The m4/3s weight vs performance problem

[Trevor Carpenter]

So you have got your 150-400 or maybe the 150-600. You couldn't resist but it is at odds for the reasons that you went with m4/3s in the first place, notably giving you decent performance at a comfortable weight and decent portability. z

You are happy with the performance of your new lens and you definitely notice the step up from your 100-400 or even a 75-300. The problem is that you often walk a couple of miles with your 100-400 without experiencing any discomfort. You are getting on a bit in age and things like weight and ease of use matter more than they used to.

The logical decision is to use your new lens when you are stationary, in a car, in a hide etc but keep the 100-400 for the days when you are more mobile. The problem is that when you get your pictures home from your hike, you can't help feeling that, although you have always been very satisfied with it, your pictures aren't up to the standard of what you can get with your new lens. What a dilemma, you have two lenses , one of which is suitable for all occasions and you are very comfortable with but leaves you a bit disappointed thinking you could do better with the lens you left at home or you have a lens which produces the goods but is impractical in your case for everyday use.

The question is, instead of enjoying your latest purchase have you put yourself in a position of dissatisfaction with your m,4/3s kit whichever route you choose.

 

[JosephScha]

I don't have a zoom longer than Panasonic's 100-300mm, and I rarely used that.

I have the 9mm f1/7, 15mm f/1.7, original 25mm f/1.4, and the 42.5mm f/1.7. I also have the Sigma 60mm f/2.8. But in good light I kept the 14-140mm on my G9 and I do the same on my G9 II. Yes, the 14-140 is not a small light lens like the 42.5mm f1.7. But it is so versatile that it stays on my camera except for occasions where I want the best sharpness or the light is so low that I would prefer to use a prime.

I'm old enough that I remember having a Honeywell Pentax H3V and a Vivitar series 1 28mm-70mm lens. That combination (probably due to the lens) was heavier than my G9 II with the 14-140mm lens.

Digital photography is so much better then film photography, in my humble opinion.

--
js

 

[pietroroman]

I bought the Olympus 100-400mm on a friday used it a weekend, loved the experience, and returned it on the Monday, knowing that lens will never get enough use from me to justify the 800£ discounted price I had paid for it, new.

It's a strange feeling really, wanting more reach and more quality but at the expense of actually taking the camera out when you go for a walk at the park at lunchtime or during a weekend.

Perhaps that's the line where being an amateur enthusiast end and a professional photographer starts... aside from ability and knowledge.

 

[the bluesman]

So you have got your 150-400 or maybe the 150-600. You couldn't resist but it is at odds for the reasons that you went with m4/3s in the first place, notably giving you decent performance at a comfortable weight and decent portability. z

You are happy with the performance of your new lens and you definitely notice the step up from your 100-400 or even a 75-300. The problem is that you often walk a couple of miles with your 100-400 without experiencing any discomfort. You are getting on a bit in age and things like weight and ease of use matter more than they used to.

The logical decision is to use your new lens when you are stationary, in a car, in a hide etc but keep the 100-400 for the days when you are more mobile. The problem is that when you get your pictures home from your hike, you can't help feeling that, although you have always been very satisfied with it, your pictures aren't up to the standard of what you can get with your new lens. What a dilemma, you have two lenses , one of which is suitable for all occasions and you are very comfortable with but leaves you a bit disappointed thinking you could do better with the lens you left at home or you have a lens which produces the goods but is impractical in your case for everyday use.

The question is, instead of enjoying your latest purchase have you put yourself in a position of dissatisfaction with your m,4/3s kit whichever route you choose.

This is a great little yarn and all to true, I almost pulled the pin on the new 150-600mm Lens just the other day, went home and gave it some serious thought, I already own the 300mm f4 and the 40-150mm f2.8, both tele converters and love both of these Lenses, said to myself bugger that and save my money as I'm happy with my current setup, I also just sold my 75-300mm as I never really used it,

You are 100 percent right and I didn't wanna put myself in that position

 

[ahaslett]

So now you need to decide which kit meets your needs, including what you carry and how you carry it. GM1 or A7R4. Handheld or tripod. Bag of primes or zooms. Big lens and shooting envelope or small one.

