1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

I thought I was ready, then this (is m43 your only serious gear?)

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by mnr3, Nov 11, 2011.

  1. mnr3

    mnr3 Mu-43 Regular

    41
    Nov 3, 2011
    sorry for the obtuse title. as some may know from my other thread, I'm looking seriously at going m43, having lived long enough without a good camera. so I'm comparing systems since I want this to be a long term relationship, and had pretty much decided that the compromises of m43 outweighed the compromises of the other formats. So at the ice rink tonight I'm just daydreaming along during the kiddie hockey practice when soccer/hockey mom (this is south Louisiana, mind you) pulls out the Canon 70-200 IS L. I of course put down the sudoku, duly pointed out the high-priced glass to my wife to soften her position when I finally make my commitment (see, I'm only spending HALF of what that lady had), and went over and had a nice talk with her. which shook my resolve on m43 and led me to some thoughts

    1. since I started looking at m43, I've been a little concerned that none of the tele zooms are better than f/4 or so. I would most often use primes, I'm sure, but there are just times when there's no sub for the fast, long glass. fast ISO can help, but only so much. Have I missed one out there? or are people using adapters and /or just biding time until the lenses start showing up (I did see the thread on the rumored lenses, so maybe it is just a matter of time)

    2. just for discussion, I was also wondering how many folks have done the "sold all my dx format stuff to convert" and never looked back. vs. those who are enthusiasts of m43, but still bring out the big guns when the time is right.

    --Marvin in Louisiana, still recovering from lens envy (well, I guess you never really recover, right?). :2thumbs:
     
  2. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    Yeah, fast zooms of all ranges is a missing gap in the m43 army. It's blow is lessened by the fact we have a good set of fast primes from wide to short tele.

    Yeah, sold my 5D/40D to fully go m43. Can't say i'll never look back as it's only been a few months (and I've been away from the cam a bit). But I did it, as crazy as some might find it, heh. If I bought a GX1, I could have each of my primes on a body.. and it'd all fit in my retrospective 5 (well, it'd be tight, heh). And probably weight less than my 5D+50+135 (though, the 5D+135L is certainly a combo I'll miss, no match yet in m43)
     
  3. Canonista

    Canonista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    563
    Sep 3, 2011
    L.A.
    I have and will keep all of my DSLR gear (including a 70-200IS f/2.8L) for certain activities such as indoor concerts, plays and sports, but if what you're lusting for is an m43 equivalent of the 70-200 lens, Panasonic will be releasing a fast 35-100 lens next year. We don't know how fast, or whether it will be constant aperture, but that may be your solution.

    BTW, for indoor sports (e.g., volleyball), I've even found the f/2.8 lens to be too slow (shooting 1600 ISO), and often used an 85mm f/1.8 lens on an APS-C body. If you want to shoot indoor hockey, the Oly 45mm f/1.8 may be just what you need, and it won't cost you a mint.

    To answer your question, if I were starting out in photography today, I probably wouldn't be spending money on a DSLR.
     
  4. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    Shooting kids sports (non-pro) keeps me from selling my DSLR. What I have come to find (a few times now) is that if I have a DSLR I will usually use it instead of my :43: gear because I get better results with it. So I tend to sell off my :43: stuff, then miss it, then buy more, then repeat. Sick. I know.

    If sports weren't a priority I would ditch the DSLR in a heartbeat and be totally :43:.
     
  5. Trev Michaels

    Trev Michaels New to Mu-43

    3
    Aug 4, 2011
    Hamburg
    I tried adapters but I found the big guns work best on the DSLR bodies.
    Biding time here.
     
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I would still use DSLRs for work needs. For casual and/or light travel, I always gravitate towards my M43 kit. Not to say an M43 kit isn't capable, but overall DSLRs are better equipped and have the necessary lenses to tackle most photo jobs. Though I think M43 is good enough where you could use an M43 kit as a complimentary body to a DSLR main body.
     
  7. sehmiata

    sehmiata New to Mu-43

    1
    Nov 11, 2011
    mnr3, your post caused me to register, as I am in a similar situation of evaluating dslr v. m43. I look forward to seeing the responses.
     
  8. turbodieselvw

    turbodieselvw Mu-43 Veteran

    321
    Jun 29, 2010
    Ottawa
    I didn't have to sell any DSLR gear as I didn't have any. I made a choice not to get a DSLR until they made one the size of my old Nikon F2A/F2AS or smaller. So I was basically waiting for a system the size of the Panny G/GH bodies before going completely digital. I am not a pro and take pics just for the hell of it so I completely happy with my Panny m43 bodies................... but after fooling around with my cousin's X100 I'd get one of those if they kept the body the same size and made interchangeable lenses for it and improved the shutter lag etc etc etc......
     
