I feel liberated...........

Sootchucker

Sootchucker

Messages
2,870
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Well, I've been a Nikon guy as long as I can remember (well over 35 years anyway), and have come from F3's F4's and F5's though to the D100, D2X, D200, D300, D7000, D7100, D3, D3s and now my one remaining Nikon body the D800. Now I love the feel and quality of Nikon, and it always delivered for me (in much the same way as other brands work for other people), but to be honest, I found the fun had just gone out of my photography. Whilst the quality of my D800 is stunning, and pretty much unsurpassed this side of MF, coupled with a 24-70 F2.8 or 16-35 or even the 70-200 F2.8 / 80-400 VR, it's just too damned large and heavy for me now to take everywhere with me except on specific shoots.

I tried the Nikon 1 series (which I still have) and it's great fun with amazing speed and buffer, but it just falls a little short on the quality front. Anyway, a friend of mine recently introduced me to the world of M43 cameras. At first I wasn't interested, after all, I've been a Nikon boy for 35 years and it seemed that I was cheating on them. Anyway, he let me use his Olympus OMD EM5 for a few days with the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 lens. At first holding of it, I was shocked at it's diminutive size and weight. It's barely any larger than a Nikon 1 V2, and about the same size as my Coolpix P7100. Surely this little package couldn't deliver on the image quality front ? Well it did in spades, the images I got back on the computer (whilst not D800 detail), easily matched by old D7000 / D300 etc.

I then decided to take the plunge and purchased a Panasonic GX7 with a couple of lenses and to be honest, have never looked back. I don't even know I'm carrying this camera, it's so small and light, and coupled with the new Panasonic 12-32 Pancake lens, the camera easily slips into a coat pocket. Since then I have purchased a second hand OMD-EM5 with grip, and now have a really useful M43 collection. I'm now really enjoying my photography again, and find I'm taking the cameras everywhere with me. The quality of the lenses on these M43 is little short of stunning, and the new 12-32 is miraculous in it's size and performance. I've printed some 24x16 prints and had one framed and it looks fantastic, so about the only thing in my mind it really gives away to the big boys is subject isolation from shallow DOF and high ISO. To be honest, on the latter, I've shot the GX7 at ISO 3200 and it looks good enough for me. If I want to do shallow portraits, I've still got the D800 and some nice lenses (for now).

In fact on that last point, so taken am I with the GX7 and OMD, that I'm now seriously considering ditching all my Nikon gear as in the 8 weeks I've had M43, I've haven't picked the D800 up once and to be honest, haven't really missed it. Now if someone had told me that a couple of months ago, I would have thought they were crazy. The other side effect is that I'm no longer lusting after the latest lens etc (I had serious GAS), and can see myself being really happy with M43 for my style of photography from now on. I appreciate this is only my opinion and this won't always work for others, but it just goes to show, what you are used to, isn't always the best.

Anyway, if you have reached this far, thanks, and to finish, here are some images from the diminutive GX7 and little 12-32 Pancake lens shot recently in the Peak district.

First here's the little combination I'm referring to


P3140177 by Sootchucker, on Flickr

Here's some recent images


Along the ridge by Sootchucker, on Flickr


Millstone Edge by Sootchucker, on Flickr


millstone and mother cap by Sootchucker, on Flickr

and a few from the EM5 with the Panasonic 14-140 superzoom


St Werburgh's Church by Sootchucker, on Flickr


St Werburgh's Church by Sootchucker, on Flickr


St Werburgh's Church by Sootchucker, on Flickr

Thanks for looking.
 
Sootchucker said:
Well, I've been a Nikon guy as long as I can remember (well over 35 years anyway), and have come from F3's F4's and F5's though to the D100, D2X, D200, D300, D7000, D7100, D3, D3s and now my one remaining Nikon body the D800. Now I love the feel and quality of Nikon, and it always delivered for me (in much the same way as other brands work for other people), but to be honest, I found the fun had just gone out of my photography. Whilst the quality of my D800 is stunning, and pretty much unsurpassed this side of MF, coupled with a 24-70 F2.8 or 16-35 or even the 70-200 F2.8 / 80-400 VR, it's just too damned large and heavy for me now to take everywhere with me except on specific shoots.

