Zoom and M4/3rds v crop and FF for wildlife?

Steelo

Steelo

Messages
2,752
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
Evening folks, as an accomplished landscape photographer of 15+ years, I'm branching out into wildlife and have a burning desire, but I don't know which is the better path to go down! Any advice is welcome.

I shoot Panasonic Lumix and intend to stay that way. I use the Lumix S1ii E with L mount lenses for landscapes, and the Lumix 100-500 for what little wildlife I've done so far. The camera is around 24mp, so cropping in is possible but you don't get the desired result.

I know you ideally need to fill the frame, but sometimes the likes of short-eared owls just don't come close enough, so I'm thinking....

Do I stick with the Lumix 100-500 and go for the Lumix S1Rii with 44mp and have more cropping ability, or do I sell the 100-500mm, add some cash and go for the Lumix G9ii and a 100-400mm lens, giving me an effective 200-800mm reach on micro 4/3rds?

In my head 'filling the frame' is what I'm thinking, so that would mean the G9ii etc which I'm happy to do, or will I get better IQ from cropping in on the 44mp full frame body at 500mm?

Thoughts? I'm driving myself insane and in circles...

TIA
 
You will get better results from the FF w/ 100-500; the G9 is losing 2 stops of light comparatively. If you have to crop the FF to the same extent you would end up ~ 1/3 stop worse off; but hopefully there will be a lot of times where that isn't necessary.

But having more pixels doesn't necessarily mean you have more "crop-ability." Usually something else causes an image to fall short well before pixelation does.
 
sk66 said:
You will get better results from the FF w/ 100-500; the G9 is losing 2 stops of light comparatively. If you have to crop the FF to the same extent you would end up ~ 1/3 stop worse off; but hopefully there will be a lot of times where that isn't necessary.

But having more pixels doesn't necessarily mean you have more "crop-ability." Usually something else causes an image to fall short well before pixelation does.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this,is the sort of advice I'm looking for, as I was looking at it very basically, and wrongly.
 
With wildlife, particularly the faster moving variety, I find it easier to shoot well within the frame and worry about final composition later in Lightroom...the -45mp sensor on my camera permits this admirably (though my.experi3nce/preference does seem to contradict @sk66 's far more technical reply!)
 
Last edited:
dibbly dobbler said:
Sorry to butt in but I don't understand this bit - can somebody explain please?
Click to expand...
I missed that point actually, I'd like to know too. As the M4/3rd 100-400 lens I was looking at is also 1 stop faster at 400 than my FF at 500mm.

I'm assuming it's down to the sensor size?
 
I have th MFT Pana G9 and the G9ii. Also the 100-400mm lens (200-800mm full frame). The first thing is weight and hand held. I have the mk1 of this lens but now really would like the MK2 instead

for distance hand held no probs with the dual image stablisation
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Glad it's not just me! :LOL:

My understanding is that iso/aperture/shutter speed will be identical in any given scenario for FF vs M43 (noise and depth of field not the same).
Click to expand...
This was my thought/assumption, but I don't know M4/3rds at all so happy to learn
 
realspeed said:
I have th MFT Pana G9 and the G9ii. Also the 100-400mm lens (200-800mm full frame). The first thing is weight and hand held. I have the mk1 of this lens but now really would like the MK2 instead

for distance hand held no probs with the dual image stablisation
Click to expand...
Yeah its the G9ii and the mk2 version i'd be looking at. Are you happy with the G9ii in low light/noise?
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Glad it's not just me! :LOL:

My understanding is that iso/aperture/shutter speed will be identical in any given scenario for FF vs M43 (noise and depth of field not the same).
Click to expand...

If you compare equivalent focal lengths between MFT and FF the MFT system will have a smaller physical aperture. For eg a 400mm lens at f8 will give you an aperture of 50mm, a 800mm lens at f8 on FF gives you 100mm.

I mostly use aperture priority and when using MFT I do look at equivalency and set the aperture accordingly, for example if I would use f8 on FF for a particular picture I use f4 with MFT. Other than that I find it more helpful to look at the final result than rely on the theory.
 
woof woof said:
If you compare equivalent focal lengths between MFT and FF the MFT system will have a smaller physical aperture. For eg a 400mm lens at f8 will give you an aperture of 50mm, a 800mm lens at f8 on FF gives you 100mm.

