Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Which mirror less


1 Nov 2013 9:10PM
I would like to remind that CSCs are not only m4/3s, there are Sony NEX cameras with APS-C sensor too - and their price is surprisingly reasonable these days...

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
1 Nov 2013 9:22PM
I was about to say check out the work of Mark Humpage but you went and changed your post Smile


Quote:I would like to remind that CSCs are not only m4/3s, there are Sony NEX cameras with APS-C sensor too - and their price is surprisingly reasonable these days...


Yes there are but there not quite so micro once you start adding lenses.
2 Nov 2013 6:46AM
One detail to consider before making a decision is which brands might not be around five years from now.
Interchangeable lens camera numbers made fell 15% world wide in the last 12 months - more in the UK due to the year end Jessops closure effect.
With many new players and interchangeable lens formats in addition to the Nikon/Canon/Pentax traditional base, Sony doing interesting things and the younger generation putting mobile phones ahead of any format interchangeable lens system, there seem to be too many competitors in a shrinking market for all to be around 5 years from now.
Steppenwolf 3 971
2 Nov 2013 8:57AM

Quote:The EM1 looks pretty good. The only trouble is - from my point of view - is where are the long primes?

How long do you want to go.

There was talk of Panasonic working on something, can`t remember what it was now, but long fast primes will cost.




Something like a 300mm f4 (equivalent to a 400mm on APS-C) and a matching 1.4X TC would cover a lot of bases for wildlife photography. So you'd have a 600mm f4 or an 840mm f5.6 (35mm effective). There's no reason that the lens should cost more than 1000 or the TC more than 250.
c40uk 1 82 United Kingdom
2 Nov 2013 11:32AM
well i think its gonna be the g6 with the 14 -140 lens it will do everything i want better than i can ,
now to go have a play in a shop and see if it feels right .
ChrisV 8 827 26 United Kingdom
2 Nov 2013 1:01PM
I used that combination almost exclusively in Italy a couple of months ago and the 14-140 surprised me (very pleasantly). It's a very compact and.very versatile setup - I'm sure you'll enjoy working with it.
c40uk 1 82 United Kingdom
2 Nov 2013 2:17PM
Yep it felt comfy to hold in the hands and much lighter than my old eos50d set up will do some hard thinking through the week cause I only went and played with a omdem1 like only a fool would ! Just trying to weigh up wether in body IS makin lens slightly cheaper is worth the extra lay out lol
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
2 Nov 2013 7:41PM

Quote:I used that combination almost exclusively in Italy a couple of months ago and the 14-140 surprised me (very pleasantly). It's a very compact and.very versatile setup - I'm sure you'll enjoy working with it.


From what I`ve seen from both the Panasonic and Olympus versions of these lenses there very considering the range that they are covering.


Quote:The EM1 looks pretty good. The only trouble is - from my point of view - is where are the long primes?

How long do you want to go.

There was talk of Panasonic working on something, can`t remember what it was now, but long fast primes will cost.



Something like a 300mm f4 (equivalent to a 400mm on APS-C) and a matching 1.4X TC would cover a lot of bases for wildlife photography. So you'd have a 600mm f4 or an 840mm f5.6 (35mm effective). There's no reason that the lens should cost more than 1000 or the TC more than 250.



We already have lenses covering this range though there a stop or two slower extended, somehow I don`t think the longer and more expensive telephoto primes would sell all that well, a lot of us switching to m4/3 did so to reduce weight and bulk with some people hanging on to there DSLR kit for wildlife.
Steppenwolf 3 971
3 Nov 2013 7:44AM

Quote:We already have lenses covering this range though there a stop or two slower extended, somehow I don`t think the longer and more expensive telephoto primes would sell all that well, a lot of us switching to m4/3 did so to reduce weight and bulk with some people hanging on to there DSLR kit for wildlife.


I suggest you try comparing the output of these long zooms with that of a good prime telephoto on an APS-C camera - big difference. As for whether they would sell well you need to remember that the people buying M4/3 are not just those that already have DSLRs - there are a lot of people who are buying their first system cameras. If the system has a glaring hole in it, which M4/3 does, some will still buy the DSLR.
StrayCat e2
10 15.0k 2 Canada
3 Nov 2013 7:25PM
Imo, the only systems that offer truly long focal length lenses, fast enough for top notch wildlife photography, with the camera bodies to take advantage of them, are Canon and Nikon, and that's the way it has been for many years. I can't see a pro wildlife photographer who wants versatility going with any other system, whether it be mirrorless or anything else.
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
3 Nov 2013 8:24PM

Quote:We already have lenses covering this range though there a stop or two slower extended, somehow I don`t think the longer and more expensive telephoto primes would sell all that well, a lot of us switching to m4/3 did so to reduce weight and bulk with some people hanging on to there DSLR kit for wildlife.

