Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: moonhawk
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 126 next>>
Mar 26, 2024 10:47:29   #
Crop factor refers to angle of view, not to exposure.

But you already knew that...
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 18:20:34   #
ricardo00 wrote:
Less light per smaller pixel? Think a smaller bucket carries less water. That is why people go to full frame sensors. Or why a micro 4/3 camera is better in low light than a camera with a 1 inch sensor (ie. the Sony RX10 mIV with a 1 inch sensor can shoot at 600mm equivalent with a much lighter and smaller lens than the OM-1).


Pixel size and density have zero direct relationship to aperture. Noise, of course, but not exposure.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 17:24:23   #
ricardo00 wrote:
The high density of pixels in the OM system means less light per pixel so the aperture equivalent also changes.


Please explain how that works.
Go to
Mar 20, 2024 13:36:53   #
I don't think youll ever do better with OM systems than the 150-400 f/4.5 TC for wildlife, and any equivalent focal length inn FF or APS-C would be far bigger, heavier and more expensive.

I don't see them replacing it anytime soon.
Go to
Mar 7, 2024 14:00:45   #
jaredjacobson wrote:
I compared the f/2.8 to the f/4 because in my experience with Micro 4/3 compared to my APS-C cameras to get the same shutter speed and ISO for a given shot I need an extra stop of light.

So for my purposes, f/2.8 on M4/3 is most comparable to f/4 on APS-C and none of the M4/3 lenses I’ve chosen are effectively faster than the corresponding lenses for the Z.

There IBIS in my Olympus cameras is much more effective so I can hand-hold for longer periods of time, but if I’m trying to get a specific shutter speed to stop motion blur that doesn’t really help. YMMV.
I compared the f/2.8 to the f/4 because in my expe... (show quote)


You lost me here. At the same ISO and shutter speed, f/2.8 is f/2.8 on any camera, and f/4 is f/4 on any camera. DOF will certainly vary between formats, but unless I misread you, you were referring to exposure. the "exposure triangle" is format independent, which is why it is so useful.
Go to
Mar 7, 2024 13:56:25   #
JimBart wrote:
A few of you messaged me and asked me to post a few pics in order to see why I was contemplating the OM1 system.
Here are a few of my recent ones And you can see why.


There's some room for improvement there, but not a lot. Ibis could help, for sure, but mostly I think you will improve with just getting out there and taking pictures.
Go to
Mar 7, 2024 13:53:47   #
jaredjacobson wrote:
I was curious about your statement, because I own and love Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras and lenses. I don't own any Nikon cameras or lenses.* It doesn't appear to be true that the price is half for longer lenses (or most lenses, for that matter), and in one case it's very not true. I've found one lens where the price was about half. It's generally fairly comparable. Weights are generally less, but not universally. Sizes are almost universally smaller. Here's a sample, assuming APS-C Z camera body. I believe all the listed Z lenses also work on their full-frame cameras.

Size matters. ;-)

Standard zoom:
M.ZUIKO ED 12-40MM F2.8 PRO II: 382 g, 70 mm diameter x 84 mm long, $800 (sale, $1000 not on sale)
Nikon 24-70 f/4 (longer): 500 g, 77.5 mm x 88.5 mm, $1000

Telephoto zoom:
M.Zuiko ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS: 1120 g, 86.4 mm x 205.7 mm, $1300
NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S (shorter, brighter): 1435 g, 98 mm x 222 mm, $2400
NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR (longer, effectively brighter): 1955 g, 110 mm x 315.5 mm, $1700

50mm equivalent:
M.Zuiko Digital 25mm f/1.8: 137 g, 57.8 mm diameter x 42 mm length, $300 (sale, $400 not on sale)
NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S (effectively brighter): 370 g, 73 mm x 86 mm, $850

35mm equivalent:
M.Zuiko Digital ED 17mm F1.2 PRO: 390 g, 68.2 mm x 87 mm, $1200 (sale, $1400 not on sale)
NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S: 450 g, 78.0 mm x 96.5 mm, $1000

600mm equivalent:
M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4.0 IS PRO: 1270 g, 92.5mm x 227 mm, $2800 (sale, $3000 not on sale)
NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S (effectively brighter): 1160 g, 104 mm x 234.5 mm, $3000

