Faster m4/3s Lenses or Full Frame?

What focal length do you like to shoot at ? What is your favourite shooting style ? What is your budget ?

Have you tried the Pana 20 f1.7 or Oly 25 1.8 ?
The fast prime market is really filling out in m43-land - lots of choice - cheap & cheerful + premium options.

Ultimately, get what suits you. Whenever I see these threads I can't help but recommending the non-Micro Four Thirds options - use it, if you like it, keep it; if you don't, sell it and move on. At least it will be based upon your personal experience and shooting style - which is all that really matters.

 

I think Sony a7 will be perfect for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43

 

go sony and tell us all about it...

 

If you are content with both manual focus (which it sounds like, based on the amount of legacy glass you have) and the m4/3 setup, you may want to look into somewhat faster legacy glass. I would look into either a 50 or 58 1.4 (which both can be had for about $50-75, or a 1.2 (which can be 300-500). There are also several 85's which can be found for under the $300 mark. I too find that even my 58mm gives me a longer distance than I would ideally have. That is one reason I looked into the Fuji, as the 58 I have turns into roughly an 85 equivalent, and I love my 45mm on my G3.

I guess what I am saying is that you may want to look into faster legacy glass since that may both satisfy your "amount of blur needed" and still offer an option if you do decide to go with a APS or 35mm sensor. That way you can test something out without having to change systems entirely. If Konica or Pentax don't offer lenses in that speed (or price, I am basing the above of MD pricing), maybe look into a different mount?

 

Every camera and format is a compromise.

I love my Canon 5D Mk.II and L lenses. I don't enjoy carrying them around, especially on a daily basis.

I love m43 for it's small size and weight. Great image quality but high ISO and DoF is compromised versus full frame.

I don't believe there is one system that is perfect for every need an occasion.

As for the Sony A7, it's promise of a small and lightweight full frame system is spoiled by it's limited lens choice and more importantly the camera's ergonomics and slow auto focus.

I think the one to watch in the future is Fuji if they decide to go full frame.

Sent from my SHV-E300S using Tapatalk

 

you didn't consider Fuji?

56mm f1.2 - http://i.imgur.com/rxd2Yim.jpg
35mm f1.4 - http://i.imgur.com/tLAYwi6.jpg
23mm f1.4 - http://i.imgur.com/SDExbwb.jpg

 

If you are ok with manual focusing, why not take a look at the native primes from Voigtlander.
Those are some lovely lenses too.

 

Why not the 42/1.2? From all accounts its IQ wide open is superb.

 

Which kind of pictures do you need this blur for? I recently did a (lazy) comparison of the blur with a FF and a m43 with different lenses and I found out that the difference is not so great as I expected in many situation.
You can get a quick summary with this tool:

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-...f1.8-and-1x-105mm-f4.5-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

where different sensors and lenses are used to take a picture with the same exact framing, changing the position of the photographer.
Of course what matters most is the distance from the subject that in this case directly relates to the size of the subject (above the chart, half hidden, there are options to select the size of the subject you want to fill the frame with). And the distance of the background.

With this I mean that you can get super-extra-blur only in a few specific cases (portraits, macro, etc.) so if that is what you are after I think the sensor is not the main factor. Of course an 85/1.4 on FF is going to blur A LOT more but do you plan to shoot with nothing but that lens wide open?

In other words I think that when you have the ideal conditions for blur (close distance, far background) the sensor is not that relevant, and again when you do not have those then the sensor size cannot do much. Yes, there is difference, and there are borderline situations where you can notice it, but maybe not enough to be the main buying criteria, unless you do a very specific kind of pictures.

 

I'm laughing at the reduction of quality shooting wide open or using ND filters in the same post with the idea to use antique glass.

 

Faster legacy glass (85mm 1.4, 135mm F2 etc) + speedbooster/focal reducer or Sony A7. These are all tele even with the speedbooster, for something wider i can recommend Canon FD 24mm 1.4L + speedbooster, that would make a 17mm F1.

