The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

m43rds dilemma

biglouis

Well-known member
I'm going though mental convolutions at present about whether or not to stick with m4rds or change to a APS-C system.

Ironically, it is because of the Lumix 100-300 I am having these internal discussions.

The 100-300 has introduced me to the pleasure of photographing birds. I would not have been able to take a chance on a lens of this size with another system without spending double or even treble the purchase price.

Now that I've discovered how much I want to take forward this type of photography I have also discovered the limitations of the m43rds system. AF is slow, there is a single point of focus, metering is limited and sad-to-say anything shot at higher than iso800 has poor resolution. I'd say the high-iso issue is the most serious limitation. Here in the UK a lot of the time we are dealing with gloomy skies. The need for really clean iso1600 or 3200 shots is paramount. With bird photography cropping is essential and when you crop at above iso800 then I am afraid to say that on my GH-2 things turn to mush.

Unless, that is, I'm doing something wrong?

So, I am at a bit of crossroads. Do I stick with m43rds and limit my success with photographing birds, or do I change systems? The need to abandon m43rds is partly financial: I have a lot of money tied up in m43rds kit even at second hand prices and I do not want to proliferate my camera ownership into a 4th system. I don't think the wife will stand for it either!

It seems sad to ask for insights into personal decision making in a forum but a lot of people in this forum have more experience than I and have become virtual friends, so I would welcome your comments - no matter how critical!

LouisB
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Now that I've discovered how much I want to take forward this type of photography I have also discovered the limitations of the m43rds system. AF is slow, there is a single point of focus, metering is limited ..
LouisB
My 2 cents..


Those two points I would focus on.

The metering is better than anything else. Have you tried center weighted or spot metering modes? I never use matrix metering for anything as it does not allow for accurate compensations at all.

Focus may be slow in low contrast situations but isn't "single point" It is single point where you put it, anywhere in the frame. None of of the DSLRs can do that. Among the CDAF focusing systems, the m4/3rds have the fastest focus.

The 100-300 may be limiting but if you switch systems (ie., to a DSLR), it isn't the camera but a decent lens (prime and not an f/4 zoom) that is going to cost you money and that is where you will start to see some difference in terms of focus and IQ.

Unless bird photography generates money for you, it isn't worth bothering with a change of systems and it may be far cheaper and better to buy an EM-5 (purported faster focus and sensor stabilzation) instead.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
My 2 cents..
The metering is better than anything else. Have you tried center weighted or spot metering modes? I never use matrix metering for anything as it does not allow for accurate compensations at all.

Focus may be slow in low contrast situations but isn't "single point" It is single point where you put it, anywhere in the frame. None of of the DSLRs can do that. Among the CDAF focusing systems, the m4/3rds have the fastest focus.
Vivek

All other things being equal, I would like to stay where I am!

Can you explain the metering? Both N and C make a big deal about their matrix metering and its power. Bear in mind my other system is a Leica M8 DRF, so metering is... ahem... a bit basic.

Also, can you explain how to make better use of the focussing point? I find it hard to move it when concentrating on the photograph. I have the focusing square linked to my fn2 button. I've experimented with both small and large squares and in my experience it makes little difference to 'lock on'.

Does anyone think that the high-iso performance of the OM-D really will be much better - on a par with a Nikon D7000 or Pentax K-5?

LouisB
 

ghoonk

New member
Louis - I have had the same reservations about the GF1/2/3, the GX1 as well as the Olympus Pen EP/EPL-1/2/3 series. However, in recent days, I have seen some RAWs from the new Olympus OM-D E-5 that look pretty darn clean at ISO3200. The image stabilization seems to work well, and the weather sealed body and lens seem to work as designed.

The real-time exposure on Live View (which should really be called Live Exposure) is also an interesting feature. I'm not jumping on the m43 bandwagon at this point in time as I have not seen any wide angle lenses - a 12mm is pretty much a 35mm FLE of 24mm, which 'should' be okay for most landscapes. For street and portrait, the OM-D seems to deliver. Focusing seems pretty precise as well, and metering doesn't seem any worse than my D3s.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Louis,

Try spot metering (choose compensations later as you need), tripod, stabilization off (you can turn this on if on monopod or handheld), and on the touch screen touch the area for focusing and taking the shot.

If you are going to use flash with a tele attachment (a lot of them are available, check them out), try flash setting at shutter priority mode.

