Tired of lugging my DSLR around....

[jeff_hostetler]

<p>I posted this question (paraphrased here) in the Nature Forum and got lots of replies:</p>

<p><em>I am have become tired of lugging around my D300, big lenses, and a tripod that supports it all. It is getting to the point that I just don't go out with my gear unless I am shooting close to the truck, etc. I am drawn to more intimate type landscapes, macros, and haven't done much wildlife but would like to. </em><em>Has anyone else experienced this phenomenon</em>?</p>

<p>Since the followers of this forum are the experts, I would like to ask your opinions on the this 4/3 thing. I want to go light, not lose any quality, something affordable, and have my cake and eat it too. Any insights into what system I should be looking at, to do landscapes, intimate landscapes, and macro work?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance......</p>

 

[phototransformations]

Sure. Look at the G1, upcoming G2, or the GH1. You can use your Nikon lenses for a while as you determine what else

you need. I never touch my D80 anymore and am mostly happy with the kit lens and long zoom Panasonic sells, plus my

old Nikkor 50 1.8 for portraits and low light and Nikkor 55 2.8 for macro.

[SCL]

<p>Like you, I'm looking seriously at the macro 4/3 cameras. Here's a link which really captured my interest in some of the macro work being done with these cameras. http://www.mu-43.com/f54/insects-more-insects-using-gf1-canon-fd-50mm-macro-521/</p>

[lilly_w]

<p >Wow, I just had a very brief glance at your other thread with abundant replies. My sense is that you won’t find many new revelations here. You don’t need a new system, just a smaller Nikon body, small ballhead/CF tripod, and make some <em>decisions </em>about daily objectives. Commit to carrying less gear and understand that on a given day you won’t be shooting everything from 4:1 macro, fisheye all the way to 500mm tele. It seems as though you’re turning the cake…time to cut and enjoy.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>Your previous post was on the front page so people who frequent this site as a whole must have seen it and/or responded already. Just like any thing in life, for example, computers, using something smaller always carries a lot of compromises. It is not clear from your previous responses what compromises/sacrifices you are willing to make. This makes it difficult to take this issue to the next levels.</p>

[eric merrill]

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

 

<p> I want to go light, not lose any quality</p>

 

 

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

 

<p>Me, too. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case with 4/3rds right now.</p>

<p>300/2.8 lens for Canon is 6 lbs and $4500.</p>

<p>300/2.8 lens for Nikon is 6.4 lbs and $5900.</p>

<p>Both the Canon and Nikon include image stabilization in the lens.</p>

<p>300/2.8 lens for Olympus is 7.2 lbs and $5700. That's 20% heavier and 30% more expensive than the Canon.</p>

<p>To me, the promise of 4/3rds doesn't seem to be a reality yet. And that's assuming the quality is the same. From what I've gathered from reviews, I'd be sacrificing quality at higher ISOs by downgrading to a 4/3 sensor. I would think that if the lens is going to remain the same size and weight, but the image size it needs to cover is smaller, the aperture should be larger. It doesn't make sense to me that a lens for a smaller sensor is slightly bigger and a lot heavier than the same lens designed for a larger sensor. Makes no sense at all. In my opinion, the only way to justify the above pricing and weight would be for the Olympus to be a 300/2.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

 

 

[phototransformations]

m4/3 and 4/3 are two different creatures. The new m4/3 lenses are typically much smaller and lighter than their 4/3

forebears and than equivalent APS-C lenses. The limiting factor is the small number of native lenses now available. Hence

my comment on using some legacy lenses to fill in gaps for now. As for sensor performance, I find myG1 to be about one

stop noisier than the D90/D300 at the same ISO. The newer Gh1 is about on par with the D90. Sensor size is not that

significant an issue for me except when I need very shallow depth of field. At present, there are only a couple of fast native

lenses. I can fit my G1 and two kit lenses in a small bag that would not hold my D80 without a lens, and there's still

roomfor another lens. I take it everywhere, as a result.

[tdigi]

<p>Jeff do you own anything besides your Nikon? I don't always want to lug around my 5d2 either so I am looking at an LX3 as my take everywhere camera. You have to figure out what your willing to compromise. For me I want wide angle, decent performance and HD video and decent quality. I do not expect a 5D2 in a tiny package. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>" not lose any quality... to do landscapes, intimate landscapes, and macro work?"</p>

<p>What size prints are you making? What ISOs are you shooting at? For typical sized prints (8" x 10" or smaller) at lower ISOs, it would be difficult if not impossible to see any differences. This site is great for comparison shots:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a></p>

<p>I and new to the Olympus m4/3 system and and thrilled with it. My Nikon gear is already gathering dust. The IQ has exceeded my expectations, especially at ISO 1600. For personal photography, I don't know that I need or want more than the E-PL1.</p>