 

I shoot with the Nocticron - my favourite lens on any system right now - one of the reasons for this is that it is optically superb wide open. Full of contrast, very sharp across the frame, close focus capability etc... and for your needs it would allow you to blur the crap out of the background  
There is a lot to like.

Having said that I would give the Sony a good consideration if only for the Sony Zeiss 55 which is a FANTASTIC lens. I'm not convinced on the 35mm (but open to convincing   ) or the 24-70 F4 zoom. The only problem is that if you are into your zooms, you may not actually be gaining a whole lot right now with the available native zoom for the Sony in terms of shallow DOF. In fact the close focus ability , sharper optics of the 12-40 Oly may actually give you better results.


To be honest; in my findings as somebody who shoots both formats I only really notice the additional DOF when shooting wide e.g. 12mm, 17mm, however voigtlander is your friend here if you want shallow DOF and shoot wide here. If I want shallow DOF on m43 I just modify my technique relative to how I would shoot small format and just get on with it! If in doubt, I'd prefer to have slightly more DOF as it is easier to blur the crap out of stuff in post than it is to put depth back into a shot that has had the background green screened  

Along those lines, you can pick up Bokeh 2 and get great results with that too and just do your blurring the crap stuff in post if that is your bag  

For MY needs right now, I feel that m43 as a system offers the best balance in terms of size, weight, optical choice, optical quality, useful DOF at given exposure, focus speed, weather sealing, IBIS etc... of most systems. I'd consider the A7 as a secondary system to my EM1 and for sure it is a great camera.

If you are considering getting out of m43 completely and jumping to FF, then perhaps I would steer you more towards a more traditional DSLR or DSLT system such as the A99 instead of the A7/A7s/A7r; yes it is much bigger, but you would have a wealth of native lenses that all benefit from Sonys sensor stabilization technology, EVF, flippy-out-rear-lcd, as well as much quicker focus and quieter shutter sound etc...

Unfortunately nothing is black and white 'better' than the other in the camera world. It is all about trade-offs and when you consider all the different trade-offs you may end up coming back to m43 again...
Just some food for thought.

 

 

Sorry to say this, but comparing auto focus m4/3 to manual focus won't cut the mustard. Legacy glass is great when you already own them, but I wouldn't invest so much in that. Shooting legacy is really fun but really a hassle on the field with slow manual focusing, switching lenses, manual aperture etc...

No 50mm f1.4 is going to be super sharp, apart from the leica M summilux asph... some like the japanese rollei planar 5cm f1.4 but it's not modern in any way.

The summilux mu43 on the contrary is super sharp!

Get the summilux, the nocticron and be done with it!

 

Comparing the these lenses with this tool:

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-...mm-f4-and-2x-25mm-f1.4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

I can see not much difference, except for the shortest ones. To have super-blur (not just normal blur) you need a long lens. Not because this actually blurs more, but because the blurring is magnified as well as the subject.
And also note the scale on the axis: for the best lens, at 50 meters, you have a 4.5% while the 135 stops at 3.5%: not a huge difference. I think the samples in this article correspond to the values in the chart:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6091822765/background-blur-and-its-relationship-to-sensor-size

 

Have you tried the MetaBones SpeedBooster for a more FullFrame look.
It lets in more light for better low light work as well.

 

Panaleica 25mm F1.4, Oly 45mm F1.8 for starters. If you can't get decent results with those....well.....I don't know what to tell you then.

 

Admittedly this is a late answer, but if price were not an issue, I would go for the Noctiron lens - which is quite fabulous. Yeah, it costs 3 times as much as the slightly slower and lighter Olympus 45mm - but it's such a great lens, it would be worth it.

And, at the risk of further muddying the waters, though the PM2 is a wonderful and occasionally great camera - the Noctiron almost begs to be paired with the Lumix GX7, a camera it seems to have been made for. So if I were in your shoes, I would get that as well.

Hope this helps.....though ultimately a choice of camera or lens is a very personal one that no one can make for you as well as you can for yourself.

Cheers!

Miguel

 

Yeah, the 45/1.8 seems like the thing to try on the E-PM2. Unless you are in a blurriest background contest against the really fast and expensive options it does a pretty nice job.