To sell or not to sell (all my gear)

[xpatUSA]

I gather the Panasonic lenses all work on the Oly? I don't normally like to mix brands and I'm warming to the Panasonic lens range, not that I've looked at the Oly range yet.

Just a quick heads-up . . if you're looking for image stabilization (likely not, eh?), Panasonic does it in the lens, Olympus in the body. So, if you put Panasonic on an Olympus body, not sure if you could turn the lens IS on or off? Others will know.

On image quality - that is an important factor for many. I believe that a lot of the potential for acceptable 4/3" quality lies in the processing, both in-camera and in post. The (for screen-viewer moi) enormous image sizes of 4000x3000px+ do give significant gains (e.g. noise, acutance) if downsizing is your bag.

But my 400/4 (actually 520/4 on the 1D) becomes a 200/4 (or 250/4 if they made one) on an m4/3 system, that's a massive difference.

For some reason, that doesn't look right to me but then I tend to ignore the "equivalent mm" thing. What I do know is that a bird shot several yards or meters away will appear at either image plane exactly the same size in actual mm. So, if the birdie is as wide as the sensor in a 4/3" shot, it'll only be half the sensor width in a "35mm" sensor shot. By looking smaller in the latter shot, the same lens gives less apparent magnification in the sensor output.

Therefore, would not a "250/4" look longer on a smaller sensor?

[davidedric]

I'm trying to convince myself that I can afford to go back to Kenya later this year

Can't usefully comment on your main dilemma, but why a return to Kenya? "Other safari destinations do exist": Tanzania (the northern circuit or the Selous), Botswana, Zambia (my personal love), Namibia (Etosha for wildlife, and the dunes at Sossusvlei must be among the most spectacular landscapes on the planet), South Africa, Zimbabwe is opening up again..........

Just trying to help

Dave

[cyracles]

Please take a look at this thread.

[Glenn NK]

Sell it all.....

. . . . seasoned photography friends now have one as a 2nd or walk around camera.

Notice the words in bold italics.

Glenn

[Sponge]

I agree with Alex's first post. I would think if your main interest is wildlife you will be disappointed with continuos focus from the mirrorless cameras. The Nikon 1 system is the only one that has gained recognition for being decent in that respect.

Since you're already heavily invested in Canon gear you may want to wait until Canon releases a mirrorless that has a viewfinder (they can't drag their feet forever). Of course the problem is, who knows how long before they offer quality telephoto zoom lenses for it's EF-M mount (though EF lenses can be used with adapter but of course that kind of negates the purpose).

If you're not concerned with focus tracking/continuous focus and looking into micro 4/3 than the Olympus OM-D E-M5 is as good as it gets unless your main interest is video where the Panasonic GH3 shines. The problem is with fast and sharp super telephoto lenses. Both the Panasonic 100-300mm and Olympus 75-300mm are very comparable in most ways (the Panny being a little faster on the long end and the Olympus having better build quality and being smaller) and both will work on the OM-D but they are known for being a bit soft and slow on the long end. Other alternatives include some of the 4/3 lenses including the very well regarded Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 (which effectively is a 100-400mm equivalent) through the use of an adapter but autofocus is going to be slow (1-2 seconds). You can add the EC14 1.4x teleconverter to that setup but lose a stop of light. There's also the Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 but that'll set you back a cool $6,000 and weighs around 7 pounds

Here's a nice chart of the available lenses for the m4/3 and 4/3 format in case you're interested (just click on appropriate drop down menu for the 4/3 lenses). http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lens_chart.html
Panasonic recently came out with a pair of fast zooms (12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100mm f2.8) and Olympus makes some VERY nice lenses but as far as the m4/3 format is concerned their best products are prime lenses. Two of their most recent lenses, 75mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8, are razor sharp and get glowing reviews, a quick google search and you'll see what I mean.

