Jump to content
terrycym

Persuade me to buy a CL or even TL2

Recommended Posts

This thread seems to get more absurd by the day.

Smaller format (Micro-FourThirds) nets a more tele view with shorter focal length, has excellent image stabilization, and has increased DoF with larger lens apertures, so it is a better choice for situations that need long lenses than FF is. Less weight to carry, more light gathering power, etc etc. I know: I've used both, and APS-C too. Extensively and professionally. I've never needed faster than 1/4000 second shutter speed, for birds/sports/anything else, and only rarely use exposure times as short as 1/2000 either. Both are easily provided with mFT cameras. 

Sure, you can't hit quite the stratospheric ISO settings that some FF cameras can achieve. It really doesn't matter, though: all of the current generation mFT cameras are pretty clean well up to ISO 6400 and are fine in nearly any kind of stage lighting or even dimmer events (stage lighting isn't particularly low level most of the time). I did fine for years with ISO 400 film pushed one stop with stage productions and music events. 

You guys make it sound as if it's impossible. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. And which system offers an 800 6.3 that can be shot at 1/125 or even 1/60 handheld? And doesn’t need two Donkeys to transport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Actually, for birding, safari, animal photos etc... you will need faster shutter. Therefore fast glass and big sensor. m4/3 will be too noisy.

Sunny 16 rules are against them. 

 

Small is useless inside a 4x4 or mounted on a monopod. 

Completely useless for birding, that GX8 with Vario-Elmar 100 400 handheld...:rolleyes: Do you want a few hundred more shots like this?

Oh - it was taken from a Landrover, without the  encumbrance of a monopod... :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of in good light everything is nice. 

You already got a m4/3 system. But today I really cannot recommend such system for anybody. 

We live in the time of compact mirrorless full frame (except Leica SL and Lumix S1, L-mount did not get the memo) and the time of compact fresnel lenses. Nikon PF lenses are light and compact, long reach, works nicely with TC telconverter, way cheaper than m4/3 telelenses. 

Even with long lenses, m4/3 is no longer relevant 

We can get now lighter FF Nikon with better AF and way better low light ability and cleaner high ISO  

  • Z7 + FTZ + 300mm f/4 PF = 1475g ; crop to APS-C we get equivalent FF 450mm f/5,6 with 20MP
  • Or Z6 + FTZ + 300mm f/4 PF + TC-14E III = 1665g ; equivalent FF 420mm f/5,6 with 24MP 
  • Or G9 + 200mm f/2,8 = 1903g ; equivalent FF 400 f/5,6 with 20MP


Street price of the above configurations :

  • Z7 = 5 698€
  • Z6 = 4 798€
  • G9 = 4 358€

 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With less stabilisation at half the focal length  

Get a GX9 with. Vario-Elmar 100-400,  800 mm equ, 6.3.  Shoot it handheld down to 1/60th. 

I won't use fresnel lenses. The bokeh is awful.  Not to mention the flare. Canon tried it in early 2000 and quickly abandoned the technology. Justly so.

I think it is time you start posting your safari work. 

I’ll wait for the coming L mount long lenses if you don’t mind. 

The lens makes the difference  not the sensor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

Of in good light everything is nice. 

You already got a m4/3 system. But today I really cannot recommend such system for anybody. 

We live in the time of compact mirrorless full frame (except Leica SL and Lumix S1, L-mount did not get the memo) and the time of compact fresnel lenses. Nikon PF lenses are light and compact, long reach, works nicely with TC telconverter, way cheaper than m4/3 telelenses. 

Even with long lenses, m4/3 is no longer relevant 

We can get now lighter FF Nikon with better AF and way better low light ability and cleaner high ISO  

  • Z7 + FTZ + 300mm f/4 PF = 1475g ; crop to APS-C we get equivalent FF 450mm f/5,6 with 20MP
  • Or Z6 + FTZ + 300mm f/4 PF + TC-14E III = 1665g ; equivalent FF 420mm f/5,6 with 24MP 
  • Or G9 + 200mm f/2,8 = 1903g ; equivalent FF 400 f/5,6 with 20MP


Street price of the above configurations :

  • Z7 = 5 698€
  • Z6 = 4 798€
  • G9 = 4 358€

 

I'm sorry, but these Nikons look pretty "professional" to me so don't meet the requirements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 6:27 PM, ramarren said:

This thread seems to get more absurd by the day.

