Testing new lens - opinions?

[davidedric]

Hi,

I have pretty much moved to micro 4/3 for everything except wildlife. The problem is that there isn't any really good glass available in long zooms (unlike in shorter zooms and primes). So I bought the best there is, the 100-300 Panasonic, and set off for Florida to try it out

Here is a typical image. Would you find it acceptable, and if not why not (I mean the IQ, not whether it's the best photograph ever!). I think it is for me, but it may be wishful thinking.

To save checking the Exif: body GX7, f7.1 (reckoned the sweet spot for this lens), 218mm (436 equiv.) 1/800, ISO 400, handheld.

Dave

[ajohnw]

There is very little bad glass available for m 4/3 Dave. You can more or less forget kit lens problems on this format. Panasonic did make one early on but it was soon upgraded as it stuck out like a sore thumb against a similar lens Olympus offered with cameras in the same box. There are a few lenses which could be better maybe but that happens on all makes and formats. I'd say that care needs to be taken with the more expensive lenses that they make. From test results I am inclined to think that these are sometimes over priced. On the other hand all Olympus Pro lenses are beyond reproach so far but they have past experience of introducing this format to a conservative market.

In terms of wild life I didn't have to look too far to find a moderately processed shot

https://www.flickr.com/photos/520647...70346/sizes/o/

Other shots taken with the same lens on the site are usually at high iso and just posted no PP. On this one I'm reminded of a very reduced size comparison between a Canon 600mm prime and the Tamron 150-600mm. Guess which wins and in what order.

John
-

[Shadowman]

What type of focus indicator does the Panasonic have and where were you focusing?

[Wavelength]

Really beautiful

[Manfred M]

Dave - I own the lens and it was one of two lenses that was along on my trip to South Asia late last year. I took almost 20% of my shots with it while there. It's a decent enough lens; higher end consumer glass with decent optical performance, but like many of its peers, the mechanical construction is so-so. I see you are also shooting the GX7, so we can certainly compare our results.

Like most long lenses, it's not a lot of fun to hand-hold and given its light weight mounted on a tiny camera body, even with image stabilization. I find I get more "keepers" when I use a larger body and heavier lenses (you can't break the laws of physics (Newton's first law, to be specific). I'm thinking about compositional issues, not anything else. Pop it on a fairly light duty tripod (I use one of the smaller Benro carbon fiber travel tripods) and life gets a lot easier. I also find the I have to shoot at higher ISO than I would prefer to, but that's to be expected with a lens like this.

I so find I have to emulate single focus point mode (pinpoint in Panasonic talk); I don't like the one that is default on the GX7 as I find the magnification that Panasonic won't let me shut off more of an irritant than a help. The complex autofocus mode (23 area) is terrible with this lens and the camera seems intent on focusing on the leaves and branches, rather than the subject, so I use 1-area with the focus area made as small as possible. Again, a camera issue, the contrast detect autofocus is means more misses than on my DSLR, because of the relatively slow focus versus the phase detect.

I do tend to shoot in sort of a back-button focus, AF lock using continuous focus mode. Focus on the nearest eye, lock focus / exposure and recompose.

So, no real surprises. The advantages of small size and light weight have to be balanced off against the camera / lens performance constraints.





I'll be taking the GX7 / Lumix 100-300mm lens on other trips for sure, but only when the size and weight of the full frame gear are the over-riding issue. I won't be getting rid of the D800 and pro glass in the foreseeable future and it will continue to be my go-to gear.

[IzzieK]

Really nice shot, Dave...I am commenting on the lens, not the picture but the picture came with it for show and tell, so why not? 100-300 mm seems to work well in this regard. I have a 70-300mm and I am still working on it. You got this one great. I was just reading an advice from someone in the 'net about using one lens for a week, month and even a year! I have been using my 50mm for over a month now and I think I will move on to another lens...maybe you can do that too in the meantime, not that you need it, but familiarizing yourself with a lens at a time seems to work for me lately. Maybe yours too...but then my brain IQ is much slower than yours... need repetition more often to sink in info...

