Tempted to enter MFT system for sports and action photography

CBR1100XX wrote:

Before I write up about m43 I gotta ask is the 70-200 the big part you're having issues with? How's the 24-70 for you in terms of weight? Because looking over all of this and the current Canon lens lineup the 695g RF 70-200 F4 puts you at about the same weight as the OM-1/40-150 F2.8. I haven't looked into this beyond just checking the weights but I do love my 70-200 F4 VR so if it's a good performer that could be a really solid option and cut your weight by more than half for the lens since you're also losing the 110g of the adapter.

EF 70-200 F2.8 is half the price of RF equivalent. RF F4 is light indeed. I can also have Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM.

Now to m4/3 I started with setup #1 though with 2 E-M1 mkII's and it's been great plus even if you want to go with other lenses you can get those 2 used for not much money compared to the other gear being talked about. I think I spent ~700 dollars this year for a 12-35 II and 35-100 I. They do have their limitations but in terms of size/range/sharpness it's hard to beat. So depending on how much the issue of weight is for you it might be good to have when needed for day to day work or as a backup if you ever need a lighter system.

A lighter system, especially what is carried in my hand for a whole day seems to play the bigger part in the whole equation. When I had Sony APS-C and some light primes. I used to take it for vacation, trips, etc. Even with a small HSS flash. Since I entered FF I have used it only for planned shooting (championships or other interesting events).

The 10-25 is a big step up though in just about every way (including size) and could be worth it when you need that extra light/subject separation. I got one myself so I wouldn't need to switch out between primes in those situations, it was one of those times where after renting one I knew it would be a huge help for my work. But if you need this at all will depend on what you shoot and your personal style. And as I write that I'm thinking if possible going with setup #1 with used lenses would be a good way to get into m43 no matter which setup you end up with.

I do not why, but for the last three days I dived into the Internet and found all reliable reviews, test, YT videos to learn about OM-1 and MFT lenses. I cannot understand it myself. Lucky me I have a job during which I can be distracted or even drawn away for many days. That would be a real torment for me to work 9-17.

If the store with OM-1 and selected lenses was in my city, I would have grabbed OM-1 for sure within last 72 hours. Fortunately I need to spend the whole day to go to another city to touch it before I decide to buy it. The reality of the Polish market is harsh. MFT system in Poland is much shallower than a niche.

What appeals to me in OM-1 is:

• Fast readout and electronic shutter
• Silent shutter with no RS (apparently)
• Variable FPS from 10 to 50
• Pro Capture with 0.5 sec 
• Form factor (stupid argument, as I never hold it in my hands)
• Overall weight even with some chunky lenses (10-25/25-50 F1.7)

I think that MFT has a bright future ahead. FF gives enormous flexibility and artistic look with some weight to it. I love R6 and I think it is a powerful camera for my needs. I have been waiting for R7 to complement my system and work with bodies / lenses, as I hate juggling during any event. R7 disappointed me. I would buy R6II instead. Sony has A9II with tamed Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 (only 10 FPS available). I got the idea to return to Sony system, which I left with great satisfaction due to poor ergonomics and feel. I am also ready to complement R6 with an OM-1 body and a lens to cover 70-150 of my preferred FL.

Or maybe I just got GAS syndrome.

If they work you're golden and now you just saved a ton of money and have the lightest kit possible. If not you can sell them and maybe lose a little but you'll know with m43 which directions you want to go in.

I'll second that the 10-25mm, although surprisingly light, is also surprisingly big for its weight. Completely unsuitable for discreet street photography, but quite possibly decent for sports.

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it.

I think that you would agree that most people have a cell phone. Perhaps a few billion.

The number of people who have a dedicated camera is probably a few million.

Q.E.D.

FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

Tedolphus Maximus

Not QED when the premise is assumed to refer to multiple ILC camera bodies

No such premise was stated.

and people on the forum--not phones that happen to have a camera with them. If you want to clarify your argument and speak for everyone on earth, feel free to, but then your argument changes drastically in its premise and logical statements.

If you want us to accept your premise that most people in this website have multiple cameras then you have the burden of proof.

Present your evidence.

Tedolph

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it.

I think that you would agree that most people have a cell phone. Perhaps a few billion.

The number of people who have a dedicated camera is probably a few million.

Q.E.D.

FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

Tedolphus Maximus

Not QED when the premise is assumed to refer to multiple ILC camera bodies

No such premise was stated.

and people on the forum--not phones that happen to have a camera with them. If you want to clarify your argument and speak for everyone on earth, feel free to, but then your argument changes drastically in its premise and logical statements.

If you want us to accept your premise that most people in this website have multiple cameras then you have the burden of proof.

Present your evidence.

