Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, May 28, 2012.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
    I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
    article that would help me make some choices.
    My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
    SLR are twofold:

    1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
    situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
    what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
    viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.

    2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
    gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
    allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
    to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
    doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

    As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
    merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
    will then be committed to. Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
    its lenses:

    1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
    lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
    happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
    focus and exposure on its own.

    2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
    typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
    realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
    superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
    and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
    fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
    Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
    bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
    "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

    3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
    to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

    4) Camera must support "raw mode".

    Things that would be nice, if practical:

    1) Image stabilization

    2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
    provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
    What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
    when used with the micro 4/3?

    So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
    the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, May 28, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:14:50 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

    > Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3. I
    > am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
    > article that would help me make some choices. My (possibly mistaken)
    > reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm SLR are twofold:
    >
    > 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
    > situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
    > what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
    > viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the
    > picture.
    >
    > 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
    > gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would allow
    > me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification to
    > what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
    > doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.
    >
    > As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
    > merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
    > will then be committed to. Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
    > its lenses:
    >
    > 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
    > lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
    > happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
    > focus and exposure on its own.
    >
    > 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
    > typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
    > realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
    > superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and and
    > take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in fairy
    > makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses. Toward this
    > end, it would be nice if the camera body could be bought "bare" so I
    > wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o "kit" lens. (Unless the
    > kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
    >
    > 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    > lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have to work
    > with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.
    >
    > 4) Camera must support "raw mode".
    >
    > Things that would be nice, if practical:
    >
    > 1) Image stabilization
    >
    > 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
    > provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
    > What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
    > when used with the micro 4/3?


    2x

    >
    > So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of the
    > different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.


    I have researched this recently. The Panasonic m4/3 has an adapter for
    35mm lenses available. The Nikon 1 series also has an adapter for Nikon
    lenses (though the sensor is a bit smaller - 2.7x instead of 2x). All the
    m4/3 systems I've looked at support raw formats - usually offered with or
    without a jpeg at the same time.

    The m4/3 systems that I've seen either have only the lcd on the back or
    have that plus an electronic viewfinder (which I have as a requirement) -
    point is, both systems use the sensor data. At the current time, I'm
    leaning towards the Pansonic G3.

    I believe it's the case that m4/3 is a 'standard' and that lenses from
    one system will be usable on another although some of the features may
    not go through - someone please correct if that's not the case.
     
    ray, May 28, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On May 28, 2:14 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
    > I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
    > article that would help me make some choices.
    > My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
    > SLR are twofold:
    >
    > 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
    >    situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
    >    what good does the SLR light path do me?  I would rather get my
    >    viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.


    Look up, EVF.

    >
    > 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
    >    gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
    >    allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
    >    to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
    >    doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.


    Wrong. The sensor isn't that small. You want an 800mm f4 lens? It's
    going to be huge.
    >
    > As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
    > merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
    > will then be committed to.  Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
    > its lenses:
    >
    > 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
    >    lenses.  I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
    >    happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
    >    focus and exposure on its own.


    They do it. But given the glacial slowness of he P&S's you use, why
    worry?

    >
    > 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
    >    typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have.  I
    >    realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
    >    superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
    >    and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
    >    fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
    >    Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
    >    bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
    >    "kit" lens.  (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
    >

    You can get 2 zooms to cover 12mm to 300mm. Buck up and carry one in
    a bag.


    > 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    >    lens.  (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?)  It would also have
    >    to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.


    They do.

    >
    > 4) Camera must support "raw mode".


    They all do.

    >
    > Things that would be nice, if practical:
    >
    > 1) Image stabilization


    Panasonic has it in some of the lenses, Olympus in the bodies.

    > 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
    >    provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions..
    >    What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
    >    when used with the micro 4/3?


    They will do auto-exposure but not auto-focus from different brands.
    P.S. The 35mm camera lenses (SLR you mean?) lenses also have to have
    AF in order that anything use AF.

    > So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
    > the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.


    Being a compact camera user, insisting on auto-everything and not
    being able to do the leg-work to find out some of this stuff on your
    own, you might consider you aren't ready to move on from superzooms.
    If their awful image quality is good enough, stick with them.
     
