Wildlife, long lenses, and sensor format

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 35mm FF 400mm f/5.6 does not need to be big at all. I have a Minolta MC 400 f/5.6 APO that is all metal and weighs just 1470g and with modern materials could weigh a lot less. The Canon 400 f/5.6 for example weighs, 1250g, and it was made in 1993 and could certainly be updated to weigh even less.  To say such a lens with a 2X teleconverter would be so heavy to need a tripod seems to me a bit of exaggeration. I do agree, however, that the Leica R 400 f/5.6 is very heavy and one could say it needs a tripod, but that lens is part of a system that swaps out mostly longer and wider aperture lenses that were designed before image stabilization and did assume tripod would often if not typically be used. My basic point here, however, is that M4/3rds has no corner on lenses this small. They could be made for other systems and with these long telephotos size and weigh are mostly a function of shallow depth of field capabilities and materials used and not the sensor for which they are made.

 

It is true that m4/3rds has excellent image stabilization and using the sensor to stabilize the image it is easier with a small sensor, but others are starting to catch up quickly. Fuji has done a nice job recently with their image stabilization and Sony has been able to coordinate their sensor based image stabilization with lens based image stabilization and that system holds considerable promise. Just the last couple of weeks Sony has released their 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens for E-mount and they claim that with the sensor image stabilization of their E-mount cameras it will have 5 axis and it claims 5 stops of stabilization. I am always dubious of such claims, but it will be interesting to see how this new lens compares to M4/3rds. The Sony system holds promise as combining lens and sensor based image stabilization is certainly an advantage. Leica also seems to be getting excellent IS for the SL system as well. Canon and Nikon certainly have excellent lens based stabilization that allows shooting at slow speeds even with long lenses, but often the lenses are so big for these systems that you still need some sort of support anyway. My point is that although m4/3rds has very good image stabilization they by no means have a corner on this capability. By the way, I also believe that the Canon 100-400 L II has much better image stabilization that the Mk I version, so even those photographers you mentioned can gain by simply upgrading their lens to the new model.

 

Finally as to whether a shallow depth of field is a desirable thing for wildlife photography, that of course depends on the shot. In your lion shot, I think it would have been better at about f/8 on full frame or about f/4 on M4/3rds. I think that would have kept the lion within the depth of field and blurred the background more, which in this case is busy and not very interesting so blurring it is advantageous in my view. If there had been a more interesting background, then even greater depth of field might have been desirable.  We can and likely will have differences about the use of depth of field for individual shots and that is fine. What I don't think is debatable, however, is that having more capabilities for a wider range of depth of field choices is a good thing. In that shot it would have been good to have the capability of making a choice between f/8 on full frame (or f/4 on M4/3rds and f/16 on full frame (or f/8 on M4/3rds). Choice is good all other things considered. Of course as we have been discussing when those other things are considered there are always trade offs. That choice comes at the price of size, weight, and money, but we shouldn't start arguing that the choice itself isn't a good thing just because it has trade offs.

Highlight mine...

We are comparing size of a MF FF lens to a stabilized AF MFT lens.

An stabilized AF FF lens of similar focal length is enormous. Look at Canikon's offerings.

 

I also echo Jaap's comment of aperture of long lenses. The wider apertures are indeed for exposure so that you can keep shutterspeed high enough. With high ISO and image stabilization, really wide aperture on tele lenses are not needed. Of course both FF and MFT do get benefited by high ISO and image stabilization advancements.

[jaapv]

Steve, I think that this is the lens you are looking for:

 

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Steve Spencer]

Highlight mine...

We are comparing size of a MF FF lens to a stabilized AF MFT lens.

An stabilized AF FF lens of similar focal length is enormous. Look at Canikon's offerings.

 

I also echo Jaap's comment of aperture of long lenses. The wider apertures are indeed for exposure so that you can keep shutterspeed high enough. With high ISO and image stabilization, really wide aperture on tele lenses are not needed. Of course both FF and MFT do get benefited by high ISO and image stabilization advancements.