Tedolph

Well, you can make the assertion that most people in the world have a cellphone that has a camera, but that's a very generic assertion that doesn't help the OP with the decision at all. I provided my evidence that all the photographers I know have more than one ILC camera. if you don't like people having multiple cameras, perhaps this isn't the forum for you and you should ditch your ILC camera and stick to the camera phone forums. I am curious though, what's your plan when your old E-P5 has a malfunction? do you have a second camera?

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it.

I think that you would agree that most people have a cell phone. Perhaps a few billion.

The number of people who have a dedicated camera is probably a few million.

Q.E.D.

FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

Tedolphus Maximus

Not QED when the premise is assumed to refer to multiple ILC camera bodies

No such premise was stated.

and people on the forum--not phones that happen to have a camera with them. If you want to clarify your argument and speak for everyone on earth, feel free to, but then your argument changes drastically in its premise and logical statements.

If you want us to accept your premise that most people in this website have multiple cameras then you have the burden of proof.

Present your evidence.

Tedolph

Well, you can make the assertion that most people in the world have a cellphone that has a camera, but that's a very generic assertion

You agree that it is true.

that doesn't help the OP with the decision at all.

I am helping the OP by pointing out that he already has a lot of cameras-a lot more than just two by his own admission.

I provided my evidence that all the photographers I know have more than one ILC camera.

How many photographers do you know?

if you don't like people having multiple cameras,

I don't base whether or not I like people based on how many cameras they own.

Why do you?

perhaps this isn't the forum for you and you should ditch your ILC camera and stick to the camera phone forums.

I am very happy with the camera I own.

I am curious though, what's your plan when your old E-P5 has a malfunction?

It will last longer than I do.

do you have a second camera?

Yes.

Guess what it is!

tedolph

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it.

I think that you would agree that most people have a cell phone. Perhaps a few billion.

The number of people who have a dedicated camera is probably a few million.

Q.E.D.

FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

Tedolphus Maximus

Not QED when the premise is assumed to refer to multiple ILC camera bodies

No such premise was stated.

and people on the forum--not phones that happen to have a camera with them. If you want to clarify your argument and speak for everyone on earth, feel free to, but then your argument changes drastically in its premise and logical statements.

If you want us to accept your premise that most people in this website have multiple cameras then you have the burden of proof.

Present your evidence.

Tedolph

Well, you can make the assertion that most people in the world have a cellphone that has a camera, but that's a very generic assertion

You agree that it is true.

that doesn't help the OP with the decision at all.

I am helping the OP by pointing out that he already has a lot of cameras-a lot more than just two by his own admission.

I provided my evidence that all the photographers I know have more than one ILC camera.

How many photographers do you know?

if you don't like people having multiple cameras,

I don't base whether or not I like people based on how many cameras they own.

Why do you?

perhaps this isn't the forum for you and you should ditch your ILC camera and stick to the camera phone forums.

I am very happy with the camera I own.

I am curious though, what's your plan when your old E-P5 has a malfunction?

It will last longer than I do.

do you have a second camera?

Yes.

Guess what it is!

tedolph

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it.

I think that you would agree that most people have a cell phone. Perhaps a few billion.

The number of people who have a dedicated camera is probably a few million.

Q.E.D.

FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

Tedolphus Maximus

Not QED when the premise is assumed to refer to multiple ILC camera bodies

No such premise was stated.

and people on the forum--not phones that happen to have a camera with them. If you want to clarify your argument and speak for everyone on earth, feel free to, but then your argument changes drastically in its premise and logical statements.

If you want us to accept your premise that most people in this website have multiple cameras then you have the burden of proof.

Present your evidence.

Tedolph

Well, you can make the assertion that most people in the world have a cellphone that has a camera, but that's a very generic assertion

You agree that it is true.

that doesn't help the OP with the decision at all.

I am helping the OP by pointing out that he already has a lot of cameras-a lot more than just two by his own admission.

I provided my evidence that all the photographers I know have more than one ILC camera.

How many photographers do you know?

if you don't like people having multiple cameras,

I don't base whether or not I like people based on how many cameras they own.

Why do you?

perhaps this isn't the forum for you and you should ditch your ILC camera and stick to the camera phone forums.

I am very happy with the camera I own.

I am curious though, what's your plan when your old E-P5 has a malfunction?

It will last longer than I do.

do you have a second camera?

Yes.

Guess what it is!

tedolph

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Yep.

Do you really need another one?

Definitely not!

Most of us get along fine with just one.

So, I have to get rid of my cell phone?

Tedolph

He is shallow DoF-focused so going f/4 on the Nikon lens doesn't help. I think it's a good idea but I'm not as sensitive to DoF. I can make it work on M/43. It's my standard outdoor sports DoF and often I use f/5.6.