[Manfred M]

So, the GH3 looks pretty nice, do you have any thoughts on these lenses

7-14
14-140
100-300

Rob - I own both the 14-140mm and 100-300mm lenses. I use them on my m4/3 video camera, a Panasonic AF100P, so I've never used them for still shots. The main "claim to fame" of the 140-140mm is that it uses a linear focus motor, rather than a stepper motor, which is of interest to video shooters that use continuous focus. It is faster and quieter and designed to be on all the time, rather than the steppers found in other lenses that are really only used when you press down on the shutter release button to focus shots.

Optically, both lenses are good, but on the other hand, all of my shooting is either 1920 x 1280 or 1080 x 720, i.e standard HD formats, so I can't comment as to their performance on still cameras. They are totally integrated with the camera electronics.

That being said, they are about the same size as my APS-C kit lenses and weigh a lot more. If someone is looking to save weight; these lenses are quite heavy, especially given their relatively low maximum aperture; f/4 - 5.8 for the 14-140mm and f/4 - 5.6 for the 100-300mm. These are not particularly inexpensive lenses either.

My other thought is about the electronic viewfinder. I haven't looked at a Panasonic still camera recently, but had a chance to work with the new Nikon V2 a couple of days ago. Frankly, I continue to find that this technology is the weakness of the mirrorless cameras (I agree with your "crap" description). While there are some advantages to this technology I still prefer DSLR for my everyday shooting needs.

[graynomad]

400mm too short for walk around bird photography

Yes too short at the native focal length, I use it on a 1D with a 1.4 so the result is 728mm f5.6 which I find is about right for most things.

you pay a massive financial price for it.

$7k for my 400 You'd think they could make it cheaper by removing the aperture mechanism, after you always use these lenses wide open.

I was suffering from a severe case of information overload yesterday so had to take a break, back into it now.

Rob

[MattNQ]

I gather the Panasonic lenses all work on the Oly? I don't normally like to mix brands and I'm warming to the Panasonic lens range, not that I've looked at the Oly range yet.

I see you're not that far from us, we're near Bundy at present.

I haven't tried it, but you shouldn't have any trouble with Panasonic lenses on an Oly. I have been eyeing off the 7-14, since my Oly 9-18 died. I probably don't have much more technical info to add to what has now been posted. Another forum to get info on m4/3 gear is the Mu-43.com forum. They have threads set up for images using particular bodies with particular lenses so you can get an idea of real world IQ. Using the panasonic 7-14 on the OMD seems to be fairly common, so the image stabilisation musn't be a problem.

Yep, we are just a bit further up the road (well, more of a bumpy bitumen track in places ) I was down in Maryborough over Christmas. Didn't get to Bundy though.

I have an EPL1, as well as a Nikon body, and I find the m4/3 size is great for getting shots in unusual spots - I love putting it on a joby on a rock in the middle of a creek or down the beachfront here to get water shots.

[graynomad]

Apologies everyone, I seem to have replied to the last post on page 1 and not noticed there was a page 2.

Warning, marathon response follows

if you're looking for image stabilization (likely not, eh?)

Absolutely paramount, I'll never buy a lens without IS again if possible. I would assume that if using Oly and Panny the IS can be switched off in one or the other.

On image quality - that is an important factor for many.

I know I said that IQ was not as important to me now as it used to be, but the samples I downloaded from the m43 site were really not good enough and that worries me a lot.

I tend to ignore the "equivalent mm" thing.

I find it's the only way I can stay sane when comparing all the different systems. I may not have put it right before but what I meant was that to get the equivalent lens to my 400/4 on MTF I only need a 200/4 and that's a heck of a lot smaller than my existing lens.

why a return to Kenya?

I suppose because I liked it before and want to in part relive my first trip there. That's often a bad idea though because things are never the same.

I only self-drive though, I know I can do that successfully in Kenya but have heard it's not that practical in Bots. SA is OK for self-drive, but I don't know about Zim, Zam, etc.

I also have a liking for the open grasslands as found in the Mara.

Please take a look at this thread.

Yes I saw that. The poor bloke. Somehow I can't see myself sending gear to Nigeria but if he really is legit maybe. It would be nice to sell the lot at once but I doubt he's looking to spend that much.

Notice the words in bold italics.

Meaning that it's not good enough for the primary kit ?

I would think if your main interest is wildlife you will be disappointed with continuous focus from the mirrorless cameras.