I tried the Nikon 1 series (which I still have) and it's great fun with amazing speed and buffer, but it just falls a little short on the quality front. Anyway, a friend of mine recently introduced me to the world of M43 cameras. At first I wasn't interested, after all, I've been a Nikon boy for 35 years and it seemed that I was cheating on them. Anyway, he let me use his Olympus OMD EM5 for a few days with the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 lens. At first holding of it, I was shocked at it's diminutive size and weight. It's barely any larger than a Nikon 1 V2, and about the same size as my Coolpix P7100. Surely this little package couldn't deliver on the image quality front ? Well it did in spades, the images I got back on the computer (whilst not D800 detail), easily matched by old D7000 / D300 etc.

I then decided to take the plunge and purchased a Panasonic GX7 with a couple of lenses and to be honest, have never looked back. I don't even know I'm carrying this camera, it's so small and light, and coupled with the new Panasonic 12-32 Pancake lens, the camera easily slips into a coat pocket. Since then I have purchased a second hand OMD-EM5 with grip, and now have a really useful M43 collection. I'm now really enjoying my photography again, and find I'm taking the cameras everywhere with me. The quality of the lenses on these M43 is little short of stunning, and the new 12-32 is miraculous in it's size and performance. I've printed some 24x16 prints and had one framed and it looks fantastic, so about the only thing in my mind it really gives away to the big boys is subject isolation from shallow DOF and high ISO. To be honest, on the latter, I've shot the GX7 at ISO 3200 and it looks good enough for me. If I want to do shallow portraits, I've still got the D800 and some nice lenses (for now).

In fact on that last point, so taken am I with the GX7 and OMD, that I'm now seriously considering ditching all my Nikon gear as in the 8 weeks I've had M43, I've haven't picked the D800 up once and to be honest, haven't really missed it. Now if someone had told me that a couple of months ago, I would have thought they were crazy. The other side effect is that I'm no longer lusting after the latest lens etc (I had serious GAS), and can see myself being really happy with M43 for my style of photography from now on. I appreciate this is only my opinion and this won't always work for others, but it just goes to show, what you are used to, isn't always the best.

Anyway, if you have reached this far, thanks, and to finish, here are some images from the diminutive GX7 and little 12-32 Pancake lens shot recently in the Peak district.

First here's the little combination I'm referring to


P3140177 by Sootchucker, on Flickr

Here's some recent images


Along the ridge by Sootchucker, on Flickr


Millstone Edge by Sootchucker, on Flickr


millstone and mother cap by Sootchucker, on Flickr

and a few from the EM5 with the Panasonic 14-140 superzoom

St Werburgh's Church by Sootchucker, on Flickr


St Werburgh's Church by Sootchucker, on Flickr


St Werburgh's Church by Sootchucker, on Flickr

Thanks for looking.
Click to expand...
Some nice images there Andrew

Welcome to the world of CSC's. I sold all my Canon ff gear to move to Oly MFT's eventually getting a OMD EM5 and it was a fantastic camera puts to rest a lot of the arguments that smaller sensors can't hack it. I shoot with a Fuji now but that's more of a personal journey :)


Steve
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steve. Yes, these small sensor cameras really do take a pounding from the full frame guys, including the Nikon 1 series, which to be honest is no where near as bad as it's reputation would have you believe. Someone once said (don't know who, but he was obviously a wise man), that the very best camera in the world is the one you have with you. I certainly wouldn't be taking my D800 and lenses on an overseas business trip (don't have the space for one), but I can see the GX7 with the 12-32, the Panny 20mm F1.7 and Olympus 45mm F1.8 slipping into my laptop bag just nicely :)
 
Sootchucker said:
... but I can see the GX7 with the 12-32, the Panny 20mm F1.7 and Olympus 45mm F1.8 slipping into my laptop bag just nicely :)
Click to expand...

My 5D and all lenses have been sold and I now have a Sony A7 which I use manual lenses on and I've kept my G1 and have added AF lenses to my MFT kit and now have 14-42mm, 45-200mm, 20mm f1.7 and 45mm f1.8. I used to have a 25mm f0.95 but sold it when I decided to make MFT my AF system.