GAS

The best OLY/OMs lenses are great stuff. They make up some of the sensor IQ gap. In the same size image, it's hard to tell the difference between the systems. For looking at a photo by itself with no toggle comparison at 100% crop, for most eyes, there is no difference except you can leave the tripod and bazooka lens home and shoot in lower light. Even with an EM1.2. With the OM-1, even better with additional features/functions. Software ND filters, ProCap, Hand Held High Res, in-camera focus stacking.

For me, M43 really gets unbeatable in the long end. But a R6 with the R70-200f4 is basically same size and weight as the OM-1 plus 40-150.

Not really: https://camerasize.com/compact/#852.944,887.1043,ha,t

OM-1 combo is noticeably smaller and more than a pound lighter.

Malikknows wrote:

For me, M43 really gets unbeatable in the long end. But a R6 with the R70-200f4 is basically same size and weight as the OM-1 plus 40-150.

Not really: https://camerasize.com/compact/#852.944,887.1043,ha,t

OM-1 combo is noticeably smaller and more than a pound lighter.

MFT vs EOS R

With bulky EF 70-200 F2.8 USM II and an adapter is even worse

For whatever it's worth, I have the 40-150 f/4 and the 40-150 f/2.8. I tested them for sharpness at f/4 and f/8, at 40 and 150 on a bench at the same time using the same subject. I could not tell if either was sharper.

I use the 40-150 f/4 almost all the time. It's glued to the OM-1. I love this kit for how light and compact it is for the range and I find f/4 is bright enough for motorsports even in rain and gloom. It was a great joy to be able to use this lens vs. the 40-150 f/2.8 because I can shoot it all day without tiring. I could almost do it with the f/2.8 lens but my arm and shoulder feel it after about 6 hours of continuous shooting.

The 12-200 f/4 could work for everything, pit and paddock included, but I use the long end of 150 a lot and need it trackside. I could live with a 70-200 if I had to, but I'd be cropping a lot more because it only has 2/3 the reach of the OMS lens and it's a lot heavier. There is no reason for me to compromise for the Canon kit since it has range handicap and weight penalty that would make it uncomfortable for me to carry and shoot all day. I don't think I can make a better image with the Canon kit and it would be more difficult to get all the photos I do with the OMS kit because of the difference in range.

The f/2.8 40-150 comes out of the car only when I need the MC14 or MC20 TCs - not much. I'll be out in the wilderness this Saturday shooting a Rally and think the 12-45 and 40-150 f/4 lenses are perfect for it, 12-45 at the facility, 40-150 f/4 on the track in the mud and the rain.

Have you looked at the Panasonic 50-200mm? I found it quite a bit smaller and lighter than the Olympus 40-150mm.

Lighter than which 40-150? I use the F/4 80-90% of the time. Haven't felt the need for more.

50-200 is a good range. No, I haven't looked at it. Sounds appealing. Do you have one?

There are some cross-brand incompatibilities. In my experience, OLY/OMS lenses are a better build. I've had both brands. I do like some Panny lenses. I prefer constant aperture. Good idea though. Worth a look if I run into a problem with what I have. If it isn't broken I don't want to fix it. Sell the 40-150's I have or leave them in the closet? I'm happy with what I have.

Certainly, FF will produce a shallower DoF for the same aperture as M43 if all things are positioned in the same locations - photographer, subject, and background. There is no disputing that and a photographer can always crop if he isn't printing too big for the remaining resolution. It's easier to pick the right time to fire the trigger if you can fill the frame with the subject because you can see it better in the EVF or LCD and the background will be more out of focus if you do. If you use a shorter FL the background will be less defocused. That's a point I'm trying to get across.

A longer FL to fill the frame more with the subject will blur the background more so if you use a FF camera with a shorter FL it will reduce the difference in the subject separation - the DoF difference between FF and M43. FF may not give you a more defocused background - or not much more depending.

That's why I'm saying there is more to this than the camera gear. It's the reason I get a very defocused background if I shoot a hood ornament on a car at 150mm and f/5.6 with an M43 lens. If the lens will enable me to focus closely with the lens I can. It is an attribute of Olympus zoom lenses that they focus more closely than other brands for the same focal length. I think this is a reason why they are designed to.

Translate this to the skate park. If you shoot the skaters at 100mm (200mm FF) with an M43 lens so you fill the frame more vs. shooting at a 70mm fl with a FF lens this will narrow the DoF difference.

Now forget the IQ for a minute and look at these images below. I walked into my living room and took these snaps with an OLY 14-150mm f/4-f5.6 lens. A midrange consumer-grade lens with an MSRP of $550. It's weather sealed by the way.

