Barn Owl

billnikon, The preview in RAW is getting some serious, positive reviews.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Well with that comparison you should also mention that 400mm on the M4/3 also gives you the equivalent of 800mm on FF. And if you crop that FF photo to match the M4/3 photo the DOF will be the same. Yes, FF has an advantage of a narrower DOF, but shooting wildlife with a longer lens there’s usually enough distance behind the subject to get good separation and more DOF to keep the entire subject in focus.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Their 90mm 2x macro is superb. Not cheap though.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That Panny/Leica 100-400 is a nice lens, but if you’re shooting an Olympus body I’d stick with the Oly lens. The OIS in the lens will work in conjunction with the IBIS in the body while with the Panny/Leica you can chose one or the other. There are also some special functions on Olympus that only work with certain of lenses, like getting 50fps with full AF tracking. It will also work with the Olympus TC’s.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It’s more the size of the sensor. You can have a higher data rate to handle the higher MP’s but it takes longer to traverse a larger sensor. That being said I wish Nikon would give us RAW with pre capture, even if it means a slower rate. If it can do 20fps normally it could handle 15 with pre capture.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

That is absolutely not true. When traveling and one only has enough time to raise the camera and shoot, not only does your focus have to be right, but you will also need enough depth of field to make sure everything of importance is in focus. It is for this specific reason that I have chosen 4/3rds. With the E-M1 mkIII, and even more so with the OM-1, focus is rarely a problem. But sometimes enough depth of field does become a problem even for me. What kind of shot do you think a shooter of full frame or medium format are doing with 1/2 or less of the depth of field I am already working with? They are SOL! And for birds in flight, more depth of field is usually better for the shot - not less. Yes, there are definite pros and cons to all formats. But what is a "pro" in one format for one photographer is a "con" for another photographer. Professional photographers tend to shoot with full frame because of cropping; large amounts of megapixels will allow for that. I was always taught to "fill the frame" with my photography. Therefore, I crop the least possible. And as the 4/3rds sensors start getting up to 35mp and 40mp, will the system size, weight, and cost start eating away at some of those full frame and medium format advantages?

You really need to explore what is an "advantage" and what is not for all other photographers.

Polock

"And if you crop that FF photo to match the M4/3 photo the DOF will be the same"
that's just plain wrong

gwilliams6

gwilliams6

I know some pros that swear by their OM-1 systems for wildlife and they gladly embrace the IQ of micro 4/3rds.

Yes I have been mainly a FF and APS-C shooter, but I wont diss micro 4/3rds, which I also used in some of the first pioneering video hybrid mirrorless Lumix cameras ,before Sony introduced the first fullframe mirrorless. .

Cheers and best to you.

jcboy3

You are both missing the reality of equivalence and ignoring the difference in sensor resolution.

The equivalent lens would be a 300-800 f/9 lens. But no one makes such a lens.

On the other hand, wildlife oriented FF cameras these days have 45mp sensors (such as Z8/Z9). The equivalence factor is thus about 1.5x, not 2x, and a 200-600 f/6.3 lens would be sufficient. That lens is common.

Cost for the FF equivalence is actually less than the cost for the m43 system; around $6-7k versus $10k.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Nonsense. F?9 is NOT equivalent to f/4.5. The primary function of aperture is exposure. Depth of field is secondary.


Shallow depth of field is useless if you don't have the shutter speed to get the shot. I presume you understand the exposure triangle?

Anyway, it's not really equivalent, of course. If you want the shallow depth of field over the size/weight/cost issue, go full frame. Just so we all understand what the trade-offs are. But f/9 is not and never will be the "equivalent" of f/4.5.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

I've owned both, and while the Panny has the advantage in size and weight, the Oly is noticeably sharper. And good luck getting the Panny serviced, I had a nightmare trying and had to practiclaly give mine away.

But I agree, shoot Panny on Panny and Oly on Oly. You won't give up any features that way

gwilliams6

Digital Photography School:

Full Frame vs APS-C vs Micro Four Thirds: Camera Sensors Explained (with the multiplier factors for focal length and aperture explained)

https://digital-photography-school.com/camera-sensors-explained/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20an%20image%20shot,shooting%20conditions%20stay%20the%20same.

Cheers and best to you.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Maybe not exactly, but it’ll be close.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The equivalence referred to is the depth of field. If you maintain constant field of view when switching from full frame to Micro 4/3, then you willuse lenses that are HALF the focal length. When that is so, a 25mm f/1.7 normal lens on m43 has the light gathering effect of f/1.7, but it has the depth of field you would get with a 50mm lens set to f/3.5 on a full frame camera.

There are trade-offs to every camera platform. Micro 4/3 provides deeper depth of field for a given FIELD OF VIEW. Full frame provides shallower depth of field for a given field of view. Whether it's a benefit or detriment in either case depends on the subject matter and the photographer's preference and knowledge.

While many photographers like shallow depth of field so they can separate subject from background and foreground, many others find that look unnatural and disorienting. They prefer deep depth of field, especially for landscapes, architecture, some product photography, and some photojournalism.

"Best" is always relative to personal needs, wants, hopes, dreams, desires, and willingness to compromise on certain points. The overall perfect camera for all photographers does not exist, but perfect cameras exist for some of us and for some use cases.

There is always someone who does not understand that point and insists that the image resolution and low light ability and shallow depth of field of full frame gear are the only things that matter, and that they should matter universally. But that is not the case! Sometimes you want to travel light, get more depth, not less, and not have to spend computer power on 61MP files that are going to be printed to 8x10 and smaller, or simply posted on web sites.