 

No it does not have to be if you don't have a mirror in the camera that requires a wide aperture to focus. There is a new Sony 35mm FF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 stabilized lens that weighs just over 1,300g and I believe it takes a 2X extender, although that still needs to be confirmed.  It is AF, so I don't think such lenses have to be enormous. With 35mm FF mirrorless, you will see that smaller lenses are possible because larger apertures will still focus well. That isn't and wasn't true with DSLRs. You could get to 560mm with some Canon cameras in a small package, but not 800mm. For example, there is a Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L MKII lens that takes a 1.4X extender and AFes with Canon 1 series cameras, but you couldn't get a small 800mm equivalent.  But 35mm FF mirrorless will allow focussing at smaller max apertures, (the new Sony A9 has not trouble with f/11 for example) so smaller lenses are quite possible. Yes, an 800 f/5.6 needs to be enormous, but you can add a good 2X tele extender to a 400 f/5.6 lens and get a lens quite similar in size to the Panny Leica 100-400.

 

What you call really wide apertures (and here were are only talking about f/5.6) may not be needed for your work, but others do find them useful and some even for DOF purposes. I don't think you can speak for everyone who might use such lenses, so your proclamation that with high ISO and image stabilization such aperture are needed seems overly broad. Some might even care about diffraction and yes on a 20mp M4/3rds sensor you will have some effects of diffraction that might not matter to you, but may matter to others. So, your statement that wider apertures aren't needed may be strictly true, but that doesn't mean they aren't desirable at least in some cases. I still say choice in aperture is a good thing and I still find it odd that some cannot acknowledge that. You can shoot an f/5.6 lens at f/12 after all, so you do tradeoff size, weight, and price for the ability to choose aperture, but I see no reason to make the argument that choice in aperture is not a good thing. It strikes me as very much like, "the lady doth protest too much." I am simply noting the tradeoffs that you cannot acknowledge them seems more than a bit defensive. 

[Steve Spencer]

Steve, I think that this is the lens you are looking for:

 

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/

 

No it is of course not something I am looking for and that post is more than just a bit mocking. Not even a smiley face. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you need to mock me.

[jaapv]

Come on, can't I make a joke with a straight face here?

[jaapv]

No it does not have to be if you don't have a mirror in the camera that requires a wide aperture to focus. There is a new Sony 35mm FF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 stabilized lens that weighs just over 1,300g and I believe it takes a 2X extender, although that still needs to be confirmed.  It is AF, so I don't think such lenses have to be enormous. With 35mm FF mirrorless, you will see that smaller lenses are possible because larger apertures will still focus well. That isn't and wasn't true with DSLRs. You could get to 560mm with some Canon cameras in a small package, but not 800mm. For example, there is a Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L MKII lens that takes a 1.4X extender and AFes with Canon 1 series cameras, but you couldn't get a small 800mm equivalent.  But 35mm FF mirrorless will allow focussing at smaller max apertures, (the new Sony A9 has not trouble with f/11 for example) so smaller lenses are quite possible. Yes, an 800 f/5.6 needs to be enormous, but you can add a good 2X tele extender to a 400 f/5.6 lens and get a lens quite similar in size to the Panny Leica 100-400.

 

What you call really wide apertures (and here were are only talking about f/5.6) may not be needed for your work, but others do find them useful and some even for DOF purposes. I don't think you can speak for everyone who might use such lenses, so your proclamation that with high ISO and image stabilization such aperture are needed seems overly broad. Some might even care about diffraction and yes on a 20mp M4/3rds sensor you will have some effects of diffraction that might not matter to you, but may matter to others. So, your statement that wider apertures aren't needed may be strictly true, but that doesn't mean they aren't desirable at least in some cases. I still say choice in aperture is a good thing and I still find it odd that some cannot acknowledge that. You can shoot an f/5.6 lens at f/12 after all, so you do tradeoff size, weight, and price for the ability to choose aperture, but I see no reason to make the argument that choice in aperture is not a good thing. It strikes me as very much like, "the lady doth protest too much." I am simply noting the tradeoffs that you cannot acknowledge them seems more than a bit defensive. 

