a question about switching from nikon to micro four thirds

[ilia_isakov]

Hi, so i am switching from my nikon d90 to the GH4, a micr four thirds camera. I want to save money and i have this favorite lens, a tamron AF 28-70 f2.8

lens, that i want to keep and transfer. I was told i need an adapter and that everything will be manual on the gh4 with this lens, including the aperture, shutter

and focus. This is impractical for me as i want to shoit vidwos and i wont have both hands available to constantly readjust. Is there an adapter that might

possibly enable the camera to communicate with the lens automatically or any other method. ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

[dan_brown4]

<p>I dunno, seems like you'd be better off with a D610 for that kind of money.</p>

[SCL]

<p>No, adapters for these types of cameras are "dumb", that is they do not communicate info to the bodies.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I just switched from a D90 to the Olympus OM-D EM-5 and, frankly, I'm delighted.</p>

<p>You will not want to use that lens with the GH4 (a FANTASTIC camera, btw, and for video, one of the very very best), as there are better options for it in the µ43 realm. So, I'd sell it. There is no adapter that will give you AF on that lens. Sorry. And when you do choose a lens, keep in mind that some of the lenses that are best for stills aren't best for video and vice versa.</p>

<p>If you're shooting a lot of video, all indications are that that camera might be the very best choice you could go with.</p>

<p>My Olympus has a similar sensor, and I can tell you (since the D90 is older this shouldn't be a surprise) that the image quality from the GH4 will be much much better than the D90. (And forget about the D90's video capability, it was the first DSLR ever to have video and it feels like it - and yes, I LOVED my D90).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>With rare exceptions, you are much better off using native lenses and accessories for a camera. In particular, there seems to be little point to put such a big lens on a relatively small Macro 4/3 camera and also get a 2x so called "crop factor."</p>

<p>I have the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. I mainly use that on FX bodies, and even so, I have received comments from non-photographers that the lens is big.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<p>No one makes an adapter that can communicate with the camera electronically, but an adapter that can mount a Nikon G-lens with control for the aperture can be found on eBay for very little money.</p>

<p>Do you really want to constantly change the aperture during a shoot? The GH4 has autoISO in Movies mode so it will adjust ISO to match the change of light. Changing the aperture will change the DOF, thus the look of video, which can be annoying. The Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is an outstanding lens which covers a very useful range (FF eq of 24-70mm), although it is pricy. The Tamron seems a bit too long (and too big) on a m4/3 camera. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I'd expect the next DX body to do 4K, and that will almost certainly fit your Tamron.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>image quality from the GH4 will be much much better than the D90</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>They have quite similar DxO ratings for Dynamic Range (12.5 v 12.8) and Bit depth (22.7 v 23.2), and ISO (977 v 791) (All in Nikon v GH4 order)</p>

<p>How does 'much, much' manifest itself? ...and they're both about 16MP.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>No one makes an adapter that can communicate with the camera electronically, but an adapter that can mount a Nikon G-lens with control for the aperture can be found on eBay for very little money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have one of these that I got to use with my 55mm micro that I love. It works great for that so far.</p>

<p>For anything else that is moving or is on video, no way would I consider a lens on that adapter when there are such great options form µ43.</p>

<p>But yes, I would also NOT change the aperture while shooting video most likely.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>How does 'much, much' manifest itself? ...and they're both about 16MP.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I first got my EM-5 (similar, but possibly older sensor than the GH4) I did rigorous comparison with the 12MP D90 I had, thinking I would maybe keep the D90. 16MP vs. 12MP wasn't the issue. The newer camera was clearer and I could push the ISO WAY higher without serious penalty. I sold the D90 and almost all the lenses and such. (So am I even allowed to post in here anymore? I wonder...)</p>