[davidedric]

Thanks for the feedback, gentlemen. (Oops, and Izzy who was replying while I was typing)

I do tend to shoot in sort of a back-button focus, AF lock using continuous focus mode. Focus on the nearest eye, lock focus / exposure and recompose.

Yes, that's just what I was doing, with single focus point. Focus should be on the eye, though as anyone who has tried this combination will know, lack of stabilisation when focusing can make this tricky.

Manfred, I do have some tripod shots, too, from other days on the trip. I wanted to see what it could do handheld, because that's what I'll be doing in Zambia later this year. I've found that tripods really aren't practical in a shared safari vehicle: hand held with a bean bag if you are lucky is about the only way.

Btw, I really wish Panasonic had enabled auto iso in manual. This was shot in Av juggling the iso to get the ss I wanted.

Dave

[ajohnw]

I did own the Panasonic 100-300mm but sold it and bought the Olympus. As I have in body IS I can directly compare camera shake with different lens weights and I would say entirely the opposite of what Manfred said and don't see that Newton has much to do with it. More the person holding the camera and probably part down to camera to lens sizes, mostly having somewhere suitable for supporting it all in a balanced fashion.

One aspect I wasn't too keen on in relation to the Pansonic was that I could hear the IS whirring away. It's fairly loud but does it's job. That I feel is probably slightly related to the pro lens aspect Manfred mentioned. I took this shot with it 3 times after getting the exposure correct.



Not the clearest of nights, wispy high cloud but hand held as always plus 2x magnification = 1200mm FF. The only time I have ever used a support of any sort on these cameras is when the exposures are rather long.

The reason for 3 shots was focus problems. Not related to that but most cameras with multiple focus sensors may decide to use any of them so I feel any comments about the camera using the wrong one isn't really fair. There is a need to bear in mind that the focus works at it's best on edges that show some contrast. One of the interesting aspects is that if the touch screen focus and shoot facility on many of these cameras is used it does just that without any messing about. This sometimes makes me wish I could poke a finger into the viewfinder. It would be nice to have an easy method of moving the focus area about at times particularly when panning. The auto tracking I have used has it's limitations but some of those might be down to me as I haven't use it much. I see it as a possible solution to focusing and framing as the tracking should stay focused where it was when the shot is framed. So far I haven't found the need to shoot bursts in the hope that some will be in focus. However if macro I usually do take 3 shots manually using continuous AF,

As to the question focus indication - something lights up in the viewfinder as always even on Panasonic I believe. I generally have my camera set so that no focus means it wont take a shot. I find that best but it can also be frustrating at times. The other focusing methods have their own problems. Magnified live view and manual focusing means that only a small portion of the actual image can be seen. I intend to do a bit more of that now that the viewfinders have more pixels. Focus peaking is a mixed bag. It looks to be fine on fast lenses and that is how it's usually demonstrated on youtube etc.

Interesting area. I read a marketing report somewhere or the other recently on m 4/3 uptake. It seems N America lags behind others put down to feelings that bigger must be better. Some might lenses bodies to be made out of cast iron. My feeling is that it can easily match crop with the right glass and doesn't do too bad a job with what's currently around really. The extra reach in some ways is a little miss leading with that glass - the need to get a little closer than the equivalent focal lengths would suggest. In other words 300mm on m 4/3 might equal 600mm full frame but for the same framing/equiv focal length the FF camera will give a better image. Much the same as crop. M 4/3 needs to get a bit closer when the same comparison is made against crop but distance from subject does go up each time the comparison is made. If I can convince myself that the CX sensor can give good feather detail in say white swans I might well buy the CX 70-300mm. Swans and long focal lengths are a tough subject though. With that I could be even further away even though I would need to be closer than the equiv focal length would suggest.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I do have some tripod shots, too, from other days on the trip. I wanted to see what it could do handheld, because that's what I'll be doing in Zambia later this year. I've found that tripods really aren't practical in a shared safari vehicle: hand held with a bean bag if you are lucky is about the only way.