  9. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Unequivically, a DLSR + a zoom like that one (was it f/4 or 2.8 -- either way, it's USM focusing) is a better kit for indoor hockey. Period. My kids figure skate, and I've been down there with both DSLR and m43 (but before the EP3 mind you. I'll bet the EP3, and using touch screen, might be a different story, but you'd have to get closer to the action with a fast prime, or go to manual focus with anticipatory focusing).

    But that is one of the few cases where that kit is flat out better. Sports in general is best for PDAF focusing and a fast body, but why stop there? Why not a Canon 1D series + 70-200? It's all about the trade offs and your most common use cases. Only you can answer that.

    For me, I can get "good enough" with m43, because skating is not a huge part of our family life, but if I was shooting for sports journalism, or selling/distributing my pics to parents, or if my kid was a serious skater going to many events, I would go the DSLR route. But, I can say that you won't want to lug around that lens and body for other purposes, so if you need the DSLR for sports, you may still end up with two systems: DSLR and CSC.

    Good luck!
     
  10. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Using adapters. There are plenty of wonderful fast glass out already, why wait to use them? All the Four-Thirds lenses have full functionality on Micro Four-Thirds bodies, including AF, fly-by-wire focus, and electronic aperture control. If wide aperture zooms are what you need, then the Four-Thirds system boasts the fastest in the world, including f/2 constant aperture zooms such as the 14-35mm f/2 and 35-100mm f/2, or super tele-photo zooms like the 90-250mm f/2.8. If that's too much for your budget or size constraints (fast glass like that doesn't come small or cheap), then there are options like the Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 which will blow away the very popular 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for sharp wide open shooting. Lenses like that are a much more comfortable fit on a tiny m4/3 body.

    Or if you don't need zoom (or autofocus), the selection of legacy primes is huge. 85mm/1.4 150mm/2, 300mm/2.8, 135mm/2.8, or whatever you want. Adaptability is one of the main tenants of the system.
     
  11. m1pui

    m1pui Mu-43 Veteran

    257
    Dec 30, 2010
    Sunderland, UK
    What do you shoot, or intend to shoot with your camera? Knowing that is a better gauge of what is going to suit you better.

    I've gone from a S3iS to 350D to Canon G10 & 500D and now a GF-1. I've still got the 500D and bits to go with it but I sold the G10 to fund the GF-1. I bought it a couple of days before Christmas last year and the 500D hasn't been used since. Despite the cries of journalists and "professional" photographers, m43 doesn't have to be a compromise at all. If anything, I'm shooting a hell of a lot more with mine than I ever did with my DSLR, if only because I'm more inclined to take it everywhere with me!

    I've shot amateur sunday league football/soccer matches with my 350D & a cheap 55-200mm and whilst it had it's limitations, it wasn't hideously bad. I hired a 70-200L for a weekend and it was an absolutely brilliant bit of kit. But beyond that weekend, I've not really had the need nor desire to lug around a 1.5kg/£1600 lens on a regular basis :lol:

    Obviously if you're planning to do a lot of sports (wildlife?) shooting then you're probably better looking along a DSLR route. But, for me, 99% of what I do and shoot is more than adequately covered by my M43 setup.
     
  12. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I use a Canon 1D w/ 70-200 f/2.8 for sports and the GF1 for less "demanding" photography. If you have high expectations from your photography then the equipment size and weight isn't one's primary concern. (high expectations = the exceptional image by professional standards)

    G
     
  13. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Every hockey game I have gone to had incredible contrast between the uniforms and ice/boards. If there was a situation where CDAF can compete with PDAF, I would think this is it.

    Now, the lack of bright AF telephotos to keep the shutter speed up is a bit of a problem currently, but hopefully to be resolved soon.
     
  14. robertro

    robertro Mu-43 Veteran

    223
    Apr 22, 2010
    My Canon 70-200 f2.8 and 100 f2 USM lenses are ideal for exactly what you mentioned - indoor kids' hockey - as well as indoor kids' soccer. Even that equipment is stretched to its limits in these low light, fast movement applications. It's ironic that pro sports is easier to shoot with consumer equipment than kids' sports, because of the bright lighting. Must be part of some anti-family conspiracy ;-)

    M4/3 is acceptable for this use if you're willing to pre-focus or manually focus, but that's a complete different ball (puck) game. It's also somewhat usable with a 45-200mm lens with a TCON-17 1.7x converter (to maintain f4 at a longer effective focal length -note that the 100-300 may provide the same effect, but I have not used it). I've also used fast manual focus glass (100mm f2, 85mm f1.4). All of these approaches can yield decent photos if pre-planning and creaful. This is fun, but you're less likely to capture key plays and you're more likely to spend a lot of time watching the viewfinder rather than the game.