Matrix metering (any system) is a combination of factory programmed stuff taking into account the available light. It is over rated and not useful when using metering compensation.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
m43 has always been a second, smaller, lighter system while I used it. I never expected performance as from APSC or FF.

Main issue with m43 for me is, that there is NO pro-level camera on the market today, even the OM-D is far from that - at least from what I understand from pro level AF, ISO performance and general speed.

Not to mention the too limited lens offering especially WRT high speed primes.

This is the main reason I no longer use m43, for really compact needs I use Nikon 1 system, for high performance needs Nikon D800E (FF) and a handful selected lenses.
 

rparmar

New member
AF is slow, there is a single point of focus, metering is limited and sad-to-say anything shot at higher than iso800 has poor resolution.
I think the main issue is that you are letting the camera do your thinking for you. This is only optimal for snapshots. AF on MFT actually functions better than many other systems for still or slow targets. But it likely won't track fast moving targets as well as larger cameras. APS-C or FF have their advantages, at significantly higher cost. But if you visit forums for those camera systems you will find exactly the same complaints, since the camera is not the (best) answer.

The photographer is the answer.

First, focusing. Here the answer is simple: don't use AF. Learn to focus manually. Focus on where you want to take the picture, ahead of a flying bird, etc. Take the shot when the bird enters the frame. Use burst mode for short periods. Compensate with small manual focus tweaks.

Second, metering. I have found the meter on my Olympus PEN to be better than other cameras. But shooting birds is often a worst case scenario: there is a big exposure difference between your subject and the background plus the subject is small compared with the background. In these cases you can't expect the camera to out-think you.

Try the following:
1. Switch to spot metering and shutter-priority.
2. Set appropriate shutter speed to freeze subject motion (by experience).
3. Meter a target with the same grey level as your target.
4. Note the exposure.
5. Compensate based on available aperture. To get greater DOF or move to a range of the lens where IQ is better, you may need to increase ISO.
6. Switch to M mode.
7. Dial in the aperture and shutter settings obtained from the camera meter.
8. Go ahead and shoot with metering that won't change based on the whims of the camera. You are in control. Adjust settings as needed.

I'd say the high-iso issue is the most serious limitation. Here in the UK a lot of the time we are dealing with gloomy skies. The need for really clean iso1600 or 3200 shots is paramount. With bird photography cropping is essential and when you crop at above iso800 then I am afraid to say that on my GH-2 things turn to mush.
This is true, but is true of all systems to some extent. It can be fixed by three things:

1. Fill the frame with your subject. This means:
a) using a longer focal length
b) getting closer to your subject

2. Get exposure exactly right in camera so you do not end up pushing in development.

3. Get a full-frame camera for better resolution. But then step 1a becomes a lot more expensive, as you have noted.

You will notice that pro wildlife photographers spend all their time in step 1b, using a combination of animal-tracking skills, hides, and other techniques. Plus lots and lots of patience.

EDIT
I just noticed you are using the Panasonic 100-300mm f4.0-5.6. That's a slow zoom. Instead, you need the fastest best IQ prime lenses you can get. The one big drawback of MFT is that the manual focusing on the native lenses sucks. But the one big advantage is that you can adapt some (relatively cheap) old glass.

I would look for a 300mm f/2.8 which would give you a two stop improvement over what you have now. And likely much better IQ. Or something like a 500mm f/5.6 which would keep your light the same but give you more reach.

I am not a bird shooter and so cannot advise on which lenses. but there must be many good choices and many forum threads about this.
 

djonesii

Workshop Member
If you look on this very forum, there is a thread full of really nice bird images with the 100-300 on a variety of m4/3rds systems.

Most of them are static not birds in flight (BIF) However, many are of smaller birds.

I went down this path with a crop body DSLR, for birding, I think the crop helps over FF, but others disagree .....

From my experience in both, about the only way to abandon more hope than birding is to get in medium format digital backs ...

To do this at a really good level, and to be able to print 16X20's Think a big gitzo carbon tripod ~1K, Gimbal head $500, really good crop body, Canon 7D or Nikon D300s ... 1.5 K, then two prime lenses, one in the 400 range, you might be able to get away with an f4, around 5-10K, then another in the 200 range .... This gives and effective 600/300mm Kit, just about right, Many used the 70-200 lens for this spot, around 2K these days. In round numbers 9-12K to play well for birding ....

