I think I'd lean ASP-C or FF. For short and long, or long only, MFT is the only way for me.

Interesting. I'm the opposite of this mindset. For long, I'd reach for the FF since it yields better bokeh (portraits) and better resolution for cropping (landscapes). For short reach, APS-C is fine.

The problem with FF long reach is weight. For landscapes, I suppose it could work if not carried too far. But for and kind of hiking, especially wildlife where I am tromping around for hours and holding focus for minutes (or more) at a time to get the right shot, it just doesn't work for me. But then I'm not some young guy with ripping biceps...
By the way, I am happy with the bokeh of my m43 lenses. Particularly the PL100-400. See below.

If you're happy with that bokeh, great.

That strikes me as an odd shot to choose if you're trying to criticize the bokeh. There's nothing particularly egregious going on there. It's normally an issue if there are branches immediately behind your subject that are really distracting, but that's not the case in this shot, it's just a textural blur...

tough crowd.

MShot wrote:

And reasonable detail at 420mm cropped to 2225X1884 for my purposes. Camera, lens and TC weighs less than FF 100-400 zoom lens by itself and is easily hand held as this shot was.

Of course, your setup is half the FL of his. With the TC it's 56-210. If you want to call yours 420mm, you need to call his 800mm.

Nice shot though.

phil from seattle wrote:

tough crowd.

Wow, super sharp.

I'm often disappointed with the results I see with the 100-400, but then there are shots that blow me away, too.

It's almost like people are using completely different lenses.

Do you use a tripod when shooting at extreme FLs like this to ensure pixel-level sharpness?

Androole wrote:

phil from seattle wrote:

tough crowd.

Wow, super sharp.

I'm often disappointed with the results I see with the 100-400, but then there are shots that blow me away, too.

It's almost like people are using completely different lenses.

Do you use a tripod when shooting at extreme FLs like this to ensure pixel-level sharpness?

Thanks.

Hand held shot. Doan need no steekin tripod! The tripod is just too much of an encumbrance for me.

I think the biggest problem with long lenses is getting the focus point right. When the target is less than 1/4 the frame size, it's really easy to be off by just a bit. And, animals don't exactly pose for you either. The EM1.2 recently got a "small point" focus FW update and that has helped me with some shots.  Though the one above was close enough that even the older big-fat-focus points would have done ok too. But, for every good shot, I have a LOT that aren't razor sharp.

Schweet! Love that f/4. I would have had to push the ISO with the PL100-400 to get a good enough exposure. It looks like it was pretty dark.  My combo weights 3.5 lbs, I bet your EM5+40-150+TC comes in at less than that.

MShot wrote:

And reasonable detail at 420mm cropped to 2225X1884 for my purposes. Camera, lens and TC weighs less than FF 100-400 zoom lens by itself and is easily hand held as this shot was.

MShot wrote:

Half of who's? It is in fact 420mm in FF format. I am not competing or comparing with anybody, but simply presenting what the possibilities are in M43 and 16MP.

My bad. I saw 100-400 and you were replying to someone who had shown a picture with the PL 100-400, so I got confused. Didn't see the FF that you put there.

Every shot is an individual presentation. No two are the same. I actually prefer bird photos that are less sharp and detailed. I don't have the skill to make them.

Somebody sent me a few pages of the photo contest winning January-February issue of National Wildlife. Not one of the winning photos had anywhere near the detail of the image I posted. They didn't have much detail at all.

They are sharp at color transitions, but soft overall, and they are better than any photo I've ever taken. They represent the best of choice of subject, time, light, scene, action, message, meaning.

I know exactly what you mean, I'm not good enough either. Although I did get lucky once, I took 100 pictures and had one that turned out OK:

That was taken with Pentax APS-C, not 4/3. At full size it's blurry as heck, and the WB was completely off before I fixed it. Naturally it's cropped.

We spend too much time debating technical gear merits as if photography is a lab test.

Debating gear is SO much easier than putting in the time and effort to develop skills and put yourself in the proper place and time to get the shot. That takes real commitment.

All formats from 1" and smaller, to FF make great images to base a finished product on. The best finished products I see are made by the artists who massage the light after they make the image.

I made a mess of some shots that accidently turned into art by fooling around with them in post. I wish I understood what I did and could replicate it.

The endless format debating can be interesting, is interesting, but in the end, it isn't the format that creates the image. Its the photographer who takes the photo and knows how to post process. Great photos usually don't come straight out of the camera. They are not great because they are the most technically perfect.

Well said.

rashid7 wrote:

i think I'm w/ u here, but i would put more emphasis upon the countless hrs required to "get lucky' with light & SUBJECT (Vs PP)

It's not just any old hours either. You need to be in the right place at the right time, and those places and times often aren't convenient. If you have any kind of life outside of photography you may find it nearly impossible to get those memorable shots.

Dr_Jon wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Dr_Jon wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

...

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20M5,Canon%20EOS%20M6,Canon%20EOS%20M50,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M10

Sonsor is not THAT much bigger (it's no FF anyhow) and if sensor readout is less than perfect, the APSC "advantage" is gone ...

Although remember DR is the noise in the dark shadows, the noise you'll see most of the time is the noise that comes in with the light, and that's just down to how much light you collect, so basically goes with sensor size.

While your statement is basically correct, the figure above already contains both

• read noise caused by the sensor electronics
• and photon noise, which you are referring to.

Therefore, if E-M10's overall noise behavior is better at ISO400, this tells alot about sensor readout weakness in Canons sonsor. The photon-advantage is lost completely ...

The case is even better for mFT if you take a high end model like E-M1 mark II. Results show that it might be better to look for good sensor tech instead of "sensor bigness":

E-M1 II dynamic range versus EOS M

How does it usefully contain the shot noise, as unlike the read noise the shot noise varies (as a % of signal, also less usefully absolutely) with light intensity? (Really asking.)

Bill would be the best to answer this. He has some background infos on his web site if you want to dive deeper ...

Anyhow, I went through the procedure with my EM5 ii and can give some response.

The DR-test is using a test chart with patches of different brightness for every ISO level. Additionally -as far as I remember- it is done at various exposure times. There are some mathematics behind, at the end Bill can extract different numbers like read noise, shot noise and DR.

I have very much confidence in his procedure, the numbers calculated for my cam where very accurately in sync with those from another camera sample and quite exactly as expected compared to other 16MP Sony sensors.