    As for carrying heavy equipment, in our household, dad gets to carry hockey bags, hockey stick, and the occasional reluctant hockey star, so why not a couple of pounds of white lens?

    I suspect that the forthcoming new fast Panny zooms will only take M4/3 half way to indoor sports bliss. The other half will have to wait until some future body comes up with a hybrid CDAF/PDAF approach like Nikon did with the V1.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. kschles

    kschles Mu-43 Regular

    51
    Jul 3, 2010
    Laurel, MD; USA
    Ken
    I kept my DSLR and collection of lenses (Canons - some were really heavy!) for about two years once I started using Micro 4/3. I had been using the DSLR less and less because of the weight and bulk (packing for trips involving airline travel was a real pain with the DSLR). About 6 months ago, I came to the realization that I really couldn't see using the big stuff again on a regular basis. Sold it to help finance my E-P3. Very happy with my decision. At 60, and with some arthritis, I can still grab a bag with my camera and 2-3 lenses without thinking about it.
     
  16. JudyM

    JudyM Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 5, 2010
    Westminster, MD
    People can argue :43: or DSLR until the cows come home, but I'm firmly in the camp of "there is no one camera that's right for everything". I decided to buy a 5D Mark II after using my Gf1 for more than a year. It wasn't that I was unhappy with :43:, it's that no one camera can do everything I want, the way I want all the time. Years ago, I carried an Olympus OM2n and a Hasselblad for the same reason.

    Sometimes the Canon is the better choice, sometimes the Gf1 makes more sense. More often that not I reach for the Gf1, but there are enough times that the Canon is the right tool for the job, that I can justify owning both. If you have to go with one system, my suggestion is to decide what kinds of subjects you really want to shoot and what your expectations are, then choose the camera that affords you the best chance of achieving that.
     
  17. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    No matter what lenses you strap onto a m4/3, you're still limited by the capability of a m4/3 sensor which, while fine for some applications, simply fails at other applications. I won't use m4/3 for professional portrait work as it simply falls far short of what I am able to produce with the 5DMkII gear for my needs in this area.

    So, I continue to use my 5DMkII gear with full size sensor for particular needs (mostly professional applications) and choose my m4/3 gear for my personal and travel applications. And I love the wonderful LX5 for the less demanding applications.

    As Judy says above, there is no camera or format for all applications. Each format and camera has it's particular suitability to particular circumstances and is less suitable than other choices for other applications.
     
  18. Bill

    Bill Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Apr 15, 2009
    Brisbane, Australia
    Bill (really)
    I'm committed to m43. Works for me. I only bump into the limitations once and awhile. But I do bump into them.

    If I was a pro, however, I wouldn't want to lose a single picture because the action was too fast or the light was too low. Pros have to deliver -- every time.
     
  19. jumbotron

    jumbotron Mu-43 Regular

    134
    Jul 9, 2011
    Vancouver, Canada
    I did this just tonight and the Oly 45 worked quite well from the bench. A bit more reach would have been nice though. Shooting anywhere else other than the bench with that lens would be challenging. I'm in different rinks every weekend and it's amazing how one differs from the next in terms of shooting conditions: lighting, glass, cut-always, My PL 14-150 works well in some rinks, but it's hit and miss.
     
  20. dko22

    dko22 Mu-43 Regular

    163
    Jul 26, 2010
    Stuttgart, Germany
    I agree entirely, Judy. However I had to make a choice around 18 months ago --did I want to build out my :43: system or keep it purely for holiday use with kit lens? I decided on the former which meant the (2nd hand) D700 had to go as the 7-14 was essential. Sports, which is undeniably one of the main strengths of a fast DSLR, was of no interest and I find the GH2 low light performance acceptable in most situations. It's great to have two or even more systems but if you can't afford that, in the end you weigh up the pros and cons as others have said. Having settled on :43: , I can no longer imagine going back to the limitations of a mirror system without the realtime EVF liveview and all of its advantages. By the time of the GH4 or even GH3, the compromises may well be so few as to be negligible.

    David