Shootout Little Tuna vs Micro Tuna - A Look at Resolution

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,167
Location
Houston
Anything besides Tuna?:th_salute:

All the shots with both lenses are beautiful. However, any love for those of us that can't afford the approx $2400 for the 300mm lens?
The lens I compared the 300/4 to can be picked up for around $1200 :biggrin:
oh.........I also only paid $1800 for my 300/4, picked it up used from the local camera store.

I have also compared the 150/2 to the 50-200 SWD which can be picked up for around $400. But it really is only useful to those shooting an EM1, if you have one it's a really great lens for the money.

Perhaps this deserves its own thread (and if anyone with an opinion in response to my question wishes to start one, please do so!). Assuming my budget is minimal, what 300mm (more or less) lens would provide a sharp image at the enlargements Phocal has used? Might a 2X teleconverter give a decent image with (for example) the Panny 45-175mm? (I know zooms are never as sharp as primes but might the images be...umm...serviceable? I am thinking along the lines of "the best lens is the one you have with you" rather than "the best lens I can't afford"):laugh1:
First, the TC's by Olympus and Panasonic only work with a few lenses. So using a TC on the Panny 45-175 is not an option.

In native lenses you have the following options to reach 300mm
  • Olympus 300mm f4.0
  • Panasonic 200mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC
  • Panasonic 100-400
  • Olympus 75-300
  • Panny 100-300
I was actually thinking about doing a comparison of my 75-300 against the 300/4 and 150/2 w/ EC-20. I haven't gotten around to sending my 75-300 to KEH and was going to take it this weekend since I am going in the kayak and don't have to worry about the weight of my gear. The only issue is the photos from the 75-300 will taken from my EM5 since the EM1's will have the other two lenses attached. But it should give a good idea on how they compare to each other.

If someone wants to send me the Panny lenses that reach 300mm for a few weeks I would happily compare them as well. I would need 3 more cameras also, since the idea is to shoot the same subject from the same distance with almost identical framing and lighting.

I also plan to compare the 50-200 SWD w/ EC-20 to the 300/4 w/ MC-14, which I think will be really interesting.

Thanks, Phocal, for those 'gator images. I actually prefer the B&W for the texture (although all are wonderful).
You are welcome and I appreciate the comment. I love converting gator photos to black and white, they are a great subject for it.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,107
Data on the 300/4 from Lenstip
  • Center MTF 50 = ~69 @ f4.0
  • Center MTF 50 = ~74 @ f5.6
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~62 @ f4.0
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~68 @ f5.6
Data on the 150/2 from Lenstip
  • Center MTF 50 = ~49 @ f2.0
  • Center MTF 50 = ~52 @ f2.8
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~45 @ f2.0
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~47 @ f2.8
Just wanted to say on a note, those MTF numbers from Lenstip for the 150/2 are probably a little unfair to it. They were tested with the older, less dense 4/3 sensors. With the modern 16-20mp sensors we have, those should go up. By how much depends on how well the lens was designed. I don't think it would be that far off from the 300mm f/4... What those numbers look like with a 2x TC would be most interesting...
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,167
Location
Houston
This is like the 10th comparison he's posted
Really? This is the first comparison I have done of the 150/2 and 300/4 bare lens with similar framing, which means it's the first one I have done comparing the lenses resolution. All other comparison post I have done have been comparing different lenses and there have only been a few (not 10). Well I did do the one showing similar color between the 150/2 and 300/4 because I was surprised to see how similar they were and people have been asking me to do comparisons since I got the 300/4 (that was the first time I had shot anything that could be used for comparisons)

all of them featuring frogs, gators, and birds and showing the most subtle differences.
Lets see here..........

I am a wildlife photographer whos favorite subjects happen to be gators and frogs, birds are just a side thing because I see them while looking for gators and they make me good money. Everyone on this forum knows what subjects I tend to photograph and I wonder why when you look at one of my comparison threads (which is obvious by the title what the thread is about) you expect to see anything different? Why would I compare two lenses shooting something that is not what I am going to use the lenses for? I might as well be like everyone else who compares lenses and shoots charts and brick walls. When shooting charts the difference of an MTF of 69 compared to one of 49 seems huge and 99.9% of the people out there would assume that in real world shooting the MTF 69 lens would blow away the MTF 49 lens. But as you can see in my photographs the difference in real world shooting is subtle. Now someone who has seen this might realize that the more expensive lens they want because it has a little higher MTF than the one they can afford may not be worth buying.