I personally chose the Sigma 120-300 2.8 zoom. Very good lens, pretty reasonable price, but a beast! At least as the kids move on to field sports, I'll have a really good long zoom.

All in all, it's a huge kit to carry around ...

The middle ground really belongs to canon they have a 100-400 f4 zoom that is a favorite in this genre.

On the other hand, the little 100-300 on a G3 is pretty good, no, not the same, but up to 8X10 prints, and anything for use on the web, way more than good enough.

In addition, it's WAY EASIER to get good field craft down with this setup rather than a DSLR.

Hope this helps

Dave
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Thanks, all, for the responses. Especially tips on how to tune up the GH-2 so that it has more of a fighting chance.

If I replace this kit, I have already made up my mind that I would go crop-sensor and a fixed focal length. Probably a 300f4 which in either Nikon or Pentax (or for that matter the 400 in Canon) are reasonable weights and can at a pinch be used handheld. I'm quite attracted to a Nikon solution. I used Nikon for a long time before being seduced by rangefinder cameras into a Leica solution.

Thanks again for all your advice, much appreciated.

LouisB
 

Tesselator

New member
I'll interject my ideas and opinions point by point and you can regard or disregard them as you like:


biglouis wrote:I'm going though mental convolutions at present about whether or not to stick with m4rds or change to a APS-C system.

Ironically, it is because of the Lumix 100-300 I am having these internal discussions.

The 100-300 has introduced me to the pleasure of photographing birds. I would not have been able to take a chance on a lens of this size with another system without spending double or even treble the purchase price.


Not really. The 100-300 is over $500 currently. You can match it's ultimate IQ with a $250 lens on an APS-C camera. By ultimate IQ I mean that the combo of the (actually better) $250 lens and the APS-C (if a newer hi-res model) will actually look better after you've cropped to what the µ4/3 + the Lumix 100-300 would have delivered.

Additionally if you like bird shooting you can hunt around and get a used 200-400mm or a 400 or 500mm prime with ED or LD glass for about the same as you paid for the Lumix and such primes will just wipe the floor with that Lumix. I know some of you have "feelings" for the Lumix but it really is one of the worst lenses in that range. It has very poor IQ compared to others which are faster, brighter, built better, and costs less.

Now that I've discovered how much I want to take forward this type of photography I have also discovered the limitations of the m43rds system. AF is slow, there is a single point of focus, metering is limited and sad-to-say anything shot at higher than iso800 has poor resolution. I'd say the high-iso issue is the most serious limitation. Here in the UK a lot of the time we are dealing with gloomy skies. The need for really clean iso1600 or 3200 shots is paramount. With bird photography cropping is essential and when you crop at above iso800 then I am afraid to say that on my GH-2 things turn to mush.

Unless, that is, I'm doing something wrong?


If I do it right I can use 2000 ISO on my GH1 and crop to about 1/2 of the frame size and most folks won't know it's not 200 ISO when that's NR'ed and scaled to 1200 pixels across if also using a good lens. But this is a little time consuming in PS and ACR plus it takes a bit study to be able to use those apps to that degree. It's not impossible, it's not even "very difficult", it's just time consuming - like about 15 to 20 min a shot after you know what you're doing. (And lots of reading + trial and error to get to where you know what you're doing). This is true to an even greater extent when printing. Noise shows up very much more on your LCD monitor than it does in the output from a printer!

Still, Every APS-C released in the past 5 years or so will have less noise than any of the µ4/3 cameras - and this certainly will include the GH3 and the OM-D. On top of that all modern APS-C cameras will produce better looking images than all µ4/3 cameras just due the subtleties introduced by the difference in dynamic range. µ4/3 cameras will produce images which look flat and somewhat lifeless when compared with the APS-C shot taken in the identical situation.

To say it a different way: No good or knowledgable wildlife shooters (especially birders) will be wanting to use a smaller sensor just so that they can take advantage of the crop-factor. All of them want a FF sensor or at least APS-C and with the best noise handling possible! Mostly this is because they don't want to spend so much time at the computer! But some stuff just can not be corrected or remedied in software in a reasonable amount of time - even if you're a total app-wizzard!


So, I am at a bit of crossroads. Do I stick with m43rds and limit my success with photographing birds, or do I change systems? The need to abandon m43rds is partly financial: I have a lot of money tied up in m43rds kit even at second hand prices and I do not want to proliferate my camera ownership into a 4th system. I don't think the wife will stand for it either!