    RichA, May 28, 2012
    #3
  4. (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    > Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
    > I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
    > article that would help me make some choices.
    > My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
    > SLR are twofold:
    >
    > 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
    > situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
    > what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
    > viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.


    Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
    particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
    screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
    from prosumer cameras and up.

    > 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
    > gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
    > allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
    > to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
    > doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.


    You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
    though. IS can only do so much.

    > As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
    > merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
    > will then be committed to.


    Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
    companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
    lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
    exposure, and so forth.

    > Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
    > its lenses:
    >
    > 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
    > lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
    > happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
    > focus and exposure on its own.


    You should be more than "willing"; power zooms are very hard to control,
    and much slower to work with.

    > 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
    > typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
    > realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
    > superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
    > and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
    > fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
    > Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
    > bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
    > "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)


    This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
    describing.

    > 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    > lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
    > to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.


    You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
    lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
    that's *so much* better than 35mm.

    > 4) Camera must support "raw mode".


    Good choice.

    > Things that would be nice, if practical:
    >
    > 1) Image stabilization


    One of your big choices is IS in the body, or in the lenses. Olympus
    bodies have IS, Panasonic do not, they put theirs in the lenses.

    In-body IS works with any lenses, including c-mount video lenses on
    adapters (i.e. totally mechanical, very old-school, lenses).

    > 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
    > provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
    > What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
    > when used with the micro 4/3?


    You've got that sort-of backwards. It's not "multiplier for 35mm
    lenses"; it's "multiplier to give 35mm equivalent focal-length".

    And the answer is 2x. A 300mm lens on a micro four thirds body gives
    the angle of view of a 600mm lens on a 35mm body.

    You can get adapters for a huge range of lenses to micro four thirds.
    Mostly they're cheap mechanical adapters for old lenses, so that means
    manual focus. Even the adapters for modern AF lenses rarely (never in
    my experience, but some may exist) give you AF.

    > So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
    > the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.


    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 29, 2012
    #4
  5. "David J Taylor" <> writes:

    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <jq0faq$q86$>, Paul Ciszek says...
    >>
    >>> 1) Image stabilization

    >>
    >> Only available on Olympus bodies. If you use a Panasonic camera you have
    >> to buy an IS lens (they are available). See for an overview of m4/3
    >> lenses:
    >> http://myolympus.org/E-PL3/#Lenses
    >>
    >> (still have to add a couple of recently announced lenses, otherwise the
    >> list is complete)

    >
    > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
    > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
    > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).


    My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
    70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
    with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
    quite useful -- even with old lenses.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 29, 2012
    #5
  6. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
    > > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
    > > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

    >
    > My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
    > 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
    > with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
    > quite useful -- even with old lenses.


    i'm not sure what was wrong with your 70-200 but nikon's vr is very
    good. on the other hand, sigma is a crapshoot if you get a good one and
    even then, its stabilization is not as good as nikon, which is actually
    a little surprising since sigma stole nikon's design and is being sued.

    in any event, one major advantage of in-lens stabilization is that it
    stabilizes the viewfinder which makes composing easier and also helps
    autofocus track the subject. another advantage is it's tuned
    specifically to a given lens.

    the advantage to in-camera stabilization is that it works with just
    about any lens, although its effectiveness goes down as the focal
    length goes up (which is where stabilization matters the most) because
    the sensor needs to move a greater distance. at some point, it will
    reach a limit and no longer be able to move enough to stabilize the
    image.
     
    nospam, May 29, 2012
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
    >particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
    >screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
    >from prosumer cameras and up.


    Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For situations
    where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD screen in the
    sun.

    >> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
    >> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
    >> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
    >> to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
    >> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

    >
    >You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
    >though. IS can only do so much.


    Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.

    >> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
    >> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
    >> will then be committed to.

    >
    >Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
    >companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
    >lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
    >exposure, and so forth.


    That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?

    >> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
    >> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
    >> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
    >> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
    >> and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
    >> fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
    >> Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
    >> bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
    >> "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

    >
    >This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
    >describing.


    OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
    whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
    the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
    better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with
    a better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?


    >> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    >> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
    >> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

    >
    >You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
    >lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
    >that's *so much* better than 35mm.


    Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
    Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
    price of the Panasonic version.


    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, May 29, 2012
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:04:39 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
    >>particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
    >>screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
    >>from prosumer cameras and up.