<p>There was no comparison. I'm sure that a "same year" DX camera from Nikon will have equal or better image quality, but we're comparing a 2013 camera (the Panasonic) with one that's 5 or more years old. Of COURSE the newer camera will be better. That's not a slam against Nikon. That D90 was a great camera that still took great pics. I just needed to go much much smaller.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I was told i need an adapter and that everything will be manual on the gh4 with this lens, including the aperture, shutter and focus. This is impractical for me as i want to shoit vidwos and i wont have both hands available to constantly readjust.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i know a lot of videographers who actually prefer manual focusing. some buy older primes precisely for the focus ring. if you are just getting into video shooting, there's obviously a learning curve, but MF isn't necessarily a dealbreaker.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You will not want to use that lens with the GH4 (a FANTASTIC camera, btw, and for video, one of the very very best), as there are better options for it in the µ43 realm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>there are two m4/3 native lenses which are 2.8 zooms -- both retail for more than $1000.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. I mainly use that on FX bodies, and even so, I have received comments from non-photographers that the lens is big.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the tamron 28-75 is about 1/3rd the size of the 28-70 and 24-70 nikkors. it's not much larger than than the 2.8 m4/3 zooms. the panasonic 12-35 is 2.9 inches, the tamron 3.6 inches.<br>

<br>

all misinformation aside, i would try the tamron with an adapter which allows for aperture control first before ponying up an extra grand for the m4/3 version. while it may not be an optimal video lens, it may be ok for right now as you grow into the GH4's capabilities and your own video skills. </p>

[ilia_isakov]

I guess its not so much the aperture change during the

shoot that will be problematic. For the most part i can

ser it before and it will be held constant. Its the focus. I

dont want to manually focus on a moving subject

because i will be shooting non static things and i need

to move around and have at leasr one hand free.

Focusing manually will engage both hands and

contribute to camera shake. Do you think im right in

selling this lens for that reason and invesring with

limited funds in a four thirds lens that will communicate

automatically....

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Focusing manually will engage both hands and contribute to camera shake. Do you think im right in selling this lens for that reason and invesring with limited funds in a four thirds lens that will communicate automatically....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>imho, you are right to sell the lens and get a 43 lens that will work automatically. Absolutely.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If one wants to compare the physical lengths for Nikon F mount lenses and Macro 4/3 lenses, you need to keep in mind that the flange-to-sensor plane distance is quite different between the two. The Nikon F mount is designed to clear a mirror for 35mm-film SLRs, but Micro 4/3 obviously has no mirror to worry about. That is why those adapters the OP has in mind are very thick to compensate for the difference. That should be quite apparent from the images on B&H's web site:<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Nikon+F+Mount+To+Micro+4%2F3+Adapter&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=</p>

<p>In other words, you need to add the thickness for the adapter to the Nikon F mount lens for a true physical length comparison. When you need to push a big lens for FX that much farther forward on the GH4, it is a highly front heavy set up.</p>

<p>If one wants to switch to mirrorless, I would do it the way Peter Hamm does, i.e. a mostly clean switch over. If you cannot afford the native lenses (i.e. cannot afford the ones you really need), IMO you are not ready to switch. However, there are more affordable Micro 4/3 lenses; whether they meet your needs is up to you to decide.</p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, even mounting Nikon F mount lenses onto Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras is not a very good idea except when you need long telephoto. That is when the crop factor plays in your favor.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I dont want to manually focus on a moving subject because i will be shooting non static things and i need to move around and have at leasr one hand free. Focusing manually will engage both hands and contribute to camera shake. Do you think im right in selling this lens for that reason and invesring with limited funds in a four thirds lens that will communicate automatically....</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

