Jump to content
petermullett

Wildlife, long lenses, and sensor format

Recommended Posts

If it had had (better ) video I would have upgraded my M240. Now I have switched to the Panasonic Professional system and there is no looking back. Impressively good.

 

 

you're right jaapv…..The Panasonic' video capabilities are indeed "impressively good". Just wrapped a shoot where my GH4 as "C" camera saved the day. Will upgrade to the GH5 later this summer after the promised firmware upgrades are in and tested.

 

 

Jaapv: This is a somewhat incongruous start to the topic but it is split off from another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right jaapv…..The Panasonic' video capabilities are indeed "impressively good". Just wrapped a shoot where my GH4 as "C" camera saved the day. Will upgrade to the GH5 later this summer after the promised firmware upgrades are in and tested.

Indeed. However I went for the GX8 as it is more slanted towards stills. Somewhat disconcertingly this little marvel matched with the Vario Elmar 100-400 and both DG Summiluxes outperforms my M240 in all respects as a travel camera, leaving the Leica as the tool of choice for home use. I may well replace it with a used M10 in a few years, as the improved viewfinder is a worthwhile upgrade. The advantages the M240 had over the M9 for me have evaporated, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about the RF Qualities of the GH4/5?

Better than Leica? 

 

well, the GH5 EVF is at least as good as the much-lauded SL one, and that camera made some M users switch platform...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is certainly a point but the new 20 MP sensor has minimised the gap. Don't forget that what we are calling full frame now has always been the miniature format that never could be as good as medium format film an larger. Leica has, from the beginning, been about pulling the maximum in result from a film format that was naturally limited by its size.

MTF is in a position that is pretty much the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. However I went for the GX8 as it is more slanted towards stills. Somewhat disconcertingly this little marvel matched with the Vario Elmar 100-400 and both DG Summiluxes outperforms my M240 in all respects as a travel camera, leaving the Leica as the tool of choice for home use. I may well replace it with a used M10 in a few years, as the improved viewfinder is a worthwhile upgrade. The advantages the M240 had over the M9 for me have evaporated, so to speak.

Highlight mine...

Well, in few years M43 sensors will evolve even further and the only remaining advantage of M will be RF experience. Is it worth extra $$$! 

Just trying to pick your brain since I may also consider M10 in future.

Edited by jmahto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Well, in few years M43 sensors will evolve even further ...

 

If mFT is still alive then ...

Beside this question, mFT has NOT really involved image quality in the last 5 years.

And FF Sensors will keep other (physical) advanteges in the future too.

Two different systems, which will never be comparable ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If mFT is still alive then ...

Beside this question, mFT has NOT really involved image quality in the last 5 years.

And FF Sensors will keep other (physical) advanteges in the future too.

Two different systems, which will never be comparable ...

MFT's advantage has been small lens size. As sensor improves further, I see them occupying more and more consumer mind share in enthusiast category. Sensor stabilization is also easier due to small sensor mass.

 

Problem with FF is that a good quality auto focus lenses covering FF sensor are large. Just look at SL and Sony offering. While Full frame M has advantage due to high quality tiny MF lens, it is an exception. In general, FF will get clobbered by larger sensor sized for ultimate image quality for professionals. This is what I see in my crystal ball.

Edited by jmahto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've just written on another thread, technical specs are only part of the story. If MFT are going to improve in the competition for the enthusiast's wallet with Leica, they are going to have to take a long hard look at their human interface. I had an OMD EM5-ii for a while and found the random button placement and menu system utterly unintuitive; looking at the back of a GX8 or GH5, I get the same queasy feeling. And that's before you start customising them so that the labels are wrong. Meanwhile with the M10 Leica is going the other way by removing buttons - and I've heard no complaints that it has made the camera harder to use.

Technical specs are only half of the reasons why I choose a camera.

Edited by LocalHero1953

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Technical specs are only half of the reasons why I choose a camera.

I couldn't agree more! I occasionally get tempted by an Olympus this or Fuji that, but I come back to an M and its advantages and limitations and a real DSLR and its constraints and benefits. Given that I don't do MF, I've come to the conclusion that for now, the big zooms on the Canon 5III (10%) of my work, and the superlative Leica primes on my M10s for the rest will do me just fine! Edited by chris_tribble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MFT is not much better in image qualtity than a mobile phone. The user interface is far worse, it gives me a headache just thinking about it. Olympus E-M1 with 17mm on left. Apple iPhone SE on right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more:

Point well made. In these examples I don't see any sensor advantage of MFT over iPhone. It will be interesting to compare the same with M240 or M10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that few years ago I also made a comparison with M240 and iPhone as well. I just now dug it out from my archive. The comparison pics are obvious. The sensor differences are rapidly narrowing between phone and digital cameras. In bright day light I am hard pressed to see a big difference. Only when light is low, the performance gap starts to widen.

 

Full pic. 

 

1:1 zoom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MFT is not much better in image qualtity than a mobile phone. The user interface is far worse, it gives me a headache just thinking about it. Olympus E-M1 with 17mm on left. Apple iPhone SE on right.

 

Sorry, that strikes me as an "ostrich approach" to the image quality that you get from fine MFT cameras. Look at this photo essay by DANIEL BEREHULAK for the New York Times, which recently won a Pulitzer prize. It's worth looking at and reading for the quality of the photographs and for the creativity of the website design as well.

 

Berehulak shoots with a Panasonic MFT camera that, I believe has Leica-design lenses. No, he could not have done all this with an iPhone.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phone V's real camera?

Any phone, any camera , is a joke of an argument!

Image quality is what you get after you have 'seized' the moment, used your brain and bodily reflexes to time that elusive shot. Never with a phone. The best you will ever do around such a shot with a phone is call a friend and tell them about the shot you just missed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phone V's real camera?

Any phone, any camera , is a joke of an argument!

Image quality is what you get after you have 'seized' the moment, used your brain and bodily reflexes to time that elusive shot. Never with a phone. The best you will ever do around such a shot with a phone is call a friend and tell them about the shot you just missed!

At least my comparison post was only to address the sensor advancement issue.

 

I do agree that there is a lot more to the camera than just a sensor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you cant see the differences between images shot with M10 and the iPhone 7 in full daylight, you aren't looking.

Yes I can see the difference and it is fairly small in broad day light. Look at the proof above.

 

It does not mean I am equating a real interchangeable lens camera with an iPhone. My post was only to show the sensor performance. Nothing more and nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can see the difference and it is fairly small in broad day light. Look at the proof above.

 

It does not mean I am equating a real interchangeable lens camera with an iPhone. My post was only to show the sensor performance. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

 

 

"fairly small in broad daylight"?  ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×