Just on the DoF issue. I find that the deeper DoF you get with MFT v FF (for the same framing) can be an advantage as often with FF I found myself fighting for more DoF but with MFT you can get the fast exposure you want at f1.8 but also the DoF you'd get at f3.6 with FF and sometimes that is an advantage, for example when getting both of someones eyes in the DoF. Personally I didn't see the DoF difference between MFT and APS-C to be that great an issue. Plus of course if shallow DoF is your aim you can get it with MFT if you are willing to alter your framing... you'll get a differently framed tighter shot but sometimes that can work :D and there are several f0.95 manual focus lenses available should you be willing to use MF.
 
Last edited:
Interesting Alan. With regards to APS-C vs MFT, is there a multiplication factor that tells you what the effective aperture would be on an APS-C lens to correspond to the same DOF on a MFT lens ?
 
For me - there's something lovely about the one little camera /one lens thing. I'll never give up big cameras, but the little x100s rocks my world.
 
I've done similar, although I've kept an FF DSLR kit as well as a couple of CSC systems. I ended up trading in a D800 against a Fuji X-Pro1 system and have also got a Nikon AW1 and a V1 - the AW for underwater use and the V1 which gets used with an FT-1 adaptor and F mount lenses. In the few weeks I've had the Fuji, I've taken more photos than I did on the D800 in the year I owned it. Can't quite bring myself to drop the DSLR completely and I do like wiiiiide angles!
 
Sootchucker said:
Interesting Alan. With regards to APS-C vs MFT, is there a multiplication factor that tells you what the effective aperture would be on an APS-C lens to correspond to the same DOF on a MFT lens ?
Click to expand...

If you look at the crop factor for APS-C it's x1.5 for Nikon and x1.6 for Canon whilst MFT is x2. So... if we take 50mm f1.4 on full frame as a "standard" lens... With APS-C your 50mm equiv = 33.33mm which you can't buy :D so you'd go for a 28, 30 or 35mm lens giving a FF equiv field of view of 42, 45 or 52mm and if you buy a f1.4 you end up with a 42, 45 or 52mm FF equiv field of view lens with a f1.4 aperture for exposure and and equiv f2 for DoF.

With MFT your 50mm equiv is 25mm and your f1.4 becomes f1.4 for exposure and f2.8 for DoF but all you have to do is step forward a little or use a longer lens, maybe a 35mm or 50mm f1.8 for example, and you can have shallow DoF if that's what you want.

So, looking at MFT v APS-C the strandard FF 50mm f1.4 lens becomes MFT 25mm f2.8 (f1.4 for exposure but f2.8 FF 50mm equiv DoF wise...) v APS-C 30mm f2 and that's not a night and day difference between the two smaller formats IMVHO.

Anyway, practical examples of MFT v APS-C DoF. This first shot was taken with a MFT camera and a 20mm lens set to f1.7. Full image...



I wanted to focus on the necklace with the young lady drifting out of the DoF. Here's a crop showing the DoF which isn't all that visible in these small on screen 500 high images.



I wouldn't have wanted shallower DoF as I'd have lost the lady.

This is 25mm at f2. Whole image and then crop to show the DoF.





Her ears and hair are drifting out and I wouldn't have wanted less DoF.

Lastly for MFT here's a 50mm shot which as far as I remember was shot at f4. Whole image followed by a crop to show the DoF.





Here you can see that although her face is sharp her ears, shoulders and hair are drifting out of the DoF and I honestly wouldn't have wanted thinner.

APS-C, 85mm f5.6.


Again, I wouldn't have wanted thinner DoF. To get pretty much the same shot on MFT I could have shot at about 68mm at f4, that is doable.

Personally I think that the sweet spot for hand held shooting is more towards the MFT/APS-C sized sensor than full frame and the only situation in which the smaller lenses struggle DoF wise is when taking full body shots and going for the thinnest DoF possible. Other than that I personally think there's enough scope for thin DoF even with the x2 crop MFT system.
 