i'd actually probably invest in a stable platform first. if you are trying to shoot video handheld with no support, it could be a shaky proposition. i have a friend who got a GH3 and built a support rig out of PVC pipe for pennies on the dollar, compared to the expensive DSLR video rigs. he even made a space for the external mic and vidlight. he also got the 12-35 when it just came out, the price has gone down a bit since then. other video shooters i know use monopods or handles for better framing and panning.obviously, AF is what you want for shooting fast-moving things like sports, action, and dance. but as i said earlier, a lot of cinematographers shoot exclusively in manual focus and look for lenses with a long focus throw for smooth transitions. it also depends on your style, whether you pan a lot, transition from near to far focus, etc. it's not really a big deal to MF since with a zoom lens you will be using one hand to zoom anyway -- in fact, that's also why a lot of video shooters use primes, so they have one less control to worry about. not sure what your experience level is, or how professional the videos you shoot are going to be, but i'm working on a documentary with a videographer right now. he has a Canon 5dII setup and uses manual focus a lot even with his AF lenses, which include a 70-200/4.<br>

<br>

as far as lenses go, i would proably hold on to the tamron if you can't afford a 2.8 m4/3 lens right now. you're losing a lot of DoF with the smaller sensor (just remember that in terms of DoF, 2.8 on m4/3 is going to be closer to 5.6.), so getting a less expensive, slower, variable-aperture m4/3 lens is not going to be an ideal solution. you may also want to invest in something wider and/or faster. the 28-75 will be a 56-150/2.8--not bad specs, actually--but shooting video on m4/3, something like the panasonic 20/1.7 would give you both wider and faster, as would the olympus 12/2 (but it's pretty pricey). Rokinon also makes a 12/2 which is inexpensive but also manual focus. <br>

<br>

bottom line, IMO, if you want to be a good video shooter, it's in your best interest to get comfy with manual focus sooner rather than later. i dont see where you have anything to lose at this point by sticking with the tamron, which won't sell for that much used, maybe $250. you certainly can't replace that with another 2.8 zoom for that price. since it seems you are just learning, you might want to see if that combo works for you, unless you have the budget to go whole-hog from the get-go and pick up the 12-35 too. <br>

</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Focusing manually will engage both hands and contribute to camera shake.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just wondering how you plan on zooming then, without contributing to camera shake... can you twist the zoom ring while holding the camera with one hand?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Personally, if the plan is to stick with the Tamron lens (What is it, the 28-75 or the 24-70? There isn't a 28-70) there is no way I'd recommend buying a mirrorless camera. You put the lens on the camera via an adapter and you hardly end up saving any size over having it on a DSLR, and you lose AF and any exposure modes that involve the camera controlling aperture. You'll be losing a ton of operability and gaining nothing at all, and the camera costs $1700.</p>

<p>If you get a Nikon D7100 for $1100, you save $600 over the cost of the GH4, get a better all-around camera with the high end AF system, it will be 100% compatible with your lens and the size difference won't be noticeable. There's pretty much no downside.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The lens that you have is a full frame lens isn't it? If so I wouldn't use it for any smaller size especially micro 4/3 as it's much smaller than 24x36mm. Using lenses designed for larger format you waste the lens capability. As others have mentioned you lost all automation but also the lens would either cost more than a lens design for m4/3 with similar performance or it's perform poorer than a lens designed for m4/3. The extra coverage isn't free and if you don't use it, better not have it. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>If you are not particularly interested in serious wildlife photography (such as shooting birds in flight), I think it makes a lot of sense to switch to a 4/3 system - completely.</p>

<p>The equipment are small, lightweight, and are especially convenient for travel and street photography. Hwvr, I don't see the point of mixing with big Nikon lenses. You can get an entire suite of excellent Olympus/Panasonic 4/3 lenses from 12mm through 300mm for much less than the Nikon equivalence.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Not sure if anyone has mentioned it (I'm tired and there are a lot of posts already,) but I too don't see any sense at all in using a 28-70mm Tamron on an M43 body. For starters, doesn't the focal length double? I.e. it's no longer a 28-70 but more like a 60-140mm? I also don't see the sense in buying a small camera and then sticking a large unbalanced lens on it. And then we get to all the manual exposure/focus issues of trying to shoot video with the thing.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ilia, have we helped at all?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If you get a Nikon D7100 for $1100, you save $600 over the cost of the GH4, get a better all-around camera with the high end AF system, it will be 100% compatible with your lens and the size difference won't be noticeable. There's pretty much no downside.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>for still photography, yes. but we're assuming the OP wants the GH4 for its video capabilities, which the d7100 can't match. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also don't see the sense in buying a small camera and then sticking a large unbalanced lens on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>as noted earlier, the tamron 28-75 isn't exactly a large lens. it's just over one-half an inch longer than the panasonic 12-35/2.8, and actually shorter than many m4/3 long telephotos, such as the 100-300. using the tamron on m4/3, however, you completely lose the wide end, so that would have to be addressed.<br>