FYI...........just because differences are subtle doesn't make them any more useful than having drastic differences. Actually when comparing two lenses in different price ranges that come out being very close in real world situations is way more useful than one showing the drastic differences everyone would expect to see. Just like showing subtle differences between lenses that should be close is not as useful if the difference was actually noticeable in real world shooting.
but really these days you can make any decent photo look super sharp in post processing with no noise by applying sharpening in the LAB space.
Not if you want to get those images accepted to a stock agency like Alamy or Getty. Shooting m4/3 is already limiting enough, but over sharpening images because you are using cheap lenses is not going to pass their submission checks.

But $2.5K for a 300mm lens is crazy. You can get the 50-200 SWD with the EC14 for about $500 on fleabay and it will be sharp enough for just about everything.
Actually I only paid $1800 for the lens 2 1/2 months ago and in that time have made just over $700 in images from it, so in another 3-4 months I will have made my money back.

There are images the 300/4 can get that the 50-200 can't, since I have both lenses I think I can make a pretty good comparison there. You can keep thinking they are in the same league, but they are not.

Then take the $2K saved and go on a trip to see something other than a swamp in a canoe...
First, the swamp and that canoe pay the bills, put food on the table and allow me to do what I like. Most importantly it allowed me to pay cash for this $1800 lens when I came across it at the local camera store. I didn't have to save for it or even consider if I could afford it. It was a good deal and I have always planned on buying it, so I took advantage of a great find

I spent 20 years traveling the world and the country. I now prefer to explore my home state and I love the swamps. If I can play in them and make a living doing it, why would I want to travel anywhere else? Plus people pay me to take them into the swamps, not to the deserts or mountains or great plains.......but the swamps.......so that's where I go and where I have become an expert.

So..................

Seriously, if my threads bother you that much don't read them. Because you know what? I am going to do more comparison threads and they will feature either gators or frogs or birds or snakes.

The results will be what they will be, subtle or drastic.............................

That part is out of my hands.....................

Have a wonderful day.................................
 
Last edited:

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,107
When shooting charts the difference of an MTF of 69 compared to one of 49 seems huge and 99.9% of the people out there would assume that in real world shooting the MTF 69 lens would blow away the MTF 49 lens. But as you can see in my photographs the difference in real world shooting is subtle. Now someone who has seen this might realize that the more expensive lens they want because it has a little higher MTF than the one they can afford may not be worth buying.
That's definitely not a lens that's only 70% as sharp... Lenstip's numbers work great when you compare them with equal pixel pitch to equal pixel pitch. Those tests were done on the older 4/3 sensors that aren't as pixel dense as the modern 16-20mp sensors. You'll want to test that lens yourself using a printed chart and a free program. My suspicions are that the 150 f/2 is is closer to 6#lpmm, not 49.
 

50orsohours

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
2,420
Location
Portland Oregon
Olympus IBIS is amazing and makes handhold so easy that I never use a tripod except for video. That said I do find the 300/4 a touch light for handholding (especially with the MC-14), would like it better if it was maybe 1/2 lb heavier. I like a little weight for handholding.....................
Put them ankle weights your better half has laying around the house on the lens. Problem solved.
 

DynaSport

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
3,018
Real Name
Dan
Once in a while I think about buying some super fancy lens on layaway but really these days you can make any decent photo look super sharp in post processing with no noise by applying sharpening in the LAB space. And I shoot RAW and RAW is always blurry at first. But $2.5K for a 300mm lens is crazy. You can get the 50-200 SWD with the EC14 for about $500 on fleabay and it will be sharp enough for just about everything. Then take the $2K saved and go on a trip to see something other than a swamp in a canoe...
I respect your opinions and photography skills. I’m not such a fan of your desire to take jabs at another forum member. Perhaps you were trying to be funny, but it comes across as mean spirited. There are plenty of forums where that is the expected behavior. It has not been the norm here. I really don’t want this site to become another mean spirited place.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,167
Location
Houston
That's definitely not a lens that's only 70% as sharp... Lenstip's numbers work great when you compare them with equal pixel pitch to equal pixel pitch. Those tests were done on the older 4/3 sensors that aren't as pixel dense as the modern 16-20mp sensors. You'll want to test that lens yourself using a printed chart and a free program. My suspicions are that the 150 f/2 is is closer to 6#lpmm, not 49.
You are probably right, but I can only go with the data that I have. I also prefer Lenstips test to any other site out there and don't like using data from one site for one lens and from another site for another lens.

If you want to shoot charts go for it......................not my cup of tea. The only chart I shoot is my target for micro focus adjust and that's because there is no other way to accurately do it. I much prefer real world comparisons.
 