I suggest you try comparing the output of these long zooms with that of a good prime telephoto on an APS-C camera - big difference. As for whether they would sell well you need to remember that the people buying M4/3 are not just those that already have DSLRs - there are a lot of people who are buying their first system cameras. If the system has a glaring hole in it, which M4/3 does, some will still buy the DSLR.



CSC`s have only been around for 4 years, SLR`s and the DSLR`s for 40 or 50 years, it still early days yet, and there is no need to compare, I am fully aware of the advantages and the disadvantages.
Steppenwolf 3 971
4 Nov 2013 7:53AM

Quote:Imo, the only systems that offer truly long focal length lenses, fast enough for top notch wildlife photography, with the camera bodies to take advantage of them, are Canon and Nikon, and that's the way it has been for many years. I can't see a pro wildlife photographer who wants versatility going with any other system, whether it be mirrorless or anything else.


Take a look at the Sony G lens series. These are some of the best long lenses available. There are also the Minolta G lenses, on which they're based, which are available s/h at reasonable prices and are nearly as good.

These lenses can also be used on NEX mirrorless (with full function in the case of the SSM versions) with the SLT adaptor - good enough for even pro use.
ChrisV 8 827 26 United Kingdom
4 Nov 2013 10:12AM

Quote:Imo, the only systems that offer truly long focal length lenses, fast enough for top notch wildlife photography, with the camera bodies to take advantage of them, are Canon and Nikon, and that's the way it has been for many years. I can't see a pro wildlife photographer who wants versatility going with any other system, whether it be mirrorless or anything else.

Take a look at the Sony G lens series. These are some of the best long lenses available. There are also the Minolta G lenses, on which they're based, which are available s/h at reasonable prices and are nearly as good.

These lenses can also be used on NEX mirrorless (with full function in the case of the SSM versions) with the SLT adaptor - good enough for even pro use.



I don't know, but my bet would be that these are mahoosive lenses - which then begs the question 'what's the advantage of a mirrorless/more compact body?'

The potential advantage of the m4/3 system is that whilst a large aperture long lens is never going to be tiny, it would potentially offer a very significant weight advantage over the focal length equivalents on larger formats [and in the case of the CaNikon lenses at least, most of these seem to be designed for a 35mm format imaging circle to boot - probably because they're so expensive it makes sense they're useful for both formats]. I do agree though, that given it is potentially a real potential strength of the m4/3 format, it is a bit of a shame there's currently an absence of such lenses.

However given that it does represent a specialised [or several specialised] area of photography although it is going to limit the market for professional use, it will only currently put off those who absolutely need the optimum quality of long primes. A shame, yes, but a great overreaction to write off m4/3 for professional use because that particular avenue is restricted.
Steppenwolf 3 971
4 Nov 2013 1:50PM
Long lenses are big - there's no way round that. And it doesn't really seem to make much difference whether the image circle is 35mm or 4/3 (e.g. Olympus 300mm f2.8/Sony 300mm f2.8 are about the same size). But that's the reason why interchangeable lenses were invented - you only carry the big lenses if you have to. It doesn't make much sense to me to not make long lenses because they're big.

The point I was making about NEX cameras is that you can by an LA-EA2 adaptor and then use your Sony 300mm f2.8/1.4XTC/2.0XTC just as if you had an A-mount Alpha. It's a bit of a pity that the Olympus 4/3 lenses seem to be afflicted by snail-like AF when used on M4/3, which makes them unusable IMO - and they don't make any M4/3 long primes. Don't get me wrong. I like the M4/3 system - but it just seems that there's a hole in it.
ChrisV 8 827 26 United Kingdom
4 Nov 2013 2:18PM
Ah, but that's now addressed with the EM1 which has PDAF for 4/3 lenses with an adaptor - and if tests are anything to go by although it isn't the lightning fast performance of the CDAF m4/3 lenses, it does seem to match what it was on the system they were designed for.

You're right about lens size of course, but there's always the rider that the Olympus 300mm f2.8 will give a 600mm equivalent reach. How big would that be on 35mm format? [and as I say those lenses do seem designed for the larger image circle].

I've just bought a second hand Olympus 50-200 f2.8-3.5 [I don't have it yet, but looking forward to seeing how well it works]. Not a stellar lens, but not horrible and it gives me an equivalent reach of 400mm @f3.5. That's not at all bad and will cover all my needs until the dedicated 40-150 2.8 Pro for m4/3 comes along next year. Even then it may be well worth holding onto. I'd rarely need longer reach than that for my purposes.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.