I fear that I failed  to make myself clear. In long lens photography one wants more DOF, not less. It is, in fact, quoted as one of the advantages of MFT over FF by some professionals.  Nothing new there, it has historically been part of the discussion about the " miniature" vs " large format" systems that has been raging in the early and middle 20th century. It even gave rise to the f 64 movement, intended to negate the advantages of the 135 format.

In general, I tend to prefer composition over separation to emphasize a subject. I find the present fad on Flickr for ubiquitous blur mildly annoying, second to the overuse of HDR.

So as a trade-off, it is to me at the very bottom of the list.

Before you ask, I have both a Summilux asph 50 and a Elmar-M 50 for my M cameras. Normally I will use the Elmar.

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I fear that I failed  to make myself clear. In long lens photography one wants more DOF, not less. It is, in fact, quoted as one of the advantages of MFT over FF by some professionals.  Nothing new there, it has historically been part of the discussion about the " miniature" vs " large format" systems that has been raging in the early and middle 20th century. It even gave rise to the f 64 movement, intended to negate the advantages of the 135 format.

In general, I tend to prefer composition over separation to emphasize a subject. I find the present fad on Flickr for ubiquitous blur mildly annoying, second to the overuse of HDR.

So as a trade-off, it is to me at the very bottom of the list.

Before you ask, I have both a Summilux asph 50 and a Elmar-M 50 for my M cameras. Normally I will use the Elmar.

 

No, I think you made yourself clear, but I don't see how M4/3rds has more depth of field than is capable with 35mm FF in any of the shots you posted. The lion was shot at the 35mm FF equivalent of 800mm at f/16. You certainly can shoot that on a 35mm FF camera or an APS-C camera. The hyena and the snake are even at wider apertures. What about these shots can't be done on 35mm FF? I agree that shallow depth of field is often over used, and good composition is often under rated. Personally some of my favourite shots have been with narrower apertures and more distant or more interesting backgrounds. It certainly is reasonable if for you the concern for DOF choice is not a priority. We of course can have different priorities and concerns, and that is fine as long as one doesn't dismiss what in at the bottom of their list as something that is generally unimportant for everyone.

[Steve Spencer]

Come on, can't I make a joke with a straight face here?

Unfortunately, the internet does not always or even very often allow for good interpretation of tone. Maybe it is my deficit, but I can't usually tell a joke with a straight face over the internet from a mocking jeer.

[Exodies]

Unfortunately, the internet does not always or even very often allow for good interpretation of tone. Maybe it is my deficit, but I can't usually tell a joke with a straight face over the internet from a mocking jeer.

Here's a handy tip : always go for the joke interpretation. You'll have a pleasanter life.

[jmahto]

No it does not have to be if you don't have a mirror in the camera that requires a wide aperture to focus. There is a new Sony 35mm FF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 stabilized lens that weighs just over 1,300g and I believe it takes a 2X extender, although that still needs to be confirmed.  It is AF, so I don't think such lenses have to be enormous. With 35mm FF mirrorless, you will see that smaller lenses are possible because larger apertures will still focus well. That isn't and wasn't true with DSLRs. You could get to 560mm with some Canon cameras in a small package, but not 800mm. For example, there is a Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L MKII lens that takes a 1.4X extender and AFes with Canon 1 series cameras, but you couldn't get a small 800mm equivalent.  But 35mm FF mirrorless will allow focussing at smaller max apertures, (the new Sony A9 has not trouble with f/11 for example) so smaller lenses are quite possible. Yes, an 800 f/5.6 needs to be enormous, but you can add a good 2X tele extender to a 400 f/5.6 lens and get a lens quite similar in size to the Panny Leica 100-400.

