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!

Using m4/3 on safari

pellicle

New member
after shooting m43 myself and after reading all your feedback and findings, end of the day I would go for a FF DSLR when going on Safari.

Reasons are simple - because I would want shallower DOF and the advantages of higher ISO in combination with those larger sensors.
not sure I agree with you. I'd probably go for an APS or 4/3 DSLR because 1) they have better high speed AF, and 2) the crop factors go in your favour with telephoto. Aside from shooting mid distance with a normal or closed range with a wide, the DoF between a FF and an APS (using something like a 200mm or greater length) will not be "chalk and cheese". One would probably end up shooting FF at 1 or 2 stops below max to get rid of vignetting, and APS would not pick that up because of the crop.

Of course if one is using the lens wide open then the higher ISO does indeed equate to better shutter, but if you add a stop to the aperture then the system ISO advantage vanishes.

Weight would not be such a major consideration IMHO as when you've got a few lenses (like a 300f4) the 200g extra mass of the body starts being less of a significant issue.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>(like a 300f4) the 200g extra mass of the body starts being less of a significant issue.

You forget that the angle of view is like 450mm FF equivalent on the APS-C sensor and with m43 it is like 600mm FF equivalent. Also this is a zoom with way more flexibility.
 

pellicle

New member
>(like a 300f4) the 200g extra mass of the body starts being less of a significant issue.

You forget that the angle of view is like 450mm FF equivalent on the APS-C sensor and with m43 it is like 600mm FF equivalent. Also this is a zoom with way more flexibility.
well no I didn't. If you compare a 200mm with a 300mm on a camera you may find that the difference is not as shockingly big as you may imagine, and not what the 200/300 ratio would imply.

Also since she is using 4/3 format and the question I was responding to was suggesting FF over 4/3 I stuck with the 4/3 or APS options and didn't go into much detail about what you would need (and that would be 600mm = 300 + 2x extender or BG 600mm lens) on FF to match the 300mm end for reach.

I understood Terri was using a 100-300 zoom, but I was suggesting that if one was using such a lens then the differences would be less ... as the mix of full frame AND DSLR was put into the discussion I thought it might be beneficial to discuss wider. If one was using a full frame camera one would not be using the cheapie 100-300 lens and as far as I know the mass of any decent 100-300 zooms are still within cooee of the 300f4 that I mentioned.

some quick figures from Canon for Ball park:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_70~300_4~56is_usm.html
630g

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_70~300_4~56lis_usm.html
1050g

and 200g for a 1.4 extender

put a similar EOS Nikon or Olympus body against these and (as I mentioned) the 200g one may save on body will be absorbed by lens.

Clearly you don't think so, which is of course fine
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
well no I didn't. If you compare a 200mm with a 300mm on a camera you may find that the difference is not as shockingly big as you may imagine, and not what the 200/300 ratio would imply.

Also since she is using 4/3 format and the question I was responding to was suggesting FF over 4/3 I stuck with the 4/3 or APS options and didn't go into much detail about what you would need (and that would be 600mm = 300 + 2x extender or BG 600mm lens) on FF to match the 300mm end for reach.

I understood Terri was using a 100-300 zoom, but I was suggesting that if one was using such a lens then the differences would be less ... as the mix of full frame AND DSLR was put into the discussion I thought it might be beneficial to discuss wider. If one was using a full frame camera one would not be using the cheapie 100-300 lens and as far as I know the mass of any decent 100-300 zooms are still within cooee of the 300f4 that I mentioned.

some quick figures from Canon for Ball park:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_70~300_4~56is_usm.html
630g

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_70~300_4~56lis_usm.html
1050g

and 200g for a 1.4 extender

put a similar EOS Nikon or Olympus body against these and (as I mentioned) the 200g one may save on body will be absorbed by lens.

Clearly you don't think so, which is of course fine
I'm not sure what you are trying to explain here. With the two lenses you mention, a 1.4x TC will only get you to 450mm on an FF body and you will lose or at least get very slow AF. You would get more reach with a 1.6 crop body of course, but I doubt that a camera like the 7D will give better image quality if you use a 70-300 zoom with a TC than a GH2 without. The Canon alternative that would work well on a 7D is the 100-400mm, but that is considerably heavier, not to speak about much more expensive than the Pana 100-300. Better image quality? Maybe, maybe not.
 

pellicle

New member
Ok

well no I didn't. If you compare a 200mm with a 300mm on a camera you may find that the difference is not as shockingly big as you may imagine, and not what the 200/300 ratio would imply.