<br>

what's unclear to me is how the OP plans to use the GH4. there seems to be an expectation of holding the camera like one would a still camera, i.e., with two hands on the body. the OP stated a concern about needing both hands for stability, however, in that scenario, there's no difference between using the focus ring and using the zoom ring; you'd need to remove one hand from the body to use either. a much more practical solution would be to use a monopod for stability, which would allow one hand to be free. but given that the OP seems unclear on basic video shooting techniques, i'm not sure any advice we could give is going to be helpful, especially because this is the Nikon forum. perhaps the OP would have better luck asking this question in the Olympus forum, where, presumably, there are some actual GH4 users and/or people experienced in video shooting.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Having BOTH Nikon and m43 gear I would recommend ditching the 28-70 for use on the GH4, if not just for the field of view change going from DX to m43.<br>

I would recommend getting a used 12-35/2.8 Panasonic - it's fantastic for video and the OIS is great too. You can also manually focus if you'd like.<br>

m43 has become my preferred video camera even over my D800 - the video is just way better and the m43 rig is very compact and far easier to use.<br>

For stills, m43 is just fine in bright light when you can keep the ISO down to 100 or so.</p>

[ilia_isakov]

Thanksto those who replied. I am sorry for confusing

people and go the lack of information from the start.

I guess what I am trying to say is this. I am a

photography and videography enthusiast who wants to

switch to the gh4, mainly because of its 4k capability

and it's relative affordability. Since I am shooting on my

own without help or a second camera and Wil often be

shooting tight and awkward body dynamics and also

because of the reluctance to control two lens rings

when shooting, i need autofocus. I actually don't

understand how manual focus can be helpful in any

environment where both continuous shooting is needed

and the focusing effect serves no aesthetic purpose for

the telling of the story. Constantly refocusing between

people looks unprofessional when replaying. I

understand people focus manually because they are

filming with a high aperture which allows for focus

compensation if either you or subject moves a few feet.

I like my shallow depth of feild and it does not give room

for surprise movements.

PLEASE KEEP your answers brief and not too technical.

I am a bit ignorant in this subject and realize what I just

said may provoke a host of discussions. What i am

concerned is whether to keep this lens or not, assuming

I can sell it for about 250 dollars and save the hundred

and fifty dollars on a good lens adapter. Basically I am

saving 400 dollars out of the total 500 it's worth on

amazon. And i can use that money on a micro four

thirds lens. What i am tryin to ask is, won't it not be a

financial mistake to just get a new lens for the gh4.

 

Thanks for the replies. Please keep it simple, i get

tangled up quite easily.

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>What i am concerned is whether to keep this lens or not, assuming I can sell it for about 250 dollars and save the hundred and fifty dollars on a good lens adapter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are making a good choice in selling the lens and getting one that will really work well with the GH4.</p>

<p>Everything you say about your shooting style and needs (and now your desire for 4K capability seals the deal) leads me to believe you are picking a GREAT camera (maybe the best) for the job.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To the OP, if your plan is to capture 4K video, do you have the computer hardware and software to edit and store those huge video files?</p>

<p>Needless to say, you need good lenses, tripod and/or steadycam ... to go along with a good (video) camera. Maybe I am totally off base, but reading this thread, I don't have the impression that the OP has thought it all through.</p>