11-17-2017, 12:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2017, 12:14 PM by Brightcolours.)
And did you see the same difference between the OM-D E-M1 mk II and Nikon D850, JoJu?
Of course, it is especially handy understanding lenses and how they relate on different formats to know which gear to get for a specialized purpose.
200mm f2.8 on MFT is not that specialized, you do not HAVE to get an MFT body for that purpose if you already have a Nikon D750 for instance. Because obviously the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses and Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 offer an equivalent for that.
It will be hard to find an equivalent for the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 on MFT or for instance Sony APS-C, so for that specific purpose a Nikon FF DSLR would be a more obvious choice.
11-17-2017, 02:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2017, 02:16 PM by wim.)
Quote:And did you see the same difference between the OM-D E-M1 mk II and Nikon D850, JoJu?
Of course, it is especially handy understanding lenses and how they relate on different formats to know which gear to get for a specialized purpose.
200mm f2.8 on MFT is not that specialized, you do not HAVE to get an MFT body for that purpose if you already have a Nikon D750 for instance. Because obviously the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses and Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 offer an equivalent for that.
It will be hard to find an equivalent for the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 on MFT or for instance Sony APS-C, so for that specific purpose a Nikon FF DSLR would be a more obvious choice.
Nikon, Tamron, Sigma only offer theoretical equivalency, as you said, wrt DoF etc.
That is where it stops, however, the theoretical bit that is.
I could carry two MFT bodies, one with a Oly 300 Pro, one with the PL 200 F/2.8, have the same reach, at better IQ because we are talking primes here, while carrying less weight than a single FF or even APS-C dslr with an equivalent (zoom)lens, and not requiring a tripod thanks to IBIS, making it an extremely convenient proposition for e.g. wildlife and birding (and many other types of shooting).
This is where MFT stands out, portability and maneuverability.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Equivalence does not mean that one is better over the other. Of course, in this case the Olympus lens has a weight and size advantage. Just the price is a bit prohibitive, in this case.
Quote:Nikon, Tamron, Sigma only offer theoretical equivalency, as you said, wrt DoF etc.
That is where it stops, however, the theoretical bit that is.
I could carry two MFT bodies, one with a Oly 300 Pro, one with the PL 200 F/2.8, have the same reach, at better IQ because we are talking primes here, while carrying less weight than a single FF or even APS-C dslr with an equivalent (zoom)lens, and not requiring a tripod thanks to IBIS, making it an extremely convenient proposition for e.g. wildlife and birding (and many other types of shooting).
This is where MFT stands out, portability and maneuverability.
Kind regards, Wim
It's not about equivalence (i don't care for that and never think about it when using APS-C or full frame) but can MFT cameras do birds in flight as good as dedicated SLRs ?
All my previous cameras were not spectacular, 300D, 30D slightly better but not impressive, 5D was the same, 750D was an improvement but 7Dmkii is on another planet, so for me no going back.
Can good MFT cameras perform as good as 7Dmkii or Nikon D500 for birding ? You know for birding stabilisation is pointless or even harmful, and more DOF is a plus ☺
If you find more DOF to be a plus... Stop down the aperture.
Quote:If you find more DOF to be a plus... Stop down the aperture.
you know for a bird in flight with the blue sky in the background, DOF is not a concern , however more DOF=AF more tolerant to minor AF errors which can be life saving
11-18-2017, 09:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-18-2017, 09:55 AM by thxbb12.)
Quote:you know for a bird in flight with the blue sky in the background, DOF is not a concern , however more DOF=AF more tolerant to minor AF errors which can be life saving
Indeed, but what prevents you from closing down the aperture?
It's like saying a 50mm f4 lens is great because it offers more DOF than a 50mm f1.4.
There seem to be many arguments to prove/ascertain that really all is equal between formats given a larger enough aperture for M4/3 rds.......
The thing that is unarguable though is, that diffraction limits usable aperture range, fine for those F2.8 M4/3 rds images, but not so good when you want to stop down for say longer exposures, like F11-16......
IMHO,and it is humble in the tech sense of the word, all it's about weight/size/price............there is nothing that a FF sensor can't do, (given the appropriate optic) that a M4/3 rds sensor can, including the lesser effect of diffraction where the FF, suffers less than the APSc sensor which comes comes second.........
........and last but not least the M4/3 rds sensor gets "only" third place on the podium, losing out with a shallow DOF, or if stopped down risking the diffraction limits/ image noise and the like.
To read what's written here, one could come to the conclusion that all is equal, it isn't!
Bigger is still better!
Quote: Bigger is still better!
Then why not medium format ??
For ultimate image quality there's medium format, for size and weight you have MFT
Quote:It's not about equivalence (i don't care for that and never think about it when using APS-C or full frame) but can MFT cameras do birds in flight as good as dedicated SLRs ?
All my previous cameras were not spectacular, 300D, 30D slightly better but not impressive, 5D was the same, 750D was an improvement but 7Dmkii is on another planet, so for me no going back.
Can good MFT cameras perform as good as 7Dmkii or Nikon D500 for birding ? You know for birding stabilisation is pointless or even harmful, and more DOF is a plus ☺
Tony, of course MFT can do birding. Depends on the camera of course, EM1mk2 or GH5 would qualify as best in MFT land, and for example my Pana G7 is far from being inadequate. I can’t tell how it would compare to cameras you mention, however I can throw in some AF experience of my own.
I do use a lot of AFS and certainly this is the area where the camera excels. With AF accuracy, ability to position AF point anywhere in the frame, and instantly via AF touchpad, it won me over.
At continuous AF, birding I did few times only, more I do some sports and family stuff. No question there are more expensive cameras out there that do better in AFC, but 500€ G7 with 35-100/2.8 can bring keepers home rather easy.
|