I am dead wrong. I just went and compared 2 images I took with my FD200 and my FD300 and scaled the 300mm image back by 66.66% and overlaid them and voila they are exactly a match

so knowing I've done experiments checking 100mm on 35mm does come close to equal with 50mm I have no idea why I made that statement ...

unreserved recognition of the flaw there ... will now go searching for other flaws in my argument
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Everyone has valid points and are looking to get something different from the experience. As I stated I knew that a 17x22 animal portrait had an extremely low probability of hanging on the wall and that environmental landscape + animals were more important to me and that was a big factor in my decision making process.

Where I do kick myself is having too shallow a DOF on some critical shots. In trying to keep the ISO low and the shutter speed high I was shooting more wide open and at 600mm I could have actually used some more DOF. So, from that perspective I will disagree a bit and say that full frame actually makes getting good enough DOF even harder and puts even more pressure on lens choices. I really thing 600mm is a must. You can get away with a 100-400 lens on a crop sensor but on on full frame you will feel like there isn't enough reach. 600mm lenses don't come cheap to either buy or rent.
Interesting observation WRT too shallow DOF ..... but you might be right at 300 (600 equivalent) DOF is pretty shallow already per se.

Anyway I would also like to see a faster 300 (600) for m43, at least something like 3.4, better 2.8 or even 2.5, which would really help for wildlife. But also some faster primes, I do not care about fast zooms. A 1.4/12, 1.4/35 and 1.4/50 would be lovely - from Olympus or Panasonic, not from Sigma. And great Teleconverters like the one's available for 43 (these are really excellent).
 

Paratom

Well-known member
OK....I've added bird gallery. There is a theme here...I did much better with big birds vs. what I dub as "bird dots".

http://www.terrybanet.com/?page_id=324
Some really wonderfull shots Terry!

Regarding your other statement with DOF:
I have encountered one critical thing with my G3: As good as the EVF is I sometimes shoot a scenne and find the focus plane to be slightly further back or closer than I would want it.
I think its sometimes hard to judge when looking through the viewfinder. Maybe I should sometimes switch to magnification even when shooting with AF.
I seldomly have this with very large viewfinders and the AF of the D700 or the S2. This may also be a result of relation between AF-point-size and image sensor size.
Even with some DX sized sensors (K5 and Canon 7D) I have not been lucky how I could focus precisly where I wanted. (For some reason the D300 it worked fine for me).
I have the same problem with the G3 (and had it with the EP2).
The "Spot"-focus of the x1 on the other side works very good for me.

What I am trying to say is that for me I have encountered that I can live with pretty shallow DOF for many things as long as the focus is 100% accurate. (For example on the eye of a bird). The less precise the AF can be "targeted" the more DOF I seem to need.
Of course there are also many subjects where one wants more DOF anyways.
 

pellicle

New member
I'm not sure what you are trying to explain here.

<leans back in the deeply padded couch>

Well it all started with the comment by ptomsu:
after shooting m43 myself and after reading all your feedback and findings, end of the day I would go for a FF DSLR when going on Safari.

Reasons are simple - because I would want shallower DOF and the advantages of higher ISO in combination with those larger sensors.
to which I posted something clearly unclear. I was responding to his comment about the advantages of FF.

I did also react to ustien's comments about:
Besides the cost there is the size and weight to consider.
which clearly he picked up on ...

this is where I see it all went into a cluster f*** (assisted by my fractured responces)

My reaction to ustiens assertion which made assumptions which were wrong: I had actually been considering that but just didn't make it clear.

So stripping back all the stuff I feel that:

* people often focus on how light a given camera is, and foget about adding in the lenses. Certainly Terry was taking a m4/3 camera and a m4/3 100-300 lens, but my observation was perhaps more general. I recall my own discovery of how heavy my new light kit was (after buying my G1) only to pick up my camera at a conference and say "hey that's not light anymore"

* I appreciate there are light 100-300 zooms, but myself prefer the equivalent of Canon L series or Olympus SWD lenses so I was just making that observatoin

I don't want to get into per pixel image quality or comparing exactly what framing a 300mm would give on a APS or 4/3 camera as I think they are so close anyway as to be insignificant.

My injection of the seemingly elusive point about the 1.6 TC was to enable the use of a 300mm lens on a FF and have it equal the framing view of that lens on an APS camera

so now that I've attempted to clarify wtf I was on about I'll just retire to sitting in the background and try not to comment on things again.

:)
 

Terry

New member
I did look at my long lens alternatives.....the Oly 150mm f2 is considered a stunning lens. However, alone the AF was not good on a m4/3 body. Add the teleconverter, it was worse. Then there was a question of is this a lens I want to own long term?

Tbe other really popular safari lens is the sigma 100-500 and I considered that with a K5. In that instance I would then have been forced to put together a Pentax kit with extra body etc. So, a multi thousand dollar undertaking.

Also renting big glass from Canon or Nikon would have cost about $3K given how long I was gone.