At the short end it's as sharp as both the 40-150 f/4 and f/2.8. At the long end it isn't. If I need feather detail I would not use this lens at the long end but for sports, it's perfectly sharp enough for me. Depending on the circumstances, I can't tell if the PRO lens image is sharper unless I crop 100% and sometimes they are still very close, so close it doesn't matter. I can use this lens for sports but usually, I take something faster because if I'm caught in rain and gloom f/5.6 might not be fast enough. F/4 is. I always take the 14-150 as a travel lens especially if I have one body because of the range. It's tiny for the range, half the size/weight of a FF lens of the same range. Sometimes I don't have time to change lenses especially if I'm in a car. I have great images taken with this lens because of the range. Photos I would not have because I didn't not have time to change lenses. I could live with this one lens if I had to. It would not be ideal. IBIS works better at shorter FL so at f/4 and 28mm I can shoot a very slow shutter speed. Not for indoor sports but for indoor events I use it.

Forget IQ for a minute because I pulled this lens out and took a few snaps in my living room to demonstrate DoF, not to make great images. Look at them.

Now here is the background in focus and the foreground out of focus at 14mm to show you the room I took the other three photos in:

Did you think you could defocus this background as f/5.6? The green plant just behind the altimeter/clock is only 7 feet away. It's a smooth, green blob in the top photo. The bokeh is creamy and pleasing. You can't make out anything in the windows, not even a window or the trim. Not the pottery, the chaise or chair, or a lamp if I put any of them in the background and shoot the clock a foot away at f/5.6.

Did you think this was possible at f/5.6 with an M43 lens at 150mm? The reason you can is this lens focuses 12" away at 150mm, even closer at the wide end.

You read the specs and reviews and comments from photographers posting on DPR and think - FF makes shallower DoF for the same f-stop and it does, but to know how it will work for the photo you are making, you have to know it is also dependent on the distance between the subject and the camera and the background and the camera. In this case, where the clock is 1 foot away and the plant is 7 feet away. The plant is very focused.

Map this over sports. Of course you won't be 1 foot away from the subject but if you can shoot the subject at 100mm or better still a 150mm with an M43 lens vs. a 70mm FF lens it will narrow the DoF gap. How much I'm not sure. I never shot a skate park but it's possible to me that a 150mm f/4 M43 lens will blur the brick building as much as the FF camera did in the original post and the f/2.8 M43 lens will blur it more but not much more. I do not believe similar results are impossible with the M43 system.

Further, I suggest you can use the 75mm f/1.8 Olympus prime lens in this situation or the 45mm f/1.8 prime lens which is a little longer than a 24-70 FF zoom. And you can try a 25mm f/1.8 Oly or Panny lens because these lenses are very inexpensive, very small, very light, and very sharp. You can own all three of them for the cost of an f/2.8 Nikon zoom or less. Now you are shooting an f/1.8 M43 prime lens against a FF f/2.8 zoom lens, picking up a stop. You can buy both M43 lenses - the 45 and 25 for ~ $700 new and take both because they are tiny. Add the 75 for another $500-700 and you have three fast M43 primes for less than $1,500.

If you find 17, 25, or 45 in M43 is the right FL you can buy one in f/1.2. Then you are shooting SHALLOWER DoF than you are with your f/2.8 FF zoom with your M43 kit.

These are expensive lenses if bought new but they are tank-built and can be bought used for very attractive prices. $700. They make creamy defocused bokeh. But they are so bright they have to be stopped down or used with ND filters on bright days.

Zooms are more flexible but if you know the venue and you position yourself for panning shots where the skater is moving across your field of view or you know where you want the skater to be when you take the shot you can put yourself in multiple positions where this will work with a specific prime lens.

I know the road race tracks where I shoot. Sometimes I take the tiny OLY 45 f/1.8 or 75 f/1.8 which is an incredible lens. I use them instead of a zoom to give my shoulder and arm a rest where I know the photo will work at these FLs. The results are excellent. On bright days I have to use ND filters to prevent the lens from stopping down into diffusion when I'm panning with a slow shutter speed in bright sun in the desert and/or shoot on ISO LOW but it works. Now with the f/4 zooms and never need a rest so I don't use the primes. When I shot f/2.8 40-150 I did need them.

I never shot a skating park, but I think a sharp subject and a blurry background is possible with an M43 kit, certainly a background as blurry as the brick building in the background in the original example.

Can't shoot shallow DoF with an M43 kit? That's a myth.

EZGritz wrote:

Can't shoot shallow DoF with an M43 kit? That's a myth.

Thanks to this thread and some discussion about shallow depth of field of M43, whether it is desirable, recommended or redundant, my side effect conclusion is, that I have started paying more attention to shallow DoF in the pictures. To the degree it started to distract the pleasure of looking or watching. Here is the perfect example:

I am certain I would not have paid any attention to such shallow DoF before starting this thread.