IMHO you should practice manual focusing good glass on a tripod with gimbal head first before you dump your µ4/3. The difference between a good lens and what you're using now is just night and day! It's intense! You'll kick yourself for not doing it sooner when you see the difference - I promise! You should be able to find something like the nFD 300/2.8L for around $600 and a good cheap gimbal head for around $75 or so. (I'm using this gimbal head myself. I've compared it directly with the $600 Wimberley and there's not enough difference to mention.) Also the bottom line is that when needing good sharp micro-contrast and micro-detail you can never shoot 300mm hand held. Maybe with perfect lighting and 1/4000s shutter speed you might get 10% that don't have their details destroyed to some degree - if you're lucky. It's just a fact that 300mm needs stable tripod legs and a nice sturdy head - or some similar support. And this becomes more evident the more you crop and the less you scale too.

Try that first and as you learn to MF-Track (which is also a WHOLE BUNCH OF FUN IN THE DOING!) you'll discover what your camera is actually capable of. From there you may decide that's good enough. If you don't or can't come to terms with MF (but it's so easy! and so fun! anyone can - everyone used to!) just resell the nFD lens (maybe even make $50 in the process) and bump up to an APS-C or better yet the APS-H.

APS-H is the sensor in the Canon EOS 1D Mark II. And that camera has the best AF short of the 1D X or the D4 (which I don't know enough about yet to say) The 1DmkII and IIn also have a really nice continuous drive mode! Between that AF and that drive mode (plus a nice sized buffer to actually make use of it) you'll be in birders heaven!!! And either camera can be had for around $550 if you spend just a little time looking and are quick on the draw. But again, I think this should be a second step.

It seems sad to ask for insights into personal decision making in a forum but a lot of people in this forum have more experience than I and have become virtual friends, so I would welcome your comments - no matter how critical!

Nah, it's not sad. The options out there are nothing short of mind boggling! Mix those with a decent price : performance ratio and you're wise to ask us for our experiences and knowledge - not sad. ;)

So in short - things I would do first if I were you:
  1. Test how to use higher ISO to a good result.
  2. Get a decent lens (this will mean learning to MF / Track).
  3. Use the proper (proven) birding equipment (gimbal head + sturdy legs).
  4. Invest some time in improving your editing skills a bit.

    And if all that still isn't enough (or you can't hang)... then move up to the APS-H camera and an AF (L quality type) lens.
And whatever you do, have fun doing it! Don't get emotionally attached to a format or some equipment just cuz of your brain input, what you've read others say, seduction factors, or etc. Keep it open minded. Like, hay, maybe if you look into it you'll find that something like the Pentax K-5 is actually the best bang for the buck, etc. etc.






.
 
Last edited:

henningw

Member
A while ago I compared a G3 and a GH2 with the 100-300 zoom against a 7D with the Canon 100-400 lens. This is all my equipment and I am quite familiar with it.

This was in preparation for a trip to Africa, and the ability to resolve detail was one of the most important criteria. The upshot of my comparisons was that while the 7D with the 100-400, stopped down slightly and in the center of the image resolved very slightly more detail than the GH2 with the 100-300. However, and this is a big 'however', wide open and especially over the rest of the image field the GH2 and 100-300 was noticeably better. This is due to the 100-400 generally having centering problems and not being nearly as good as the 100-300. I've now owned 2 and tested 4 other samples of the Canon, and my current one is the best, but it still suffers from the decentering issue quite a bit.

I had a 300/2.8 IS Canon for a while, but while it was decent on it's own, with teleconverters it just couldn't hold it together enough. To get a good birding setup a 300/4 and a 500/4 would be a good combo; that would give you the quality improvement you want. If you want to deal with manual focussing, some older generation high quality teles are available.

I also have a Leica Apo Telyt 280/4, which is rightly regarded as an outstanding lens and works reasonably well on the Canons and m43 cameras. You can tell it's better than the 100-300, but the improvement over the 100-400 Canon is much greater. It is also truly excellent with the 1.4x apo converter.

I have two friends who have the 200-400 Nikon, one the first version and one the second. The second is better, but neither comes close to the Leica 280/4 and in my opinion the Nikon zoom isn't worth the effort. Again, the fixed teles are definitely better, and again the converters reduce the quality noticeably.