 

What you call really wide apertures (and here were are only talking about f/5.6) may not be needed for your work, but others do find them useful and some even for DOF purposes. I don't think you can speak for everyone who might use such lenses, so your proclamation that with high ISO and image stabilization such aperture are needed seems overly broad. Some might even care about diffraction and yes on a 20mp M4/3rds sensor you will have some effects of diffraction that might not matter to you, but may matter to others. So, your statement that wider apertures aren't needed may be strictly true, but that doesn't mean they aren't desirable at least in some cases. I still say choice in aperture is a good thing and I still find it odd that some cannot acknowledge that. You can shoot an f/5.6 lens at f/12 after all, so you do tradeoff size, weight, and price for the ability to choose aperture, but I see no reason to make the argument that choice in aperture is not a good thing. It strikes me as very much like, "the lady doth protest too much." I am simply noting the tradeoffs that you cannot acknowledge them seems more than a bit defensive. 

I agree that mirrorless will allow you smaller lens than DSLR with mirror box. Still I feel that MFT lens with similar spec will be smaller than FF.

 

Sony FE 100-400 F4.5-5.6 GM OSS is 1.395Kg (1.4 times heavier than Panaleica). Cropping will not give the same results on Sony as GX8 unless Sony FF has 80mp body.

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm f/4-6.3 ASPH is 0.985Kg 

 

I do understand your argument about choice of aperture. However I feel that most wild life shooters don't need a very wide aperture. Pros who do need to shoot with 800mm f/5.6 have choices in Canikon world. I am not sure what is the argument here. I guess we understand the pros and cons.

Edited April 28, 2017 by jmahto

[jaapv]

No, I think you made yourself clear, but I don't see how M4/3rds has more depth of field than is capable with 35mm FF in any of the shots you posted. The lion was shot at the 35mm FF equivalent of 800mm at f/16. You certainly can shoot that on a 35mm FF camera or an APS-C camera. The hyena and the snake are even at wider apertures. What about these shots can't be done on 35mm FF? I agree that shallow depth of field is often over used, and good composition is often under rated. Personally some of my favourite shots have been with narrower apertures and more distant or more interesting backgrounds. It certainly is reasonable if for you the concern for DOF choice is not a priority. We of course can have different priorities and concerns, and that is fine as long as one doesn't dismiss what in at the bottom of their list as something that is generally unimportant for everyone.

800 mm @ f16 handheld? It would need 1/2000th at least of of course, so the ISO would be 3200 or 6400. Provided you would be able to hold the framing. Or keep the heavy  combo pointing at the subject for a period of time. I have done that often in the past, using a shoulder stock, and I can assure you that a shooting session will give you aching muscles in the following night, and that one misses many moments through wavering.

 

I suppose the next question would be: why not use a tripod? For an 800 one would need a really heavy one, another load to carry, and one cannot shoot as soon as the subject is aimed at, one has to wait for the vibrations to dampen down: opportunity missed on a dynamic subject. Secondly the platform is often a Landrover, which has springs, so is too unstable to use anything but a beanbag.

 

The new Sony does have comparable stabilization, so that would work, and the Sony A-mount 500/4.0 weighs in at 3500 grams and costs 15.000 Euro.

I think the closest FF comparison to the Vario-Elmar would be the Tamron 150-600, 5.0-6.3, similar price, but huge, double the weight  and way behind in image quality.

 

The argument about diffraction is valid. For a 400 mm lens on a 20 MP MFT sensor I would estimate the limit to be between 5.6 and 8.0, so that makes the Vario-Elmar that rare beast: a diffraction-limited lens. In practice, however, the best result is by stopping the lens down to 8.0 at the long end. The slight resolution loss is more than compensated by the increase in macro contrast.

[jaapv]

We haven't even started to discuss other advantages of MFT. Post-focus can be very practical if it is near-impossible to get consistent focus on a moving subject amongst branches, there are cases that a 30 fps 4K burst will catch you that fast action (didn't use those two yet though), video is of a professional level, The panoramic mode works amazingly well, as good or better as taking a dozen shots and spending time in PS. All of these combine to make it a perfect travel system.