    >
    > Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For
    > situations where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD
    > screen in the sun.


    That is possible since several of the m43 cameras come with no viewfinder
    but have an optional one - but as far as I know, they only attach to the
    top of the camera - like a flash shoe. I'm not aware of any with a
    feature like that.


    >
    >>> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
    >>> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
    >>> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in
    >>> magnification to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm
    >>> terms) whereas I doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for
    >>> a 35mm.

    >>
    >>You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
    >>though. IS can only do so much.

    >
    > Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
    >
    >>> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on
    >>> the merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that
    >>> you will then be committed to.

    >>
    >>Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
    >>companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
    >>lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
    >>exposure, and so forth.

    >
    > That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?


    Primarily, it is Panasonic and Olympus at this point.

    >
    >>> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
    >>> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
    >>> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
    >>> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and and
    >>> take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in fairy
    >>> makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses. Toward this
    >>> end, it would be nice if the camera body could be bought "bare" so
    >>> I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o "kit" lens. (Unless
    >>> the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

    >>
    >>This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're describing.

    >
    > OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
    > whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
    > the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
    > better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with a
    > better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?


    'kit lens' does indeed mean the lens that comes with the camera. The real
    reviews I've read indicates that the 14-45 (28-90 35mm equiv) that comes
    with the Panasonic G3 is a **GOOD** lens.

    >
    >
    >>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    >>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have to
    >>> work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

    >>
    >>You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
    >>lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
    >>that's *so much* better than 35mm.

    >
    > Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
    > Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
    > price of the Panasonic version.
     
    ray, May 30, 2012
    #8
  9. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>, ray <> wrote:
    >>
    >> OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
    >> whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
    >> the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
    >> better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with a
    >> better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?

    >
    >'kit lens' does indeed mean the lens that comes with the camera. The real
    >reviews I've read indicates that the 14-45 (28-90 35mm equiv) that comes
    >with the Panasonic G3 is a **GOOD** lens.


    I have seen reviews on Amazon that say they like the older, more expensive
    14-45mm lens made of metal with the IOS cutoff switch better than the newer,
    cheaper 14-42mm one made of plastic that makes you do the IOS cutoff through
    the camera. The camera as advertized on Amazon says it comes with a 14-42mm
    lens, so I assume they mean the newer cheaper one. The bare camera costs
    $50 less on Amazon than it does with the 14-42mm lens; that is half the cost
    of the 14-42mm lens on its own. It would be nice to be able to buy the
    camera bundled with the old lens as you describe; it would have to be cheaper
    than buying them separately, wouldn't it? How risky is it to buy stuff like
    this used?

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, May 30, 2012
    #9
  10. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <jq1pfc$aus$>, David J Taylor says...
    >> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
    >> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
    >> but
    >> this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

    >
    > Not all lenses are IS...
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without IS.
    For me, it's a must-have feature.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 30, 2012
    #10
  11. > Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
    > Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
    > price of the Panasonic version.


    Paul,

    In-lens IS does not need to add substantially to the price, as proved by
    lenses in the Nikon DSLR range. Perhaps the Panasonic optical design is
    simply better?

    Think carefully before buying a telephoto lens without IS (and try holding
    the camera & lens on a moving ship in windy conditions...).

    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 30, 2012
    #11
  12. > My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
    > 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
    > with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
    > quite useful -- even with old lenses.
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/


    Can't comment on Sigma (but you know what to expect from that company),
    but the Nikon VR lenses I've used have had excellent stabilisation - even
    the low-cost kit lenses. The stabilisation on the Leica-branded Panasonic
    lenses used on their P&S models has also been fine.

    Yes, if you already have a bag full of lenses, it alters the trade-off
    somewhat.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 30, 2012
    #12
  13. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > (Paul Ciszek) writes:


    >> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    >> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
    >> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.


    > You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
    > lenses at a sane price.


    You also won't get that much resolution with compact cameras
    at such long focal lengths (diffraction due to small
    apertures compared to the sensor size).

    > But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
    > that's *so much* better than 35mm.


    I doubt that "that's *so much* better than 35mm".