Sometimes you are going to wish you had made a different choice. Sometimes you are just glad that the OM5 and three small lenses fits in a bag you can carry through business meetings, working meals etc and still take handheld shots at 1s.

I find the right bags and shoulder straps help a lot. The Sony 200-600 G is very tempting and has been on attractive discounts, but it’s just too heavy for me. The 12-45/4 is remarkable.

Having looked at sample images, I really wouldn’t go for the 150-600. The 300/4 with an MC14 in my bag will have to do.

Andrew

 

[CarlosU]

So you have got your 150-400 or maybe the 150-600. You couldn't resist but it is at odds for the reasons that you went with m4/3s in the first place, notably giving you decent performance at a comfortable weight and decent portability. z

You are happy with the performance of your new lens and you definitely notice the step up from your 100-400 or even a 75-300. The problem is that you often walk a couple of miles with your 100-400 without experiencing any discomfort. You are getting on a bit in age and things like weight and ease of use matter more than they used to.

The logical decision is to use your new lens when you are stationary, in a car, in a hide etc but keep the 100-400 for the days when you are more mobile. The problem is that when you get your pictures home from your hike, you can't help feeling that, although you have always been very satisfied with it, your pictures aren't up to the standard of what you can get with your new lens. What a dilemma, you have two lenses , one of which is suitable for all occasions and you are very comfortable with but leaves you a bit disappointed thinking you could do better with the lens you left at home or you have a lens which produces the goods but is impractical in your case for everyday use.

The question is, instead of enjoying your latest purchase have you put yourself in a position of dissatisfaction with your m,4/3s kit whichever route you choose.

Yeah. Life is a biatch, then you'll die, as someone said. When I no longer can haul my lens, I get another hobby, or get myself to my ättestupa

 

[Elderly]

I'm old enough that I remember having a Honeywell Pentax H3V and a Vivitar series 1 28mm-70mm lens.

Digital photography is so much better then film photography, in my humble opinion.

I’m old enough to remember having a Vivitar series 1 28mm-90mm lens; it was parfocal too.

Did they ever make a 28-70 ? Probably as we are both that old, one of us has mis-remembered ;-)

I certainly agree with you about digital v film.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

The question is, instead of enjoying your latest purchase have you put yourself in a position of dissatisfaction with your m,4/3s kit whichever route you choose.

I offer my own aging carcass for this experiment. Somebody please send me a 150-400 and I shall go forth and make pictures for an hour or three. I'll take a second camera as per usual, to make it a real-world experiment.

Figure the added mass over the usual 300 pro is something I can adjust to, but it's only theory until I give it a shot. I need data!

As a long-time shooter/hobbyist, today's gear has me attempting things I never envisioned back in the day. It's a product of the industry's advances, format aside. Lord knows, my dream G Master 400/2.8 would have me hitting the gym just to pry from its box.

I think this format is doing just fine and the sirens' call is not luring me onto Sony Shoals, even if they're very fetching sirens.

It is funny, though, how New Camera C will quickly have me declaring formerly fine Camera A to paperweight status. Does not take long for new performance and features to become today's paradigm. Thank goodness lenses don't fall out of favor like that. Compared to those, cameras be cheap.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[gipper51]

I feel I'm in the minority now, but I have a M43 kit specifically to be as small and light as possible, period. GX bodies and the small primes. Longest lens I typically use is the 42.5/1.7.

This kit is great for my needs, but the number of folks choosing it for the same reasons I do appears to be dwindling fast. The Rangefinder bodies are a dying breed. Now it feels like the mission of M43 is to be the smallest/lightest system available for +300mm equivalent shooting.

It's not a problem for me today, but my future upgrade options are vanishing.

 

[Regor250]

I never think about the shots I haven't got. I only think about the ones I was able to get with what I brought with me. Yesterday I went to a garden with the 56mm/1.4. Did think about what I could have photographed with the 8mm? No, not once. Could I have used the 8mm? Certainly, but that was irrelevant, I was out taking the photos I could with the 56mm. Next time I might go with the 8mm instead. All good.

 

[BrianWadie]

I'm hoping that with time some good used offers come available and l may consider just plonking it on my tripod. I don't get out and about anymore so it could work.