<p>My suggestion... buy the camera from a dealer that accepts returns so you can test it out for yourself.</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>Eric,<br>

Not a valid comparison. Yes, they are all the same focal length, but the version for the 4/3 cams provides the same angle of view as a 600mm lens on 35mm. Compare lenses that offer equivilant angles of view, not necessarily the same focal length.</p>

[nicholas_herndon]

<p>"300/2.8 lens for Canon is 6 lbs and $4500.<br />300/2.8 lens for Nikon is 6.4 lbs and $5900.<br />Both the Canon and Nikon include image stabilization in the lens.<br />300/2.8 lens for Olympus is 7.2 lbs and $5700. That's 20% heavier and 30% more expensive than the Canon.<br />To me, the promise of 4/3rds doesn't seem to be a reality yet. And that's assuming the quality is the same. From what I've gathered from reviews, I'd be sacrificing quality at higher ISOs by downgrading to a 4/3 sensor. I would think that if the lens is going to remain the same size and weight, but the image size it needs to cover is smaller, the aperture should be larger. It doesn't make sense to me that a lens for a smaller sensor is slightly bigger and a lot heavier than the same lens designed for a larger sensor. Makes no sense at all. In my opinion, the only way to justify the above pricing and weight would be for the Olympus to be a 300/2.<br />Eric"</p>

<p>Eric, as a matter of fact, the Olympus <em>is</em> a 300/2. The Oly 150mm f2 on a 4/3rds body offers an EFL of a 300mm lens on a "full frame" camera. The kicker? It only costs $2000 and weighs 3.5 pounds.<br />The 300mm f2.8 lens on a 4/3rds body is the full frame equivalent of a <strong>600mm f2.8</strong> lens!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Asa Canon SLR user (currently 5DII 1DIIN and 7D bodies) I bought a G1 to use old Canon FD lenses. I have been quite surprised with the little camera but it does have limitations. the main ones are:<br>

AF is pretty poor for moving subjects - not an issue for landscapes<br>

Quality is good to ISO 400 in good light. Even at ISO 100 low light images are not that great. For your uses this should not be a major limitation.<br>

Flash - fairly simple system not really any use with studio flash<br>

Lenses - this is the weak point of the system. I mainly use FD glass in manual focus but the m4/3 range is limited by a lack of wide angle and fast lenses. For landscape use the wide angle issue will be the big problem. I have not found a way to go beyond 34mm (Canon FD17mm F4) or 30mm Fisheye (Canon FD15mm Fisheye) or the kit lens 14-45 which gives 28mm. What I really want is a lens like the 7-14 four thirds lens but I suspect it will be quite expensive and will wait and see how it performs.<br>

For Macro I use a Canon FD100 F4 (effectively a 200mm lens) and find it works great. The Fd50 f3.5 will also work well and with the 25mm extension tube goes to 1:1</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>How many legs does a sheep have, if you count its tail as a leg?</p>

<p>Four. Counting the tail as a leg doesn't make it a leg.</p>

<p>Regardless of the size of the sensor, a 300/2.8 lens is still a 300/2.8 lens. If you wish to crop the image to get a more narrow field of view, you can do so just as easily with a Canon or Nikon as you can with an Olympus 4/3.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Oly 150mm f2 on a 4/3rds body offers an EFL of a 300mm lens on a "full frame" camera. The kicker? It only costs $2000 and weighs 3.5 pounds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a thousand bucks, you can get a Canon 135/2 that weighs 1.6 lbs. That's a 10% gain in focal length for a 100% price difference and a 119% weight difference.</p>

<p>Both the Canon 50D and the Olympus E3 have pixel pitches of 4.7 micrometers. That means a given sized subject will hit the same number of pixels if you use the same focal length on both cameras. Doesn't matter how many pixels on the outer edge you throw away before capture (Olympus) or after capture (Canon). The subject will have the same number of pixels when viewed at the same magnification.</p>

<p>That's why I don't understand why the Olympus 300/2.8 is bigger and heavier than the Canon and Nikon lenses. In theory, the Olympus should be a lot smaller. It doesn't have to cover a "full frame" sensor like the others. It only has to cover a smaller sensor area. </p>

<p>If you want to compare apples and oranges, compare the Olympus E3 + 300/2.8 against the Canon 50D and 400/4. The Olympus outfit weighs 9 lbs and costs $6800; the Canon, 6 lbs and $6900. From what I understand, the Canon is better at higher ISO than the Olympus. That helps balance out the f/2.8 vs f/4. The Olympus will give a field of view equivalent to 600mm on a full frame; the Canon, 640mm. For the same size subject, the Canon will record more pixels.<br /></p>