    Let's look at the Canon DSLRs as an example (they also have a
    slightly bigger crop factor of 1.6 instead of 1.5 with Nikon :-> ):
    - 300mm (effective 480mm as 35mm equivalent) is quite normal:
    * <120 EUR: Sigma AF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 DG Makro
    * 128 EUR (Amazon): Tamron AF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 Di LD Makro 1:2
    * <170 EUR: Sigma AF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 DG APO Makro
    * <200 EUR: Canon EF 75-300mm 4.0-5.6 III

    - 400mm (effective 640mm as 35mm equivalent) is quite available,
    though at a somewhat higher price:
    * 570 EUR (Amazon): Tokina AT-XD 80-400mm 4.5-5.6
    * <800 EUR: Sigma AF 120-400mm 4.5-5.6 DG APO HSM OS

    - 500mm (effective 800mm at 35mm equivalent):
    * <900 EUR: Sigma AF 150-500mm 5.0-6.3 DG APO HSM OS
    * 953 EUR (Amazon): Tamron SP AF 200-500mm 5-6.3 Di LD IF

    (no, they aren't the best lenses. Just the cheap ones.)

    I don't see that much of a monetary advantage ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 30, 2012
    #13
  14. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <jq4gch$hor$>,
    David J Taylor <> wrote:
    >> Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
    >> Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
    >> price of the Panasonic version.

    >
    >Paul,
    >
    >In-lens IS does not need to add substantially to the price, as proved by
    >lenses in the Nikon DSLR range. Perhaps the Panasonic optical design is
    >simply better?
    >
    >Think carefully before buying a telephoto lens without IS (and try holding
    >the camera & lens on a moving ship in windy conditions...).


    Mostly, I keep hearing about Olympus vs. Panasonic, with Sony trying to
    create its own standard. Does anyone have anything good or bad to say
    about the Nikon mirrorless cameras and the lenses available for them?

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, May 30, 2012
    #14
  15. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
    >> > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
    >> > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

    >>
    >> My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
    >> 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
    >> with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
    >> quite useful -- even with old lenses.

    >
    > i'm not sure what was wrong with your 70-200 but nikon's vr is very
    > good. on the other hand, sigma is a crapshoot if you get a good one and
    > even then, its stabilization is not as good as nikon, which is actually
    > a little surprising since sigma stole nikon's design and is being sued.


    And I get better results on the longer Sigma than on the slower Nikon.

    > in any event, one major advantage of in-lens stabilization is that it
    > stabilizes the viewfinder which makes composing easier and also helps
    > autofocus track the subject. another advantage is it's tuned
    > specifically to a given lens.
    >
    > the advantage to in-camera stabilization is that it works with just
    > about any lens, although its effectiveness goes down as the focal
    > length goes up (which is where stabilization matters the most) because
    > the sensor needs to move a greater distance. at some point, it will
    > reach a limit and no longer be able to move enough to stabilize the
    > image.


    Which both argue for putting in-body stabilization in the camera, and
    in-lens stabilization on the longer lenses, and having the computer sort
    it out (maybe they could even cooperate sometimes).

    What I've found testing VR in lenses is that it will frequently bring
    the image to *nearly* sharp.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 30, 2012
    #15
  16. Paul Ciszek

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:16:50 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

    > In article <jq4gch$hor$>, David J Taylor
    > <> wrote:
    >>> Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
    >>> Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
    >>> price of the Panasonic version.

    >>
    >>Paul,
    >>
    >>In-lens IS does not need to add substantially to the price, as proved by
    >>lenses in the Nikon DSLR range. Perhaps the Panasonic optical design is
    >>simply better?
    >>
    >>Think carefully before buying a telephoto lens without IS (and try
    >>holding the camera & lens on a moving ship in windy conditions...).

    >
    > Mostly, I keep hearing about Olympus vs. Panasonic, with Sony trying to
    > create its own standard. Does anyone have anything good or bad to say
    > about the Nikon mirrorless cameras and the lenses available for them?


    Only that, after comparing them, I consider the Nikon entries greatly
    overpriced. For a smaller sensor which, according to most testers, takes
    worse photos, you pay twice as much.
     
    ray, May 30, 2012
    #16
  17. (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    > In article <>,
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
    >>particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
    >>screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
    >>from prosumer cameras and up.

    >
    > Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For situations
    > where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD screen in the
    > sun.


    Bunches of them, I think. Zigview is a name I remember.

    Also, you can plug the video out from any modern camera with LiveView
    into an externalmonitor to get a similar (but more expensive) effect.