It will also give me time to see real users output to help my decision making

 

[Bassam Guy]

So you have got your 150-400 or maybe the 150-600. You couldn't resist but it is at odds for the reasons that you went with m4/3s in the first place, notably giving you decent performance at a comfortable weight and decent portability. z

You are happy with the performance of your new lens and you definitely notice the step up from your 100-400 or even a 75-300. The problem is that you often walk a couple of miles with your 100-400 without experiencing any discomfort. You are getting on a bit in age and things like weight and ease of use matter more than they used to.

Qui? Moi?

The logical decision is to use your new lens when you are stationary, in a car, in a hide etc but keep the 100-400 for the days when you are more mobile. The problem is that when you get your pictures home from your hike, you can't help feeling that, although you have always been very satisfied with it, your pictures aren't up to the standard of what you can get with your new lens. What a dilemma, you have two lenses , one of which is suitable for all occasions and you are very comfortable with but leaves you a bit disappointed thinking you could do better with the lens you left at home or you have a lens which produces the goods but is impractical in your case for everyday use.

The question is, instead of enjoying your latest purchase have you put yourself in a position of dissatisfaction with your m,4/3s kit whichever route you choose.

Not me. I'm too poor and too disinterested to afford a 100-400 and, god forbid, a 150-400.

I figure, if you're rich enough for a 150-400 then you can afford to hire someone younger and more fit to carry it around for you. Problem solved.

 

[Bassam Guy]

I'm old enough that I remember having a Honeywell Pentax H3V and a Vivitar series 1 28mm-70mm lens.

Digital photography is so much better then film photography, in my humble opinion.

I’m old enough to remember having a Vivitar series 1 28mm-90mm lens; it was parfocal too.

Did they ever make a 28-70 ? Probably as we are both that old, one of us has mis-remembered ;-)

I certainly agree with you about digital v film.

I [believe I] had the 28-70 too, OM mount! Don't remember a 28-90 but that was about 75 years before the interweb.

 

[jalywol]

Weight creep is real....but unfortunately, so are physical capabilities (or lack therein)

And, there is only so much "mind over matter" that you can do, especially if you are contending with assorted physical limitations.

To that end:

I know me. Even before I had the health stuff going on that I do now, larger gear would sit in its bag in the closet if its weight or size made it unpleasant to tote around while shooting. I'd only take it out when I knew there was a specific thing I wanted to shoot, and even then I would swear at the bag of lenses as I walked around with them.

M43 really changed that. But, with body size creep, over the years, I've gotten more accustomed to a little heavier system....

So, I went with the S5 and some lenses as my second system, and it was stretching things, but mostly ok. I even went so far as to rent the 150-600mm, more or less on a whim, and then decided it was too heavy. Fair enough....but then, I rethought that, as I really liked its output. So I ended up buying one.

Used it for about a year; too heavy to use comfortably without a monopod, but managed, with one. Then I noticed I was not taking it out with me....and I went back to using the M43 and PL 100-400mm. Yeah, IQ drop...but oh it was so nice to walk around with, no fatigue no monopod.

The 150-600 then sat in the closet, in its bag, for most of the end of last shooting season.

Annnnddd....I just sold it, and used the proceeds to fund a large part of the G9II

Funny thing, though...even though the G9II is not a small body, it is, when paired with the PL 100-400mm still SMALL ENOUGH to make it enjoyable to tote for birding stuff on foot. But, the OM 150-600mm? NOT A CHANCE!



I'm still on the fence, in terms of size vs IQ for many things, with the FF, now that I have the G9II.

There's that size line in the sand, you know?

-J

So you have got your 150-400 or maybe the 150-600. You couldn't resist but it is at odds for the reasons that you went with m4/3s in the first place, notably giving you decent performance at a comfortable weight and decent portability. z

You are happy with the performance of your new lens and you definitely notice the step up from your 100-400 or even a 75-300. The problem is that you often walk a couple of miles with your 100-400 without experiencing any discomfort. You are getting on a bit in age and things like weight and ease of use matter more than they used to.