<p>I'd rather not haul my big, heavy lenses around, either. I don't see lighter weight alternatives yet, though. I really wish that I did. Competition is a good thing for consumers. I want Canon and Nikon to have incentive to come out with better solutions.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Why did this de-volve from a post someone made about not wanting to haul around heavy DSLR's to a talk about 300mm pro quality primes lenses so big and heavy one would be a fool to use with any micro four-thirds camera?</p>

<p>That's the real apples to oranges part of this conversation. I realize the OP's dreaming a dream that does not exist and should, honestly, realize that. Wouldn't we all love Canon 1Ds quality for $250. Anyone really thinking that's possible is not living in the real world.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>I think that if your a casual shooter and not printing past a certain size, the G1 and later micro 4/3rds iterations are one of the better ways to go for a light weight interchangeable lens system with lots of user options. I bought the G1 instead of spending way more on Nikon or other systems since my needs are basically, or were basically simple till recently. Before buying I read quite a few user threads/reviews and looked at a lot of photographs that eventually made my mind up. It really is a helluva system for what it is. One of the common remarks in many of the threads I read were of people re-discovering photography again with a camera that was a joy to carry compared to what they had before. Many also noted that their full sized DSLR's had been sitting on the shelf for awhile since buying into Micro 4/3rds. The options for th G1 are many and one needs to throughly review everything and set it up to their preferences for best results. I think that overall if your shooting just for yourself and not for income necessarily the Micro 4/3rds system is great. New lenses will be appearing soon and I got to tell you I and many others are quite impressed with whats out now. On top of it you can get an adapter and shoot practically any other systems lenses which I do with my old Canon FD's. My 200mm F2.8 FD is a 400mm on the G1 and that gets me out in nature range on the cheap. Add a 2x and your at 800mm. Do that at the same quality in any other system and your looking at big buck. So, regardless of the remarks above, and although the G1 has it's drawbacks as well as any other camera regardless of name, the system is a value for people who just like to shoot and not carry alot of weight while giving a great return on the investment, and I believe it's here to stay. Photography is fun again.</p>

<div></div>

[gary_hanna]

<p>I got the lumix mainly because I wanted somethingn small and can pretty much carry on me at all times - it's a nice way to stand out at events you're not hired at and pass out cards and network. Big enough for people to notice you're a photographer if they need one, small enough to not get kicked out by security.</p>

[nicholas_herndon]

<p>"How many legs does a sheep have, if you count its tail as a leg?<br>

Four. Counting the tail as a leg doesn't make it a leg.<br>

Regardless of the size of the sensor, a 300/2.8 lens is still a 300/2.8 lens. If you wish to crop the image to get a more narrow field of view, you can do so just as easily with a Canon or Nikon as you can with an Olympus 4/3."<br>

Right, that's why I said "equivalent focal length". <br>

"For a thousand bucks, you can get a Canon 135/2 that weighs 1.6 lbs. That's a 10% gain in focal length for a 100% price difference and a 119% weight difference."<br>

Right, but with telephoto lenses, even incremental increases in speed and focal length increase the price, size and weight exponentially. <br>

As for why the Canon 300/2.8 is lighter than the Oly 300/2.8, I couldn't say, I'm not a lens engineer. In any case, as Greg pointed out, this discussion is way off track.<br>

Back to the subject:<br>

Jeff, skip 4/3rds and go directly to m4/3rds. The Panasonic GH1 is an amazing camera, is super small, and with an adapter can mount basically any lens ever made. I have one and use it a lot for macro and the like. It has a articulating screen which is very useful for handheld macro shots of difficult subjects, as well as overheard shots. Image quality is excellent, and for video it's basically unrivaled.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Landscapes - The Panasonic 14-45 is the one of the best kit lenses out there, based on DPreview testing, and furthermore the camera corrects lens defects so you don't need to. Optical defects severely degrade what any DSLR can accomplish.

 

Intimate Landcapes - Seems like 14 (28mm) is wide enough for that, but a wider zoom is available (don't know anything about it).

 

Macro - I would get the G1 or EVF successors so you can get a good idea of focus, which is hard to determine on a tiny LCD.

 

Wildlife - You didn't ask, but micro-4/3 seems like a poor choice for this. A DSLR viewfinder is superior for finding your subject.

[yeux tortu]

<p>Micro 4/3 is wonderful format for standard and telephoto focal lengths. <br>

EPL1 and Lumix 20 1.7 is a super lightweight combo and that lens is about as sharp as the best Nikkors out there. I like the oly body but so far have preferred the panasonic glass. I was dumbfounded by the images that this combo produces, I must admit that I was a Nikon and Leica snob. <br>

This mount also allows me to mount my Nikkor MF lenses and my Leica glass. <br>

Image quality is as good as my D300 up to ISO 1600.<br>

If you like rangefinder handling and speed of operation then micro 4/3 is great. If you need fast autofocus stick to the D300.</p>