Last edited:
Ah thanks. So you think that the difference in apparent DOF between MFT and APS-C is 1 stop ? i.e. an F1.4 lens on MFT gives the equivalent DOF as an APS-C F2.0. So then an F8 aperture on an MFT lens, should give an equivalent DOF as selecting an aperture of F11 on APS-C ?
 
Hope these are clear enough to read.

Nikon APS-C, 35mm.


MFT, 25mm.


So for your f11 APS-C v f8 MFT...

At 10ft and f11 APS-C = 6'5.1"- 22'7".
At 10ft and f8 MFT = 6'3.9"- 23'10".
And just to check the math :D f11 x 1.5 = 16.5, f8 x 2 = 16.
:D

I did a lot of side by side test shots between FF, APS-C and MFT and although YMMV I don't think it's a deal breaker DoF wise if going from MFT to APS-C or APS-C to MFT.
 
Last edited:
Excellent - Many thanks.
 
I'm in the same boat, I've just, in the last week got a lumix G1 because I don't always want to lug around my DSLR kit. I wasn't too sure if I would get on with a CSC but I am very impressed with the output from the small sensor, I can even put the extra lenses in my coat pocket when I go out, something I couldn't have done before.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Scotish usage is just a shortening of "Big Jobbie" which is a Number 2 in Northern England where a "jobbie" to me is just the thingie under discussion and even a big jobbie can be something other than a Number 2.

For example a Nikon D800 is a big jobbie and a Panasonic G1 is a little jobbie.
:D
 
Sootchucker said:
Interesting Alan. With regards to APS-C vs MFT, is there a multiplication factor that tells you what the effective aperture would be on an APS-C lens to correspond to the same DOF on a MFT lens ?
Click to expand...

The conversion for DoF between formats is the crop-factor, same as for focal length. Eg 50mm f/8 on FF delivers the same field of view and DoF as a 33mm f/5.3 lens on a Nikon APS-C cropper 1.5x. In round numbers, the difference between FF and APS-C is about one and a quarter stops, or two stops for M4/3.
 
Good thread.

Cameras are tools, and sometimes a thumping great DSLR is not the right tool. The one piece of gear I currently lack is a small, light, compact camera. I'm aware that using the big stuff makes me conspicuous and is a real barrier to working sometimes. Ditching the DSLR may be a bit of an over-reaction to the love affair your having with your G7. Unless you need to recoup the money, I'd keep it, as it will always have a use when sheer quality and features will come into play. I do however agree with you. I'm still trying to decide what compact to get. I don't want to compromise quality, so am looking at full frame options, but can't decide between the RX1r or a Leica M, but both are stupidly expensive.. one more than the other. I'm still quite taken with the Fuji X100s however... but that slow start up is a real pain in the ass. Every time I use one, it makes me really question actually buying one with my own money, as it's often frustrated me when I miss a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
ive used a couple of leica's breifly, and weight wise there surprisingly hefty, body is somewhat fat, the lenses are tiny, but oooh so very good. lovely feel, super 3d pop to the pictures.
im not sure on the monochrome one, blows highlights super easy, the colours/grey is meh sooc, and i just prefer how the sigma dp does bw (and you got the option of colour always). leica probably does higher iso better.

i think leica's are like gold or diamonds, a shiny object thats kinda similer to other stuff we dont really care about, but it does unlock some strange crazy desire to have the shiny.

but the sigma dp's are great value now, they might be suitable for your needs david.
 
I wasn't looking at the monochrome one... I fail to see the point in that camera.

The reason I'm deliberating is the RX1 (and the sigma for that matter) have no optical viewfinder, and using the screen sucks. My images are different if I can't look "through" a camera. The DP3 is kind of on my interest list though. On paper, the RX1r is a no brainer.... but adding the optical finder makes look awful and makes it unwieldy.

There's always the X-Pro1, but I've not managed to get my hands on one to see if it also suffers from the slow start up problem the X100s does.
 