It's really starting to look that way.

(though EF lenses can be used with adapter but of course that kind of negates the purpose).

I'm not sure it does, if I can use a MFT body on my existing lenses I can effectively ditch the 400 because my 70-200 is now a 400. Alternatively keep the 400 because it's now an 800, in which case I haven't saved a lot of weight but I've got an 800 f4.

I admit I never even thought of sticking with Canon and waiting for them to come to the party.

Both the Panasonic 100-300mm and Olympus 75-300mm are ... known for being a bit soft and slow on the long end.

So I've seen on various reviews. That's not good for what I do. Surely there's a good long lens in the pipeline?

Other alternatives include some of the 4/3 lenses including the very well regarded Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5

I used to think the Oly 4/3 lenses looked fantastic, still do I guess.

Question, do the Oly 4/3 lenses work well on the MTF bodies?

There's also the Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 but that'll set you back a cool $6,000 and weighs around 7 pounds

Looks like a fantastic lens hardly saves weight but that would give me a 500/2.8, an unheard of size in FF.

Here's a nice chart of the available lenses

Thanks, that helps to see everything in one place.

Panasonic recently came out with a pair of fast zooms (12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100mm f2.8)

I saw these, probably a better choice than the 14-140 albeit two lenses.

My other thought is about the electronic viewfinder. ... Frankly, I continue to find that this technology is the weakness of the mirrorless cameras

I still haven't actually looked at one of these cameras yet, if I come to the same conclusion that will be the end of the story.

I own both the 14-140mm and 100-300mm lenses. ... If someone is looking to save weight; these lenses are quite heavy,

All things are relative, they look pretty light compared to what I have.

I haven't tried it, but you shouldn't have any trouble with Panasonic lenses on an Oly.

I've had a good look at the Oly, initially I didn't like it much but the retro look is growing on me. I really like the look of the Oly 60mm macro.

I hope that's responds to everything.

Rob

[xpatUSA]

I still haven't actually looked at one of these [EVF] cameras yet, if I come to the same [bad] conclusion that will be the end of the story.

That would certainly be a deal-breaker and worth of lots of research or, better yet, hands-on. I have this vision of bright Efrican sunlight, no shade, your lion sitting in Serengeti-brown grass smiling for the camera . . and smiling . . and smiling . . . while you struggle with the EVF and curse the less-than-perfect AF or invisible 5X MF.

Meanwhile, for a buck or two ($26,000) more:



:-)

[graynomad]

I've seen that on Juza's site before, I bet he didn't hold that pose for long.

This is one of the attractions of FT/MFT, the Oly 90-250/2.8 is effectively the same as this Sigma and "only" 3.7kgs.

Rob

[William W]

[my gear: Tachihara 4x5, 90 Nikkor, 210 Symmar-S, EOS 1D, EOS 1DS, EOS 10D x 2, 17-40/4, 24-105/4, 100/2.8 macro, 70-200/2.8, 400/4 DO, 420EX flash, 580EX flash, MT-24EX macro flash, STE2 flash transmitter]
. . . I never print a photo, seldom sell one and when I do it's for a magazine and not repro'd very large, most stuff winds up on the web or a laptop. I'm sure the IQ from any modern camera will be good enough.

So it is essentially about you having fun and using gear which gives you fun - if that is DSLR then -

Keep both 1Series Bodies if you know them well and they have lots of life remaining.
Keep the 17 to 40; 24 to 104 and the 100/2.8 macro.
Keep the Flash gear.
Sell the rest and buy the 70 to 300L IS

Personally I’d sell both the 1 Series Bodies and buy a 5DMkIII and a 7D, with that lens kit – if you want light weight and flexible. . . if you want birdies then maybe keep the 400/4 DO, but I wouldn’t, but I have no patience for birdies.

Do you use the 4x5?

If you are over DSLR then buy a NEX or any other one - it doesn't matter - the trend as to what "TO BUY" will be established later: not at this early stage.

Remember those who bought into BETA tape decks and MINI DISC?