The upshot of all this is that for image quality for birds in decent light the GH2 with 100-300 provides excellent image quality that is hard to better, to the limits of the GH2 sensor. The 7D excels in focussing speed and general handling speed. Exposure is no better; for birds I generally use manual. In low light the 7D is a little better, but no miracles should be expected.

For general fast action I use the 7D; for highest quality some FF bodies, but if I'm going to carry it and want maximum detail at a distance, I use the m43 cameras.

I can hardly wait to use the 280/4 with 1x4 apo converter on the OM-D.

Henning
 

Tesselator

New member
I'd love to see those tests of yours. They would certainly prove EVERYONE else as well as myself wrong. What a revelation you could incur. I urge you to go for it; it would be very interesting!
 

photoSmart42

New member
My $0.02: it's either FF or m43. I really don't think there's a significant advantage of APS-C over m43 unless you shoot in dark caves.
 

Tesselator

New member
That's kinda what I thought too - until I actually tried it. The difference in daylight shots were noticeable to the human eye. DxO seems to reflect this as well:







But of course I agree that FF is even better. :)











.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
All, thanks for the advice and experience, very useful indeed.

I'm all for changing nothing and instead trying to improve my technique first with what I have.

I would love to get an APO 280/4 and give that a work up on a GH-2 but... sheesh... for that kind of money I could hire someone to take my photographs for me :)

LouisB
 

bavanor

Member
Personally I would stick with the m43 system. I have been using the 4/3 50-200mm with converter for all of my telephoto pictures. Works great for birding and still gives you the option of handholding (though nothing beats a tripod).

I remember my trip to Kyoto Japan where walking around with this setup I came across a lake with swans, egrets, and other water birds. Many photographers were there with tripod and gimbal heads locked in one spot. Where as I came in and washable to walk around and reposition myself constantly to get the shots I wanted. Couldn't of done that with another system and had a 400mm equivalent reach.
 

rparmar

New member
I actually did some birding today. If you count having a heron fly right up to you and start fishing 1-2m away. I had to step back to get her in the frame. With a 40mm lens. :)
 

RichA

New member
I'm going though mental convolutions at present about whether or not to stick with m4rds or change to a APS-C system.


It seems sad to ask for insights into personal decision making in a forum but a lot of people in this forum have more experience than I and have become virtual friends, so I would welcome your comments - no matter how critical!

LouisB
I owned a D7000 for a week. The first day, nothing it shot was in focus. I'm too sick of DSLR focusing problems, micro-adjustments, I'm not going back. As for APS-C systems like the NEX-7, it looks ok, except for the tragically mediocre lenses and selection. If I did go to it, I'd find myself using a lot of better manual lenses I think.
 

shadzee

New member
drop Pentax from your consideration. The AF is not quick enough for birding (AF-C tracking is awful ). Also, you have a much better lens possibilities (third party) with a Canon or a Nikon.

For, BIF you need a bright lens rather than IS. Canon 7D & 400/5.6 prime would be a good starting point. For static subject, the Canon 100-400 zoom isn't that bad. Remember both Canon and Nikon offer great 1.4x & 2x adapters as well.

Then again, birding is a dangerous hobby... before you know it, you'd be thinking about the 500 & 600 lenses...5-10K territory ;-)

i.e.
You could also consider the new Nikon D800 and shoot in crop mode.
 

pellicle

New member
Thanks, all, for the responses. Especially tips on how to tune up the GH-2 so that it has more of a fighting chance.
just briefly, I'd say that you should consider carefully looking at Manual exposure. I always take a few quick shots to tune my exposure and then its set for that subject and lighting. Clouds and overcast skies get metering into a knot.

I use a 300f4 FD lens on the m4/3 and find that its a good size. I've often wondered about getting a EOS system again (which is what I sold to come over to the G1/GH1 I have). The Canon EF300f4 is a sweet lens and has high speed AF, which can be good, but just as you have to pick focal points on the 4/3 system you'll have to pick them on the other too.

Personally I got less problems with focus accuracy on my FD lens using the zoom tool than I ever got success with bang on AF accruacy on my EOS (film or 20D).

Lastly the extra magnification provided by the 4/3 sensor will likely mean that to get the same as on APS you'll need another x1.3 (perhaps a converter) so what you win you may loose.

Here are a few samples of what I get with my rig


scalyBreasted by obakesan, on Flickr


tawny Frogmouth by obakesan, on Flickr


kuusiTintti by obakesan, on Flickr
 
Top