David, as with my SLRs, if you switch the X-Pro on as you lift it to the eye, it's ready to go when it gets there. AF isn't as fast as it could be but as I understand it, Fuji keep managing to tune it up with firmware updates (which are very easy to do, luckily!) Apparently the XT-1 is a lot faster at AF and handles similarly to old film bodies. It's missing an optical VF but modern EVFs are a hell of a lot better than they used to be!
 
woof woof said:
Maybe the Scotish usage is just a shortening of "Big Jobbie" which is a Number 2 in Northern England where a "jobbie" to me is just the thingie under discussion and even a big jobbie can be something other than a Number 2.
Click to expand...
In Scotland I've never known "jobbie" to be anything other than what Mark explained. Forewarned and all that, in case visiting Scotland :-)
 
Pookeyhead said:
My images are different if I can't look "through" a camera.
Click to expand...

Embrace the change! :D

I used to be dead against using the rear screen but sometimes I now miss it when using a DSLR. EVFs are unlike looking through glass, but the newest ones are a bit like looking at a small TV and not too bad at all. Different but not necessarily worse.

Can you not overcome the slow start up of the X100s by half pressing the shutter release every now and then to stop it going to sleep? I use that trick on an X10 - although that's so slow between pressing the release and taking the photo I might as well not bother if there's anything crucial in the frame that's moving.
 
I tried the small camera thing, didn't do it for me :/

I had an X100s for a few months, and just didn't grow on me. Too slippery in hand or something, and too limited because of that fixed lens. Sticking to dslr for now, but wouldn't rule out other ventures in future.

Whatever you enjoy, that's the main thing :)
 
Ed Sutton said:
Embrace the change! :D

I used to be dead against using the rear screen but sometimes I now miss it when using a DSLR. EVFs are unlike looking through glass, but the newest ones are a bit like looking at a small TV and not too bad at all. Different but not necessarily worse.

Can you not overcome the slow start up of the X100s by half pressing the shutter release every now and then to stop it going to sleep? I use that trick on an X10 - although that's so slow between pressing the release and taking the photo I might as well not bother if there's anything crucial in the frame that's moving.
Click to expand...

It's not fear of change. My images are definitely different if I don't have a camera to my eye... and I don't like them. It's not whether it's an EVF or not... but whether it's to my eye with a viewfinder. I need to look through the camera... not at it. I shouldn't have to learn to overcome something... and I'll be damned if I pay in order to do it :)


I'm not really into the idea of having to constantly keep the X100 awake, no.. that's a pain. I want to be able to whip the camera out and use it quickly if need be. That slow start is a massive flaw on the X100.

I'm starting to be convinced no one has made the perfect compact yet. The closest thing to that is the Leica M, but 4k for a compact camera is mental... upon reflection, I just can't justify it. They're not that good and they're simply not worth the money... and they're not that compact either.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm starting to be convinced no one has made the perfect compact yet.
Click to expand...

That's true. Which is why one has to either accept (and pay for) a compromise if you want a compact, or stick with what you have and compromise on compactness. Unfortunately.:(

Pookeyhead said:
I shouldn't have to learn to overcome something...
Click to expand...

Which was my reaction to the parallax issue with the X10's viewfinder. I'd rather have an EVF that shows my precise framing than have to guess.

I reckon that as far as compacts go EVFs are the only eye-level option there'll be in the future. Live dangerously, buy one with no viewfinder at all! :D
 
There's no such animal as "THE perfect compact" :( . Mainly because everyone would have a different spec for such a beast.

Personally, I would like a focal range of (in 35mm terms) 12-200 (would settle for 25-200 though!), ISO 50-25600 (and reasonably clean up to 1600), pocketable and with an OVF (or at least a good EVF) as well as a review screen. Battery charge life should be 500+ shots. Oh, did I say it should be waterproof down to 10m while snorkelling? While I'm in dreamland, it transfers files wirelessly and charges via induction so there are no ports to seal.

Weirdly, I'm quite tempted by the kit form Bigshot http://www.rapidonline.com/Educatio...rce=googleps&gclid=COvD16rKsr0CFa-WtAodf2oAGg for a giggle!
 