Shared vehicles are no fun at all when shooting African wildlife. They seem to be full of people who are bouncing around and generally doing their best to ensure that they (or any other photographer) gets a decent shot. The smartest move we made was renting a 4x4 truck in Namibia and driving ourselves. I've picked up a window clamp that should help on our next trip to Africa for wildlife shooting. I have a Benro ball head I use with it.

http://www.manfrotto.com/car-window-pod

The image stabilization system works fine on a long lens (within reason, of course). My biggest problem with a long lens is getting decent composition because of camera shake, even when I am supporting my arm / camera. Shooting bursts helps, because in general one of the shots ends up being okay, but it is a PITA to have to go through so many shots to pick out the best one.

My main issue with the mirrorless cameras is basically their small size. This restricts the number and size of buttons that can be put on the camera body, so adjustments have to be made through menu items; which really has a significant negative impact on me.

[davidedric]

Interesting area. I read a marketing report somewhere or the other recently on m 4/3 uptake. It seems N America lags behind others put down to feelings that bigger must be better.

Don't know what the reasons are, but on my last couple of trips to the USA just about everyone I saw was carrying a dslr (even though, to be honest, it was clear that a fair few didn't seem to know what they were doing). It's the same if you look at the Beginners Forum over on DPR (sorry, wash my mouth out). I've lost count of the threads that start "buying my first dslr", or "newbie wants to upgrade to full frame", and I want to shout WHY?. But never do.

Seriously, I would be very interested in any comments from our north American members.

Dave

[Shadowman]

Don't know what the reasons are, but on my last couple of trips to the USA just about everyone I saw was carrying a dslr (even though, to be honest, it was clear that a fair few didn't seem to know what they were doing). It's the same if you look at the Beginners Forum over on DPR (sorry, wash my mouth out). I've lost count of the threads that start "buying my first dslr", or "newbie wants to upgrade to full frame", and I want to shout WHY?. But never do.

Seriously, I would be very interested in any comments from our north American members.

Dave

Usually new users upgrade because they've read somewhere that they need to. On my frequent trips everyone's carrying either a tablet or a cellphone, I've even seen one or two using their laptop's camera.

[jcuknz]

John ... Panasonic have the dot which stops flickering when you have focus, or at least it has found 'a' focus, as usual is it the focus you want?
Manfred ... I rarely chimp but have the review set to 'one second' which is enough time to establish what framing I achieved with my long lens ... it has drawbacks as an angry old bull sea elephant [or something] came at me following the click and earlier a miniature live steam engine and I was rather close to the track at waist level But that is only two occasions of thousands.

[Shadowman]

John ... Panasonic have the dot which stops flickering when you have focus, or at least it has found 'a' focus, as usual is it the focus you want?
Manfred ... I rarely chimp but have the review set to 'one second' which is enough time to establish what framing I achieved with my long lens ... it has drawbacks as an angry old bull sea elephant [or something] came at me following the click and earlier a miniature live steam engine and I was rather close to the track at waist level But that is only two occasions of thousands.

Thanks John and Dave, my micro 4/3rd (Olympus EPL1) has the square focus indicator, no viewfinder so was wondering how other users felt about their focusing system.

[Manfred M]

Usually new users upgrade because they've read somewhere that they need to. On my frequent trips everyone's carrying either a tablet or a cellphone, I've even seen one or two using their laptop's camera.

To a large extent the point & shoot cameras have been replaced by the smart phones and tablets. I remember being at a cultural event in Nepal in November, where the person seated in front of me insisted on recording the whole event by placing his full-size iPad in front of where I was watching. Not impressed, if for no other reason than I could see that he was bobbing up and down so much that anyone watching the video he was recording would get nauseous after watching his work for a few moments...

[davidedric]

Oh dear. We had just the same experience at our local (open air) theatre. Drove us mad, but we were too timid to intervene

[Manfred M]

Seriously, I would be very interested in any comments from our north American members.

As a North American, let me have a shot at your question.

Frankly Dave, I see little difference in price between an entry or mid-level DSLR and their corresponding mirrorless equivalents, so I'm not quite sure why a person would pick one format over the other. Canon and Nikon have brand recognition for cameras, and Panasonic (like Sony) is viewed by many people as a consumer electronics company. Olympus, most people who are not into photography, is a brand that they wouldn't likely recognize. Neither Nikon nor Canon make a mFT camera and their mirrorless designs seem to be more about protecting their lucrative DSLR sales than competing with them.