WW

[graynomad]

So it is essentially about you having fun and using gear which gives you fun

I think that's a fare comment, these days I have no financial pressure to produce an image. But it's very hard to shake off the old process, I mean there was a time where you just weren't a serious nature photographer if you didn't have a large white lens. After thinking like that for 30-40 years it's hard to change.

if you want birdies then maybe keep the 400/4 DO

I do likes me birdies, so something in the 600 equiv range is required.

Do you use the 4x5?

No, if I had a mantelpiece it would sit on that just so I can look at it

The easiest thing to do of course is nothing, and wait to see what happens. Maybe Canon will release a kick-arse CSC that will accept my glass as native with everything working.

I reckon the whole changeover thing is borderline now depending on your requirements, before long though it could be a no-brainer. Bodies come and bodies go but glass is forever (hopefully).

[xpatUSA]

I do likes me birdies, so something in the 600 equiv range is required.

Rokinon 650-2600mm, micro 4/3", Buy-it-now US S279.00 !!!



http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rokinon-650-...item51a5a34651

Samyang 650-1300mm, same price.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/Samyang-650-...item416dae083a


;-)

[graynomad]

I don't think the first one would be any good, too large a zoom range. But that second one is white and only goes to 1300mm, that would be some class glass.

At just $279 for such a fine piece of bottle they must have cocked up with the price, I might grab a couple before people realise...OTOH just how many paper weights does a bloke need?

[xpatUSA]

At just $279 for such a fine piece of bottle they must have cocked up with the price, I might grab a couple before people realise...OTOH just how many paper weights does a bloke need?

Rob, my post was a little tongue-in-cheek but, if you're serious, the price is no mistake and similar-looking models are all over eBay under various names and they're all made in China, AFAIK.

Might also be worth making sure that they're talking actual mm focal length and doing the "conversion" to whatever camera you are thinking of getting (or keeping). Interesting too to see that they're 1/100 the price of the Sigma green monster! Most inscrutable and fiendishly clever . . .

[graynomad]

my post was a little tongue-in-cheek

That's alright, so was mine

Frankly I'd rather use the base of a coke bottle glued to the end of some toilet roles.

That said if you are on a real budget they may be better than nothing, they are probably just telescopes and I have seen people use telescope with some success.

[Boatman]

Graynomad:

Now that the conversation has turned m43, I can jump in. I have Panasonic GH2 and I am very pleased with it. The 14-140 lens is a super walking around lens but it is on the heavy side. For indoor work, I use the f1.7-20mm, and with that, the camera is about the size and weight of a largish point-and-shoot camera. Really small. It's small size does create one problem; finding enough real estate to place your hands on the camera without accidentally bumping some button is difficult. With the GH3 that may not be such a problem as it is a bigger camera.

A solution I have that works well for me is to use two camera bags. My master bag has all my stuff in it and with a few lenses, flash, batteries and a bunch of other stuff it probably weighs close to ten pounds. My other bag is more of fanny pack and it will hold the Panny with the big lens or the body and two small lenses plus a filter or two and a spare battery. It never weighs so much that you can't carry it all day long. You could adopt this strategy and keep all your current good stuff.

[graynomad]

At present the Pany GH3 is at the top of the list.

The 14-140 lens is a super walking around lens but it is on the heavy side.

All things are relative , I can get an entire MFT kit for the same weight as a single EOS1 body.

You could adopt this strategy and keep all your current good stuff.

Yes I could...if I had the money to buy a second system without selling the first, which unfortunately I don't.

What do you think of the 14-140 at the long end? The photos on your zenfolio look pretty sharp but they are too small to really tell.

[Boatman]

The 14-140 is fine. It's no Leica, but it is more than sharp enough. I guess I don't use it at 140mm as much as I thought. I looked for a sample image and could only come up with this 131mm shot. The images are the full image and a 1200 x 900 100% crop. This is straight from raw, no sharpening or other adjustments have been applied. Also, that boat and the boat I was on were moving, so there is probably some motion blur in the image. The image stabilization is good. BTW, Olympus puts the stabilization in the camera body, which I would prefer. ISO 320, f6.3 1/640

Full Image


100% Crop