Great thread.
I feel the need to liberate as my Canon gear, as it has just become TO HEAVY.
So any advice to point me in the right direction would be much appreciated.
At the moment I have a Canon 7D, 17-85, 70-200, 100-400. but I am really struggling with 'camera shake' especialy with the 100-400.(It's an age thing) Tripod/monopod would be the answer, but it's more expense and more weight to carry, and trying to find a comfortable bag to carry the above gear + all the other bits and pieces has become a minefield.
So could some one point me in the right direction for a camera that I could get roughly the same lens 'reach' for walk around, landscape, and wildlife photography.
TIA
 
The cost of a £30 monopod is nothing compared to changing systems.

Most of the weight is in the lenses and there's not much you can do about that without reducing focal length and aperture. Canon EF-S 55-250 STM is a little gem and half the weight of your 70-200/4. 100-400 is light and compact for the spec, 400/5.6 prime is lighter, but lacks IS and closest focus is quite long. Or sell the 100-400 and upgrade your 70-200 to the 70-200/2.8 Mk2 and add a 2x telecon.

Another option might be the 55-250 STM plus 300/4 and telecon. Or my choice would probably be sell both the 70-200/4 and 100-400, and replace with the 70-300L - great lens.

Lots of choice, all with different compromises.
 
I appreciate the build, quality and refinement of the EM-1, just a fantastic ownership experience so far. The 12/25/45 primes are a pretty perfect classic set of 24/50/90, and I intend to pop all three in the bag at some point. Likewise, the 100-300 is just an excellent lens given the size and weight, and there's the prospect of the 300/4 for some serious ultra telephoto next year. Best of all, all four lenses take up less space and weight than ever i've owned before!
 
A digital version of the Voigtlander Bessa R series would be ideal for me, in fact the film version is near to a perfect camera imho, I really don't know why I sold it.... :thinking:
At the moment I use a Samsung EX-1 as my pocket digi and its very good but I'm very tempted by the Sony RX100, the Fuji X20 and the Panasonic LF1 (the Leica C is the more expensive pimped version). The Sony for image quality, the Fuji for IQ and viewfinder and the Panasonic/Leica for its zoom range....can't decide.

Andy
 
Sold all of my Nikon gear over a year ago and downsized to an X100. Haven't looked back since. It was gear intended for the pros but I convinced myself I needed the capabilities. All I got was a lot of weight and many camera bags with only a handful of photos I would say are keepers.

In fact, I just deleted around 4000 photos as I was doing a bit too much hoarding of pictures I was never ever going to do anything with. We are not alone in this discovery of downsizing. It's no wonder the For Sale sections are so full of great equipment!
 
Ed Sutton said:
I reckon that as far as compacts go EVFs are the only eye-level option there'll be in the future. Live dangerously, buy one with no viewfinder at all! :D
Click to expand...


Well... was playing with the Leica M and Fuji X-1 Pro, thanks to a quick loan by our supplier last week. I've decided on the X-1 Pro. The Leica is stupidly expensive, and to be honest.. just not that good compared to the Fuji.
 
Purely in the spirit of iconoclasticism (pretty sure that's not a real word!), I'm tempted to create little red, round labels that read Likea in the familiar font! I think you've missed out on Fuji's deals on the X-Pro - I just got in and got the free lens as well as the pair of zooms (18-55-200) for the £300 cashback. Ended up with an X-T1 as well which I also love.
 
I'd rather have the Leica as it's full frame, got better lenses and for me is more fun to shoot, but you pay handsomely for it which is the major downside. The X-Pro1 seems nice enough and the glass is quite small, light and good quality. The autofocus and start up time are a bit too slow for my liking. I do like the menu system with the Q button giving me quick access to the main things I want to change quickly.
 
HoppyUK said:
Most of the weight is in the lenses and there's not much you can do about that without reducing focal length and aperture.
Click to expand...

Something else you can do is use a smaller system... smaller system = smaller lenses, usually.
 
Been following these threads with interest for a while now, then realised why i never use my FZ45 anymore...

...It's too small for my big hands, and anything over 10 minutes shooting and my whole hand/wrist starts to cramp up!
Add the fact that recently the first joint in my index finger feels like it has arthritis, looks like i'll be sticking with my DSLR's :(
Shame really, as they seem to make more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top