    >>> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
    >>> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
    >>> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
    >>> to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
    >>> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

    >>
    >>You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
    >>though. IS can only do so much.

    >
    > Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
    >
    >>> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
    >>> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
    >>> will then be committed to.

    >>
    >>Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
    >>companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
    >>lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
    >>exposure, and so forth.

    >
    > That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?


    No, neither of them make Four Thirds gear of any sort (cameras or
    lenses). They each have their own, incompatible, mirrorless systems.

    >>> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
    >>> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
    >>> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
    >>> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
    >>> and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
    >>> fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
    >>> Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
    >>> bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
    >>> "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

    >>
    >>This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
    >>describing.

    >
    > OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
    > whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
    > the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
    > better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with
    > a better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?


    Okay, you're probably right that that's what it means to most people.
    But it's also used some to mean "the lens you mostly leave on the
    camera".

    It seems to me you may be looking for a a longer zoom range than kit
    lenses and P&S cameras usually provide -- something in the superzoom
    range. The trouble with that is that such superzoom lenses for DSLRs
    are both expensive and not very good (and the Nikon 18-200, for example,
    is unexpectedly good for what it is). Long zoom ranges are very hard to
    make, and the larger the sensor the harder it gets.

    >>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    >>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
    >>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

    >>
    >>You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
    >>lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
    >>that's *so much* better than 35mm.

    >
    > Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
    > Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
    > price of the Panasonic version.


    Really? What I find at Amazon is "Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 ED
    Digital Zoom Lens (Black) by Olympus Buy new : $899.99" And it's f/6.7
    at the long end, REALLY slow.

    And the Panasonic 100-300/4.0-5.6 is now showing ar $848.50. Ouch.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 30, 2012
    #17
  18. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2012-05-29 15:04:39 -0700, (Paul Ciszek) said:
    >
    >>
    >> In article <>,
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >>>
    >>> You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
    >>> though. IS can only do so much.

    >>
    >> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.

    >
    > ...and that is one of the times IS/OS/VR is contraindicated.


    Depending on, not just the manufacturer, but the specific lens (or
    body). You need to read the instructions on the actual equipment you're
    using.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 30, 2012
    #18
  19. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    >
    >>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
    >>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
    >>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

    >
    >> You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
    >> lenses at a sane price.

    >
    > You also won't get that much resolution with compact cameras
    > at such long focal lengths (diffraction due to small
    > apertures compared to the sensor size).
    >
    >> But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
    >> that's *so much* better than 35mm.

    >
    > I doubt that "that's *so much* better than 35mm".


    It is if you include the f/5.6 aperture at 600mm-e.

    > - 400mm (effective 640mm as 35mm equivalent) is quite available,
    > though at a somewhat higher price:
    > * 570 EUR (Amazon): Tokina AT-XD 80-400mm 4.5-5.6
    > * <800 EUR: Sigma AF 120-400mm 4.5-5.6 DG APO HSM OS


    That Sigma is $999 at Amazon right now. I paid about $850 for it a few
    years ago.

    > (no, they aren't the best lenses. Just the cheap ones.)


    > I don't see that much of a monetary advantage ...


    I was comparing to 35mm, not to DX crop.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 30, 2012
    #19
  20. "David J Taylor" <> writes:

    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <jq1pfc$aus$>, David J Taylor says...
    >>> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
    >>> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational
    >>> jitter, but
    >>> this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

    >>
    >> Not all lenses are IS...

    >
    > Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without
    > IS. For me, it's a must-have feature.


    Many of the telephotos I most value do not come in IS versions. It's
    fine if I'm buying super-telephotos for wildlife (at 4- and 5-figure
    prices), but 85, 105, and 135 lenses tend not to have it. Even prime
    200mm lenses tend not to.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 30, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Richard Dillon
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    458
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Aug 20, 2003
  2. sandy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    470
    Joshua Zyber
    Nov 27, 2004
  3. Mimic
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    529
    Mimic
    Jan 20, 2004
  4. Laszlo Kovacs

    OT: Please help these families...

    Laszlo Kovacs, Dec 11, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    409
    Laszlo Kovacs
    Dec 11, 2006
  5. Unknown

    Comprehensive security?

    Unknown, Nov 28, 2008, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    846
    Unknown
    Dec 2, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page