I mostly use aperture priority and when using MFT I do look at equivalency and set the aperture accordingly, for example if I would use f8 on FF for a particular picture I use f4 with MFT. Other than that I find it more helpful to look at the final result than rely on the theory.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that makes sense now. May I ask what MFT you use? I'm not worried about image quality per se, but am I going to be disappointed with noise using higher ISO in comparison to the same on FF?
 
woof woof said:
If you compare equivalent focal lengths between MFT and FF the MFT system will have a smaller physical aperture.
Click to expand...
Yes agreed but that's only relevant as regards depth of field right? The main variables are the same as per previous post?

ETA - Sorry to the OP as I'm going off at a tangent, will go back in my box :)
 
Last edited:
I have a Panasonic GX80. It's an older 16mp camera so not really up to comparison with the MFT cameras of today. In low light my GX80 is quite a bit behind my Sony FF cameras. In ok light if you're using high ISO's to get a fast shutter speed it's ok but you'll see noise when you pixel peep. This was at ISO 16,000 to get 1/500 at f5.6. It's ok for me but there's noise there if I pixel peep. At ISO's which we used to think of as high years ago... like ISO 1,600, even my first generation MFT kit was ok.

P1010803.jpg

Since buying a small RF style FF Sony A7cII I've hardly used MFT but I'm hanging on to it as I occasionally use the Panasonic 45-150mm and 100-400mm and I have no equivalent FF lenses.
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Yes agreed but that's only relevant as regards depth of field right? The main variables are the same as per previous post?

ETA - Sorry to the OP as I'm going off at a tangent, will go back in my box :)
Click to expand...
Don't be sorry, you're asking things I should really know about too.

I'm a landscape who just shoots in manual mode single point focus and is done. Every day's a school day
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Yes agreed but that's only relevant as regards depth of field right? The main variables are the same as per previous post?

ETA - Sorry to the OP as I'm going off at a tangent, will go back in my box :)
Click to expand...

I think it goes for general IQ too. I tend to use MFT at equivalent focal lengths and aperture settings to FF not only to get the depth to look FF like but also to keep the image quality as comparable as possible. For eg. For a picture which looks as close to 40mm at f8 on FF as possible I'll use 20mm and f4 on MFT.
 
woof woof said:
I think it goes for general IQ too. I tend to use MFT at equivalent focal lengths and aperture settings to FF not only to get the depth to look FF like but also to keep the image quality as comparable as possible. For eg. For a picture which looks as close to 40mm at f8 on FF as possible I'll use 20mm and f4 on MFT.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation Alan :)
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Thanks for the explanation Alan :)
Click to expand...

As a ps. I've just spotted you're thinking about a G9 which is I think 20mp. I had the 20mp GX9 and I thought that the IQ was comparable to the 16mp GX80 which I suppose means that the extra mp's and slightly bigger file / more cropping ability come at no hit to IQ v the 16mp cameras.

If you have a look in the various MFT threads you'll see quite a few bird/wildlife pictures taken with MFT and 100-400mm lenses.

Good luck choosing.
 
woof woof said:
As a ps. I've just spotted you're thinking about a G9 which is I think 20mp. I had the 20mp GX9 and I thought that the IQ was comparable to the 16mp GX80 which I suppose means that the extra mp's and slightly bigger file / more cropping ability come at no hit to IQ v the 16mp cameras.

If you have a look in the various MFT threads you'll see quite a few bird/wildlife pictures taken with MFT and 100-400mm lenses.

Good luck choosing.
Click to expand...
It's the G9 mark 2, so I think 25mp, but it's still all up in the air at the moment, while I decide if it's another flash in the pan or a worthwhile spend, or just pure GAS

Thanks for the input so far guys!
 
This is a can of worms. I’m sure you’ll get posts supporting each format. If you can try out each format you can make your own decision and make your own decision. Whatever you decide you will never get close enough as fieldcraft is just as important as are atmospheric conditions etc. Good luck.
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Yes agreed but that's only relevant as regards depth of field right? The main variables are the same as per previous post?