The logical decision is to use your new lens when you are stationary, in a car, in a hide etc but keep the 100-400 for the days when you are more mobile. The problem is that when you get your pictures home from your hike, you can't help feeling that, although you have always been very satisfied with it, your pictures aren't up to the standard of what you can get with your new lens. What a dilemma, you have two lenses , one of which is suitable for all occasions and you are very comfortable with but leaves you a bit disappointed thinking you could do better with the lens you left at home or you have a lens which produces the goods but is impractical in your case for everyday use.

The question is, instead of enjoying your latest purchase have you put yourself in a position of dissatisfaction with your m,4/3s kit whichever route you choose.

 

[vertigo1959]

Olympus tried to be all things to all people and failed.

OM system have stated clearly the niche they are aiming at and in part that is wildlife photography.

That means long and heavy lenses no matter what but we now have am impressive choice of lens options for wildlife photographers at different price points etc.

Om just need to stick to their guns and their target consumers, in the UK wildlife photography world i see i good number of OM-1 cameras and various long lenses so i am encouraged by that.

 

[BobM43]

Both of the lenses you mention are still lighter than the equivalent FOV in a FF camera would be, no?

If you are, say, a wildlife shooter, would you rather carry the 600mm Oly or a 1200 mm Canon (if such a thing even exists? Everything is relative.

They're certainly not a lens for every shooter, but if your field requires a very long lens, the option exists at a pretty favorable size and weight tradeoff compared to other systems.

 

[James Stirling]

Olympus tried to be all things to all people and failed.

OM system have stated clearly the niche they are aiming at and in part that is wildlife photography.

I know it is only a fun poll in the forum but there 88 votes for lenses 25mm or wider and only 17 votes for longer than 200mm. While there are a lot of bird images posted in the forum . And it may well be a niche that OM pursues, I am not so sure it is necessarily the best plan. Though time will tell

If you could only have 1 focal length....: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

That means long and heavy lenses no matter what but we now have am impressive choice of lens options for wildlife photographers at different price points etc.

Om just need to stick to their guns and their target consumers, in the UK wildlife photography world i see i good number of OM-1 cameras and various long lenses so i am encouraged by that.

 

[cba_melbourne]

...........................

The question is, instead of enjoying your latest purchase have you put yourself in a position of dissatisfaction with your m,4/3s kit whichever route you choose.

It's a first world dilemma. A nice to have dilemma. Considering only about 5% of world population can ever afford to have such dilemma.

Yes, as we get older and retire, there is (usually, if we planned well and had some luck in life) more money available for hobbies than we need. But does the latest and best really make us happier? For myself, I can find some happiness in getting the most out what I have. We are all different.

 

[Will Rose]

Yep, you’ve hit the nail on the head, Trevor.

As someone said, definitely a first world problem.

Is it a form of mental illness? We all know that virtually every camera and lens involves a compromise between size/quality/price/weight/functionality. But even knowing that, sometimes we still can’t allow ourselves to be content with whichever compromise we picked.

That Camera Conspiracies YouTuber has his song “All I want is the perfect camera… “ that poses the question like it shouldn’t be a big issue. Is it any different than the search for the fountain of youth? And even though we know it doesn’t exist we keep chasing it anyway?

A sigh-worthy topic to be sure…

 

[drj3]

Olympus tried to be all things to all people and failed.

OM system have stated clearly the niche they are aiming at and in part that is wildlife photography.

I know it is only a fun poll in the forum but there 88 votes for lenses 25mm or wider and only 17 votes for longer than 200mm. While there are a lot of bird images posted in the forum . And it may well be a niche that OM pursues, I am not so sure it is necessarily the best plan. Though time will tell

If you could only have 1 focal length....: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

That means long and heavy lenses no matter what but we now have am impressive choice of lens options for wildlife photographers at different price points etc.

Om just need to stick to their guns and their target consumers, in the UK wildlife photography world i see i good number of OM-1 cameras and various long lenses so i am encouraged by that.

Well at least the OM System seems to be noticed by wildlife photographers. I have had three show up at my local wildlife refuge in the last 3 months with OM1s and all three had recently switched from FF to mFTs within the last year.

I was surprised by the responses by the two Fuji users on the Nature and Wildlife Forum to the thread

"Which would you prefer for birds/wildlife? OM1+300f4 vs XT5 + 100-400f4.5-5.6? "

The OM1 and the 300mm f4 appear to have a good reputation.