The size and weight difference between the smaller models of DSLR and equivalent mirrorless cameras are really not all that significant, so again, for the newbie stepping up from a smart phone, bridge camera or point & shoot isn't going to see a huge advantage of one camera configuration over the other. Some of the people that are jumping to mirrorless are often the ones that see an advantage from their video performance, rather than the still image performance. The other group that is very much into the mirrorless design is the street photography group. Something small and less "professional" looking can be a definite advantage in this photographic genre.

Perhaps I could turn the question around and try to figure out why the mirrorless cameras are more popular elsewhere in the world?

[davidedric]

Hi Manfred,

I think your analysis is spot on. If there is a difference, I really don't know why, though I think about advertising budgets. But then, they usually follow rather than lead the market.

Sheesh, I need to take more photos

Dave

[ajohnw]

John ... Panasonic have the dot which stops flickering when you have focus, or at least it has found 'a' focus, as usual is it the focus you want?

That sounds like focus peaking but the opposite way Olympus show it. They shimmer where the focus plain is hence it working well with fast optics but that's for manual focusing. I haven't looked at a Panasonic manual for some time now as I have decided to stick with Olympus. They looked to be much the same other than at one point they offered a magnified view in the whole view for manual focusing but didn't get the numbers right.

Manfred's Panasonic is pretty recent - focus squares and I would assume magnified live view and focus peaking. Just like most of them I suspect.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Manfred's Panasonic is pretty recent - focus squares and I would assume magnified live view and focus peaking.

The focus area(s), i.e. rectangles go from white to green when focus is confirmed. If the rectangle goes red = focus failure

Pinpoint focus view magnifies automatically (which is a PITA to use), the time that it remains magnified can be set, but the minimum is around 1/2 sec.

Focus peaking shows the in-focus areas in blue by default, but the colours can be set to green or yellow. On the pro video cameras, Panasonic uses red in the peaking indicator.

[ajohnw]

I've no idea Manfred other than maybe pundits, inherent beliefs and advertising going on your comment something that doesn't look professional. Perhaps we don't get so much of that thrown at us over here for instance.

I've no idea what the actual numbers are. On that score all I can add is a UK dealer's comment. M 4/3 sales proportions have been growing steadily year on year to the point where they now need stock and expect to sell it. Also that Olympus as a company are doing well but cameras are only a small proportion of their market. It has been a larger proportion in the past, film compact and slr's. They seemed to drift away when digital arrived. I vaguely remember that they used foveon for a while and most definitely did use Kodak ccd's. Both probably bad choices. I came near to being offered one of there early digital cameras for free. Give us a ring for a chat. I decided not to. If I remember correctly it wasn't like anybody else's sensor wise so must have been foveon.

Market report comments on N America, the USA in particular can be biased in an odd sort of way. It's seen to be the place to sell stuff. Largely down to population levels. A sore point personally with me as it has other implications world wide that just relate to its' population levels. Entire counties go to extremes at times to protect their market there. The Japanese for instance at one point buying dollars up like crazy to keep it's value up.

The main gain of m 4/3 as some more serious people see it is weight. High end glass wont be cheap or that light either if they make stuff with "popular" apertures. As I have pointed out there is a bit of a problem with the reach the format gives but a link I posted in the pixel count thread mentioned that Olympus and Canon MTF curves were directly comparable and that is talking full frame Canon. That might be achieved again. The other factor relating to m 4/3 is that it is a standard in all respects not just the shape of the mount. I can't see Nikon or Canon ever accepting that unless they found that they had no choice. Rather unlikely. Fuji maybe at some point. Sony are another company that wouldn't be happy using a freely available lens to camera interface. All users need to do is to sign up to it.

As to m 4/3 IQ there are already some people on here that would dispute that. The noise disadvantage is slowly but surely disappearing as pixel counts go up on other formats and in any case I have posted shots in the past that show 25600 can be used on suitable subjects. High ISO's usually need that later consideration on all formats.

John
-