ETA - Sorry to the OP as I'm going off at a tangent, will go back in my box :)
Click to expand...
Exposure (light per area) remains the same, but total light is greater for FF because the area of the sensor is greater. I.e. a lightbulb exposed at the same brightness and size within the composition, but occupying 4x the area in sq mm, is 4x more light (2 stops). It's much the same as if you made the light bulb larger by moving closer to it.

This is why larger sensors win in low light/etc... it's light per area that matters, not light per pixel (unless you crop/zoom into a pixelated image, then it's both).
 
Last edited:
I should say that there can be reasons to sway the choice other than image quality potential. E.g. much more capable/updated autofocus. And having the subject larger within the composition can help the autofocus to work well, e.g. eye detection (it also hurts at times because it's more demanding of you).
 
I used to shoot wildlife with a full frame R5 (lots of megapixels, 45?) and now use an OM1ii ( can't remember but I think 24mp). I was swayed by the lighter set up and the cost for equivalent focal lengths. I am very happy with my gear however it is really hard to frame something fast moving with a very long lens - it is much easier if you have the ability to crop that more megapixels gives you. It takes more skill with less megapixels in my experience.
 
sk66 said:
Exposure (light per area) remains the same, but total light is greater for FF because the area of the sensor is greater. I.e. a lightbulb exposed at the same brightness and size within the composition, but occupying 4x the area in sq mm, is 4x more light (2 stops). It's much the same as if you made the light bulb larger by moving closer to it.

This is why larger sensors win in low light/etc... it's light per area that matters, not light per pixel (unless you crop/zoom into a pixelated image, then it's both).
Click to expand...
I probably need to think about this again tomorrow as it's past my bedtime, but I am a bit confused. If the light per area is the same.... you have less area to cover with the smaller sensor, so you could argue that you don't need as much total light.

Also with apologies to the OP and I'll crawl into the same box as @dibbly dobbler :ROFLMAO:
 
Bebop said:
I probably need to think about this again tomorrow as it's past my bedtime, but I am a bit confused. If the light per area is the same.... you have less area to cover with the smaller sensor, so you could argue that you don't need as much total light.

Also with apologies to the OP and I'll crawl into the same box as @dibbly dobbler :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Steven will correct me if I am wrong :)

But the way I think of it....

Take a subject that is 100mm x 1mm wide.

If you fill the frame so that this subject takes up the same "proportion" of the frame i.e. "filling the frame" with the subject.

Making, in the full frame camera, an image of 24mm long, and in the MFT camera an image of 12 mm long (roughly, but I'm keeping the numbers simple)

Assume (to keep it simple), the sensor resolution and photo-site size are the same in both cameras, the "exposure" needed with both cameras will be exactly the same, because exposure controls the amount of light falling on each individual photo-site.

However, because the "image" of the same subject is four times bigger in the full frame camera than it is in the MFT camera, you have four times as many photo-sites collecting information about the subject with the full frame camera. Allowing the larger sensor to gather more light reflected from the subject than the smaller sensor can.

And the extra "light" (data) results in more detail and less noise with a larger sensor over a smaller sensor (assuming like for like circumstances).

Hence, a larger sensor gathers more light per unit area of the "subject", and not per unit area of the "sensor"

It's (of course) more complicated than this, but this is the principle behind smaller sensors gathering less light than bigger ones.
 
Bebop said:
If the light per area is the same.... you have less area to cover with the smaller sensor, so you could argue that you don't need as much total light.
Click to expand...
This is true, at the sensor level. But (almost) all negatives/sensor sizes need enlargement for viewing. And it is in the enlargement that the shortcomings become more obvious. I.e. less light, less recorded resolution, more noise, less sharpness, etc, etc... all result in a lower quality image (as viewed).

The same thing happens when you crop in post and enlarge to the same size. DOF reduces, noise increases, diffraction increases, sharpness suffers, etc, etc; all just because you are discarding light (data/area) that the camera otherwise was capable of recording... we've all experienced this...