Very long zoom:
M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO: 1875 g, 115.8 mm x 314.3 mm, $7500
NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR (longer, effectively brighter): 1955 g, 110 mm x 315.5 mm, $1700

* Actually, I own one old manual focus Nikkor micro lens, adapted to my Sony cameras. No Nikon bodies, though, and no Z lenses. So if I were biased, it would probably be the other way.
I was curious about your statement, because I own ... (show quote)


I agree with superfly--your comparisons are not really apples to apples. in the lst example, comparing a pro lens to a consumer lens is not realistic, and you left out the built in TC which actually makes it longer eqv (1000mm) than the Nikon, and even at 5.6, faster. Cheaper? Heck no, but a better equivalent would be the 500 0r 600 f/4 models, which are a great deal larger, heavier, and more expensive.

In some of your other comparisons, Oly came out ahead as well.

I don't reallly care, I shot Nikon for twenty years, and i think they're great. But i stand by my statement that overall, m4/3 will save size, weight, and a lot of money.
Go to
Mar 5, 2024 14:12:15   #
Artcameraman wrote:
Touchy! Must be a Democrat?


Sir: that kind of insult is just uncalled for...
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 22:17:37   #
neillaubenthal wrote:
Balderdash. The M4/3 weight/size advantage while it does exist…it's not as great as proponents of the smaller form factor expound on (I just checked on system weights today for an equivalent wildlife/landscape system). And there are tradeoffs because of the smaller sensor…and those tradeoffs may, or then again may not have any relevance to a particular user.

And claiming that the OM is the best weather sealing there is…where did you get that from? All of the competing models from other vendors have excellent weather sealing, just as the OM1 system does.

There are reasons that for some…M4/3 might be a better overall system…and then again there are reasons that DX or FX are also better or worse overall choices. Putting out grandiose claims like this just confuses the unwary.
Balderdash. The M4/3 weight/size advantage while i... (show quote)


Balderdash?

Price the long Pro lenses against the big 3 equivalents, in those cases where there is an equivalent. For the same field of view the price is about half, the size and weight are not comparable. And compare the Oly 12-100 f/4 Pro againt a big3 equivalent in size, weight, and price.

And if some of the johnny -come-latelys have started to catch up in weather sealing and image stabilization, Olympus was still way ahead of them. I would never have taken my Nikons in the same conditions I wouldn't blink an eye about exposing my OM-1s or my EM-1s to.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 17:17:03   #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I believe he’s talking about the difference between the OM-1 and the just released OM-1 MkII. I never had a D7100 but I’ve had a D7000, D7200 and D500. All very good image quality, as is my OM-1, but when it comes to other capabilities the OM-1 completely blows them away. A lot depends on what you shoot, but I make good use of mine for all kinds of shooting. For wildlife there’s Pro Capture and 25fps with focus tracking, (50fps with the Pro lenses). For city night shooting I live Live ND and Live Composite. I’m not making the jump to the MkII because I just can’t justify the expense right now. It is tempting and if I didn’t already have the OM-1 I would get the new one. The biggest differences are a bigger buffer, improved AF, (although the autofocus was already very good), and for me, Live ND adding another stop to ND128.
I believe he’s talking about the difference betwee... (show quote)


I won't upgrade soon either, but the tempting thing for me is the graduated neutral density filter, which can be raised, lowered, and tilted. That's pretty cool.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 13:00:34   #
Wow, pigs must be flying--I actually agree with what you said, and almost all of it was in English. Just make sure they don't crap on your head.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 00:26:53   #
Thank you. Very helpful....
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 00:05:14   #
Now I'm curious. How does it connect to satellite? Does it have a built in GPS?
Go to
Mar 3, 2024 17:16:56   #
Ihave almost never used a tripod since I changed to mirrorless with modern image stabilization. Nikon or Oly. Used to never shoot without one. Don't miss them either, unless I'm doing something that requires stability for very long exposures. There is no loss of image quality, either, in most instances, certainly no more than when I did use tripods.
Go to
Mar 3, 2024 15:37:20   #
The biggest difference you will notice is the size/weight/price of the longer lenses in the m/43 system. Smaller/lighter/less expensive.

Going to mirrorless is a great advantage in some regards. The image stabilization will be a revelation, and if you shoot in foul weather, the OM weather sealing is the best there is. Enjoy whatever you decide.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 126 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.