Now, however, I am home again and probably get out the M9 and MM1, which remain my favourite M cameras, along with the M6. Choices are great .

I think the M240's days may be numbered, though. It has lost its primary purpose.

[Steve Spencer]

We haven't even started to discuss other advantages of MFT. Post-focus can be very practical if it is near-impossible to get consistent focus on a moving subject amongst branches, there are cases that a 30 fps 4K burst will catch you that fast action (didn't use those two yet though), video is of a professional level, The panoramic mode works amazingly well, as good or better as taking a dozen shots and spending time in PS. All of these combine to make it a perfect travel system.

Now, however, I am home again and probably get out the M9 and MM1, which remain my favourite M cameras, along with the M6. Choices are great .

I think the M240's days may be numbered, though. It has lost its primary purpose.

 

Jaap, I think you are confusing advantages of M4/3rds with advantages of mirrorless cameras. As the new Sony A9 demonstrates these advantages can be put into any camera which is mirrorless. Sony hasn't put all of them in their cameras yet, but if you want a high resolution fast burst and professional level video, there is little question that camera has it. It could certainly add the panoramic mode and post focus if they wanted to, but they haven't yet. I can see how your system works well for you as a travel camera and I don't challenge that at all. I do challenge that it is unique, but I think we have discussed that enough. What I find interesting is that for me the M10 and a set of M lenses is the perfect travel camera. I don't want to shoot video when I travel. I find the rangefinder especially useful in new settings where I see more of what is going on, and I  find it very easy to incorporate my shooting with my travel with the M camera in a way I do not with other cameras. I also do not want to shoot wildlife when I travel or really have much need for longer lenses and when I do my R 180 f/3.4 APO (with the 2X extender if needed) is more than capable for my needs. So for me the M10 is the perfect travel camera, but I see no reason that the perfect travel camera needs to be the same for everyone.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Steve Spencer

[jaapv]

Actually I was quoting the well-known travel photographer Daniel J. Cox on the advantages of MFT. The point he was making is that MFT is ahead of the pack in introducing these things. The SL for instance has no five-axis stabilization, no 30 fps burst, no post-focus, no focus stacking, no 4K video or photo, no touch-screen focus point placing, etc. (Panasonic has all this, so Leica could have implemented it...) Still a very good camera but not technically leading. And big, big lenses, and heavy.

Yes, the M was my preferred travel camera for forty years. Unfortunately the M10 concept has indicated that Leica does not intend to develop this aspect any more. In creating the perfect stills RF they locked themselves in a niche that did not encompass this traditional aspect.

[Steve Spencer]

Actually I was quoting the well-known travel photographer Daniel J. Cox on the advantages of MFT. The point he was making is that MFT is ahead of the pack in introducing these things. The SL for instance has no five-axis stabilization, no 30 fps burst, no post-focus, no focus stacking, no 4K video or photo, no touch-screen focus point placing, etc. (Panasonic has all this, so Leica could have implemented it...) Still a very good camera but not technically leading. And big, big lenses, and heavy.

Yes, the M was my preferred travel camera for forty years. Unfortunately the M10 concept has indicated that Leica does not intend to develop this aspect any more. In creating the perfect stills RF they locked themselves in a niche that did not encompass this traditional aspect.

 

At the time this was written, no doubt that was true, but the point that I was making is that it no longer is true that M4/3rds is ahead of the pack and we see that with the Sony A9. It is the first camera with the primary shutter being an electronic one. It is the first camera with no VF blackout. It has less rolling shutter effect than any camera yet. No doubt Sony is helped because they make the majority of sensors nowadays, but it is also the case that M4/3rds were the first mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and other needed to catch up with their head start. Now other have caught up, so I don't expect M4/3rds to be ahead of the pack anymore,

[jaapv]

Yes, the ff crowd is catching up. When will this first camera of the new generation be available? Will Leica implement this technology within the next decade? There will undoubtedly be a next round in this race.