I.e. at the sensor all is equal... but we don't view images at the sensor size/pixel level.

dibbly dobbler said:
I think I’m following that (thanks) - it was the phrase about the G9 ‘losing 2 stops of light’ which threw me off. Cheers
Click to expand...
It all comes down to the physical size of the lens opening (entrance pupil) as Alan explained in post 11; how much light the lens lets through. And physical size; of the negative (sensor) and of the print (display)... digital didn't really change much...

Similarly, if you cannot "fill the frame" it doesn't much matter how you discard the potential capability. Adding a TC, using a crop mode/sensor, cropping in post, etc, all result in the same tradeoffs/negatives... you end up with less, which needs enlarged more.
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
Assume (to keep it simple), the sensor resolution and photo-site sizes are the same in both cameras, the "exposure" needed with both cameras will be exactly the same in terms of camera settings, because exposure controls the amount of light falling on each individual photo-site.

However, because the "image" of the same subject is four times bigger in the full frame camera than it is in the MFT camera, you have four SIXTEEN times as many photo-sites collecting information about the subject with the full frame camera. Allowing the larger sensor to gather more light reflected from the subject than the smaller sensor can.
Click to expand...
Resolution is normally "MP's." And it is 4x area, LxW.
 
Last edited:
Steelo said:
I think it's added more dilemma to my thinking than I thought
Click to expand...
You probably need to put some more thought into what kind of photographer you are and what type of images you want to create. I.e. in bright light it doesn't much matter; it's like me setting my FF to ISO 400 instead of base 100... who cares? Whether it is due to lower light levels, wanting more DOF, or needing more SS; it doesn't matter, and the tradeoff is worth it. So if you're a "fair weather photographer" maybe it doesn't matter much. But unfortunately, wildlife doesn't tend to cooperate too often, and hard afternoon light isn't the most attractive.

I've taken my share of good images with my Nikon 1 (1" sensor) and even my Fuji X20 (2/3" sensor)... I've also taken my fair share of crap images with my FF cameras.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
You probably need to put some more thought into what kind of photographer you are and what type of images you want to create. I.e. in bright light it doesn't much matter; it's like me setting my FF to ISO 400 instead of base 100... who cares? Whether it is due to lower light levels, wanting more DOF, or needing more SS; it doesn't matter, and the tradeoff is worth it. So if you're a "fair weather photographer" maybe it doesn't matter much. But unfortunately, wildlife doesn't tend to cooperate too often, and hard afternoon light isn't the most attractive.

I've taken my share of good images with my Nikon 1 (1" sensor) and even my Fuji X20 (2/3" sensor)... I've also taken my fair share of crap images with my FF cameras.
Click to expand...
I know what sort of photographer I am, I'm anything but a fair weather photographer as most of my landscapes show, I'd rather be out in the rain and go nowhere when its clear and boring. The simple fact of the matter is cropping on a higher megapixel FF camera OR MFT with the longer reach to begin with, and obviously the light gathering aspect is leading me towards the higher MP FF body at the moment. That's the only dilemma, that and staying with Lumix.
 
dibbly dobbler said:
I think you have your answer then Martin! Be interested to see what you can get (I have joined your legions of followers on Fb :) )
Click to expand...
I'm a professional procrastinator, so will see how things go! Thanks for the follow Mike, I appreciate it :)
 
Steelo said:
The simple fact of the matter is cropping on a higher megapixel FF camera OR MFT with the longer reach to begin with
Click to expand...
If this is your choice, go with the cheaper option (or better AF, etc)...

But I always go for the better potential of FF in the hopes of not having to crop (as much). Actually, I also have the big/heavy/expensive lenses, tripods, etc... wildlife is probably one of the most demanding/expensive genres; at least I have avoided astrophotography so far, LOL!


And I can't overstate how overrated MP's are in terms of resolution... e.g. "100% zoom" doesn't mean anything really; it means something different on every device and to (potentially) every viewer. And if you are posting/sharing images at ≤ 1MP resolution (1024x) then you don't really need 44 MP to start with. But that said, more sensor resolution almost always has some (technical) benefits; and I am as guilty as anyone else of pixel peeping, etc.
 
sk66 said:
If this is your choice, go with the cheaper option (or better AF, etc)...