Smaller format (Micro-FourThirds) nets a more tele view with shorter focal length, has excellent image stabilization, and has increased DoF with larger lens apertures, so it is a better choice for situations that need long lenses than FF is. Less weight to carry, more light gathering power, etc etc. I know: I've used both, and APS-C too. Extensively and professionally. I've never needed faster than 1/4000 second shutter speed, for birds/sports/anything else, and only rarely use exposure times as short as 1/2000 either. Both are easily provided with mFT cameras. 

Sure, you can't hit quite the stratospheric ISO settings that some FF cameras can achieve. It really doesn't matter, though: all of the current generation mFT cameras are pretty clean well up to ISO 6400 and are fine in nearly any kind of stage lighting or even dimmer events (stage lighting isn't particularly low level most of the time). I did fine for years with ISO 400 film pushed one stop with stage productions and music events. 

You guys make it sound as if it's impossible. 🙄

I agree with M4/3s being best for long zoom for lightness (although there are not many lenses in the range) but will all respect have to dispute the clean up to 6400

I have yet to find a M4/3s camera that clean after 800, and even the Pen-F has noise at base ISO. The E-M1 ii has a better sensor but I wouldnt use it after 1600

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a huge deal breaker for me. I was shooting at: f3.2, 1/60s, ISO 12800 on Saturday at a concert in a cafe

 

 

 

Edited by terrycym

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, colonel said:

I agree with M4/3s being best for long zoom for lightness (although there are not many lenses in the range) but will all respect have to dispute the clean up to 6400

I have yet to find a M4/3s camera that clean after 800, and even the Pen-F has noise at base ISO. The E-M1 ii has a better sensor but I wouldnt use it after 1600

 

I can show you plenty of examples of what I consider clean results, but this is the Leica forum, not the Olympus forum .. :D

One thing I found with the E-5 and then the E-M1, however, was that the "base noise" after processing raw files in Lightroom was exaggerated by the default raw conversion settings for sharpening. I set Lightroom to use only half its default raw sharpening (and a few other tweaks) and obtained much nicer image quality. 

That said, what constitutes "clean" at ISO 6400 is a matter of some judgement and personal taste. It's impossible to know what you, or I, mean without examples that demonstrate what we feel is or isn't clean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why you may need or not need FF for Safari, birding etc 

https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2018-mirrorless-camera/jan-mar-2018-mirrorless/the-sweet-spot-scenario.html

To sum up : m4/3 is ok in good light. 

FF is required at dusk or dawn 

Mirrorless is ok with slow pace moving animal. 

Top end DSLR is required for birding. 

 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just an opinion, there are others out there:

 

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photography-gear/cameras/advantages-micro-four-thirds/

 

At least this one shows decent photographs, instead of a minuscule grotty shot of a hyena.

He is right about one thing, though, for nighttime wildlife you need different gear, but it is not a high ISO camera. It is a spotlight and shorter, faster lenses and skills to get up close...  In my experience that goes for full frame as much as for smaller formats. Get the light right and you get a good photograph. In bad light you'll get a bad photograph, regardless of your camera.

High ISO is indeed noisier on an MFT sensor, but you must consider: if you have to crop your full-frame image in the computer, you will introduce the same amount of noise, at less resolution.

BTW, MFT  started me on decent birding, I never was able to get this type of work with my Canon gear in the past; the lenses were too heavy and expensive, the required tripod too heavy, birds are lively things, shooting from a tripod is very likely to miss framing, or the bird altogether, etc. A small camera and lens, long focal lengths and good stabilization are liberating.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New super compact FF Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM will make it hard to justify m4/3 in the future. Even FF EOS RP camera is really small and light, but still with nice ergonomics, thanks to optional body extender. 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used many long Canon lenses in the past. This one must have a drastically changed character to convince me... It is not about the sensor. It is all about the lens. I am hoping for Sigma on the CL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I have used many long Canon lenses in the past. This one must have a drastically changed character to convince me... It is not about the sensor. It is all about the lens. I am hoping for Sigma on the CL. 

What are you disliking about Canon lenses Jaap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off - I do not dislike Canon lenses in general. Even the cheap plastic 50/1.8 is pretty decent, some midfocal range L lenses have nothing wrong with them, I love their old LTM lenses, etc.

But: the long lenses don't capture my fancy. The first version of the 100-400-L was simply a lens that I sold after using it once, the second version is a bit better, but still has fuzzy microcontrast and visible resolution falloff to the corners, the 300 L was decent, but all of the long glass lacked the crispness and clarity that we have come to expect of for instance Leica and Nikon lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...