 

But still, the quality-weight and bulk ratio will remain in favour of MFT for simple physical reasons. The FF lenses will remain heavy an unweildy, the bodies larger, the handling differences will remain.

Coming back to one of my earlier posts, as long as I can fit a complete travel/wildlife system into a small bag @ 3 kg with an IQ that approaches FF,  and be able to handle  a 1.5 kg 800 mm handheld,  it is a no-brainer to me.

If I were working for National Geographic and were able to organize a fully staffed expedition, other considerations would come into play. Then a few suitcases of heavy Canikon stuff will go nearly unnoticed and the infrastructure of tripods etc. would be taken care of, or, on the other side of the spectrum, if my travel would consist of a weekend at Disneyland with the family or a ten-day tour to Rome and Paris, then taking the M9/10 with a couple of lenses and an iPhone for the video would be the thing to do.

[biglouis]

I don't see why for some uses m43rds cannot be a professional system. Indeed, I am coming across more and more pro photographers who are using m43rds and not just for video but for stills as well.

 

My latest book was almost entirely shot with m43rds and it was a snap to do so. It was all urban architecture and that meant a lot of schlepping about on foot. At typical journey allows me to take a body and three lens all in a small Think Tank backpack (covering 14mm-200mm in 35mm equivalent). I could do that with a N, C or even Leica system but the weight would be double or even treble the size.

 

I did not mean to go back to m43rds which I had abandoned abotu 2-years earlier when in January 2016 I bought a GX8 and 12-35/2.8 in a flash sale at Amazon. The reason I purchased it was the announcement of the forthcoming 100-400 lens. I wanted to get back into bird photography. As I started to play with the GX8 I found the shooting experience so much more satisfying than with my Sony A7R and A7S. I also got surprisingly good results. The turning point for me was the need for an ultra-wide angle lens for my Sony system. I was not enamoured with the quality of the lens and was looking at being forced to buy the Zeiss UWA for my needs. Instead I took a risk and purchased the Olympus 7-14/2.8 Pro for my GX8 body and from there is was all downhill into selling off my Sony kit and entirely embracing m43rds.

 

I should add that I also own a Leica Q, Ricoh GR, a Sigma DP2M, 3M and Quattro DP0. It is obvious to me that the Q has benefitted enornmously from Panasonic dna (and not the other way around) which might shock a few people.

 

In the final analysis, cameras are irrelevant. It is content which will always be king. I believe you should use the tool which most helps you to get 'the shot' because in this day and age even point and shoot digital cameras can produce content for use on the web, print and other media. Comparing cameras is a scientific study but in my opinion bears little relationship to photography.

 

If you check out my Flickr stream you can see content from all my cameras.

 

Just my two cents

 

LouisB

Edited April 29, 2017 by jaapv

[jaapv]

Exactly. In fact Panasonic markets their top bodies and Leica lenses as " professional"

About the Q, one of the most prominent Leica Gurus told me "if you open it up nearly every internal component is labeled "Panasonic"" Which. in my book, is not a bad thing at all.

I suspect the SL has quite a bit of Panasonic DNA as well.

[luigi bertolotti]

And what about size and weight? This is an 200-800 4.0-6.3 equivalent.

... sigh... my Telyt-S...   (and is no more than f 6,3 too... an ironical coincidence...  )

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Actually I was quoting the well-known travel photographer Daniel J. Cox on the advantages of MFT. The point he was making is that MFT is ahead of the pack in introducing these things. The SL for instance has no five-axis stabilization, no 30 fps burst, no post-focus, no focus stacking, no 4K video or photo, no touch-screen focus point placing, etc. (Panasonic has all this, so Leica could have implemented it...) Still a very good camera but not technically leading. And big, big lenses, and heavy.

Yes, the M was my preferred travel camera for forty years. Unfortunately the M10 concept has indicated that Leica does not intend to develop this aspect any more. In creating the perfect stills RF they locked themselves in a niche that did not encompass this traditional aspect.

The SL does provide for touchscreen focus point location, but not for menu selection.

 

Jeff