I think all the considerations come down two considerations:
1) What do you normally shoot and will you use that gear again once you are at home
2) Really looking around at what safari photographers have published. What shots do you like? What are you likely to print large?

When there and in the moment, you get sucked into shooting everything... just look at me and what I came home with. I had fun with the birds, have lots of shots with animals eating other things. These are great to tell a story, or to document the trip but they aren't the images that move me to say wow this is why I really wanted to make this trip. Yesterday, I printed this shot at 17x22 and would love to print it bigger....

 

Brian Mosley

New member
Beautiful, Terry - at what focal length was this taken?

This puts me in mind of something Ray Mears wrote in his book Vanishing World a life of bushcraft... The hardest thing about photography is getting to the image.

What a privilege, to get on a safari like this - you certainly seem to have made the most of the opportunity Terry, thanks for sharing :thumbs:

Cheers

Brian
 

Terry

New member
Thans Amin, Jorgen and Brian

That shot was taken with the G3 and Oly 14-54 (f2.8-3.5) for 4/3 used with adapter. The zebras seem to be very photogenic taking the more organic environment and making it very graphic.

The person who organized our trip goes to Kenya every year. He knows what works and what doesn't. A non photographer would probably have wanted to blow their brains out on our trip as we were out shooting a lot. We had plenty of time (the most important ingredient) and lots of patience. This meant we never rushed from spot to spot and could take our time with different scenes or animals. We took a boxed breakfast with us every morning which allowed us to head out at 6AM and come back in at about 12:30. Many other groups would come back for breakfast or leave later - robbing them of the best light or pinning them closer to the camps. Not to be under estimated was the fact that we had a superb guide that was with us the whole trip (we did a driving trip and had a couple of long drives (Nairobi to Samburu, Samburu to Nakuru and Nakuru to the Mara) instead of flying domestically to the locations. This allowed us to not worry about luggage weight restrictions and to really get to know our guides. They were part of our trip and we had all meals with them.
 

Diane B

New member
I would bet that the close relationships with your guides/driver made your experience quite unique for a safari. It was a really good decision for you two to choose to have your own vehicle.
 

clark666

New member
Terry, how did the Oly glass work with the G3? I have a lot of Oly lenses and haven't decided whether to get a G3 or stay with my E620.
Did you have any missed shots with the Oly/G3 combination? Is your G3 still for sale?
 

kwalsh

New member
First off Terry, thanks for taking the time to share your experiences here. I'll probably do an Africa photo safari at some point in the next few years and gear selection is going to be a quandary. Your thoughts and experiences are really valuable.

Second, I can see there are some great images in the pipe! Anxious to see more.

I think all the considerations come down two considerations:
1) What do you normally shoot and will you use that gear again once you are at home
2) Really looking around at what safari photographers have published. What shots do you like? What are you likely to print large?
I think this is an excellent point. It also goes along with your "storytelling" consideration.

When I step out of my forte (landscapes) the caliber of my photos drops quite a bit. Sure, I can take a nice wildlife shot, but I feel I wouldn't bring much to the table compared to a dedicated wildlife photographer. I think most of my shots in the super-telephoto "look at the lion yawn" portrait genre would end up being nice travel log photos not unlike the tens of thousands that already exist. They would hold great personal value to me. A small heavily edited selection might be of interest to friends. I have a hard time imagining I'd produce any "wow" shots in that genre even with heavy tools. The subject matter is no longer novel to the audience. Our culture is saturated with nature films and photos, so a technically well executed documentary photo of wildlife is not going to provide interest. As someone who would be stepping into the role of "wildlife photographer" for a vacation I don't feel I'd be able to adapt creatively into that role in such a short time beyond documentary and storytelling. I don't think I'd want to haul a 15 lb lens that I'd never use for anything else to capture storytelling images, "lesser" gear would do just fine.

What I would hope (perhaps naively) is that I could bring my landscape experience to bear on a landscape I've not shot before that has wildlife as a significant element to it. For me I'd probably be better at making creative images that might connect with viewers in that context. Your zebra shot here being a nice example. I suspect much of my current gear and techniques would fit that role already and I could perhaps supplement a bit to get "documentary" shots of wild life along the way.

If you've bothered reading this far, one question :)

These trips are all vehicle based, and everyone stays in the vehicles. The vehicles are typically filled with people with giant super telephoto lenses all trying to get the "lion yawning" shot of the century. (And since some of them probably know what they are going, unlike me, they have a passing chance of doing it). The guides are probably used to catering to this as well. I have the feeling that if I approached such a trip as a landscape photo shoot I'd be a fish out of water often trapped in a vantage point not amenable to what I was trying to shoot (wildlife in the landscape instead of just the wildlife). Any thoughts about that after your experience?

Thanks again,

Ken
 
Top