But I always go for the better potential of FF in the hopes of not having to crop (as much). Actually, I also have the big/heavy/expensive lenses, tripods, etc... wildlife is probably one of the most demanding/expensive genres; at least I have avoided astrophotography so far, LOL!


And I can't overstate how overrated MP's are in terms of resolution... e.g. "100% zoom" doesn't mean anything really; it means something different on every device and to (potentially) every viewer. And if you are posting/sharing images at ≤ 1MP resolution (1024x) then you don't really need 44 MP to start with. But that said, more sensor resolution almost always has some (technical) benefits; and I am as guilty as anyone else of pixel peeping, etc.
Click to expand...
Price-wise both options come in around the same price as I already have the 100-500mm lens for FF. MP count has never bothered me, I dropped from the 42mp Sony back to 24mp when I switched to Lumix as I really don't need that resolution, but then I'm only a landscaper until Lumix released this 500mm lens and I thought I'd give it a go!

Although looking at camera comparison sites, my current S1IIE beats the other option G9II in every aspect. Maybe the 1.4x TC for my current set up is the answer, losing a stop of light, gaining the extra reach whilst keeping the set up relatively light and compact rather than going for a Sigma 60-600mm etc....

Jeezo I do my own head in at times!! :ROFLMAO:
 
my tuppence worth, I shoot a Nikon z8 with a 500 prime , my other half shoots a om1 with Panasonic 100-400, I edit all the photos .i have edited thousands ,of photos. In good light there’s not much in it . Recent Florida holiday it was hard to tell sometimes which was which , when it’s dull the Nikon wins hands down . You can crop in a lot more , dynamic range is a lot better . Noise is a lot better . With the full frame.
The Panasonic 100-400 is known for having a stiff zoom, the mk2 is better but. No sharper. The plus side of micro 4/3 is the light weight,.
 
mav said:
my tuppence worth, I shoot a Nikon z8 with a 500 prime , my other half shoots a om1 with Panasonic 100-400, I edit all the photos .i have edited thousands ,of photos. In good light there’s not much in it . Recent Florida holiday it was hard to tell sometimes which was which , when it’s dull the Nikon wins hands down . You can crop in a lot more , dynamic range is a lot better . Noise is a lot better . With the full frame.
The Panasonic 100-400 is known for having a stiff zoom, the mk2 is better but. No sharper. The plus side of micro 4/3 is the light weight,.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this! I appreciate it. I'm certainly still leaning towards sticking with FF and see how it goes. I'm not fussed about weight, and lets face it, how often do we get great light in the UK? Thanks!
 
Steelo said:
Thanks for this! I appreciate it. I'm certainly still leaning towards sticking with FF and see how it goes. I'm not fussed about weight, and lets face it, how often do we get great light in the UK? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I get that some of the older guys struggle with weight of an FF rig and guess we'll all have that cross to bear some day (I'm only 62 BTW)

I really love the IQ of fast glass on an FF body and mainly shoot in UK conditions at present, tried some of the m4:3 kit (Panasonic G9 and Olympus OM3), found them a bit fiddly and too small for me.

GC
 
gcgraphs said:
I get that some of the older guys struggle with weight of an FF rig and guess we'll all have that cross to bear some day (I'm only 62 BTW)

I really love the IQ of fast glass on an FF body and mainly shoot in UK conditions at present, tried some of the m4:3 kit (Panasonic G9 and Olympus OM3), found them a bit fiddly and too small for me.

GC
Click to expand...
Only some I’ve sold all my Olympus gear after switching to a z8 and 180-600 as my main gear ,I nearly always shoot hand held and I’m galloping towards 81
 
The problem is this isn't really a like for like comparison. Generally a FF camera cropped will give better IQ, but it usually comes at significant cost and larger camera/len combinations.

I never had FF but told my APS-C DSLR for a micro 4/3 system as I found I wasn't using the DLSR because it was too bulky to carry everywhere.

Whilst the IQ may be lower in my micro 4/3, at least I have the shot as I'm more likely to have the camera with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top