Last edited:

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,107
You are probably right, but I can only go with the data that I have. I also prefer Lenstips test to any other site out there. I also don't like using data from one site for one lens and from another site for another lens.

If you want to shoot charts go for it......................not my cup of tea. The only chart I shoot is my target for micro focus adjust and that's because there is no other way to accurately do it. I much prefer real world comparisons.
I too prefer Lenstip, their data is fairly reliable aside from the typical sample variation. They're pretty harsh and demanding in their reviews too.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I only started shooting these things and running them through software because I noticed that my adapted glass on a focal reducer was incredibly sharp in actual usage and that my only native macro prime at that time wasn't "as insanely and incredibly sharp" in comparison around f/4 (f/5.6 on the lens). Turns out that the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S is indeed incredibly sharp, to the point it'll beat the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro which is a recordholder on Lenstip. I suspected it, but never had any good measure.

And what was the difference?
About 5-10lpmm at peak performance. You'll notice it on details, it just isn't as huge of a thing unless you hammer it down to 100% (if not beyond) and stare at the pixels. It does change the overall look of the image in a way like total image contrast/clarity, however.

So the 150 f/2? Definitely has to be within 10(-something, maybe)lpmm against the 300mm f/4 in the center. 20 lpmm difference? No way, you'd start to see a bit of haziness in the fine details at that point. At least that's (less than 10lpmm dif.) what I see when I look at your shots. Caveat: Focus plane / Organic Subject / Repeatability of a shot for framing and conditions will become more dominant factors when you're comparing it against the 300mm f/4.

I do wonder about the performance with the 2x teleconverter. The 150mm f/2 looks like a competitive option so far...
 
Last edited:

Ed Pledger

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
19
Location
Houston
You are probably right, but I can only go with the data that I have. I also prefer Lenstips test to any other site out there and don't like using data from one site for one lens and from another site for another lens.

If you want to shoot charts go for it......................not my cup of tea. The only chart I shoot is my target for micro focus adjust and that's because there is no other way to accurately do it. I much prefer real world comparisons.[/QUOTE
Thank you for sharing this. I enjoy your photos very much. Ironically, I enjoy looking at datagov’s photos as well and think he is a very good photographer. Anyway, I would be much more interested in finding a 150/2 if it would af with a Panasonic camera. I may buy a G9 one day and my understanding is you need an EM-1 for the old 4/3 lenses. But it looks like the 300/4 is a better lens is some ways anyway. If I only had an extra couple grand lying around.
Thank you for sharing this. I enjoy your photos very much. Ironically, I enjoy looking at datagov’s photos as well and think he is a very good photographer. Anyway, I would be much more interested in finding a 150/2 if it would af with a Panasonic camera. I may buy a G9 one day and my understanding is you need an EM-1 for the old 4/3 lenses. But it looks like the 300/4 is a better lens is some ways anyway. If I only had an extra couple grand lying around.
I have had a number of people ask me to compare the 150/2 against the 300/4 and I am sure what they really want is a comparison using the EC-20 on the 150/2. I will confess that I tried over the weekend but was not able to get any great comparison images because for most of the day the light was terrible. There was a brief time when the sun poked out that corresponded with finding a baby gator on the bank, which allowed me to compare the lenses resolution with similarly framed photographs.

Baby gators are lot more nervous when on land compared to in the water, so I was not sure how close this guy would let me get. I had the 300/4 in my hands, so I took some photos and moved closer, took some more photos and moved closer again and again and again and he never once seemed nervous. He didn’t even mind when I put on the MC-14 or when I took it off or put it on again or when I took it back off again. So I slowly moved away and went back to the Jeep to grab the other EM1 with the 150/2 attached. When approaching with the 150/2 and 300/4 I would take some photos with both lenses, move closer, take more photos, move closer again……….hoping that when it was over I would have some shots between the two cameras with similar framing. This was also when I got the closest, so was shooting some really close-up shots with the 300/4 in between the 150/2 shots. Because it was a young gator (about 2 years old) I had to assume that mama was somewhere around, so I didn’t waste time looking at photos on the back of the camera to try and exactly match framing. I took the shots and got out as fast as I could to keep from scaring the baby gator or becoming its mama’s lunch. But I was able to get shots with each lens that lined up pretty close to identical framing.

While shooting the photos I was also switching between wide-open and stopped down one stop since both lenses are sharper stopped down. For some reason the set of images from the 300/4 that matched framing with the 150/2 I didn’t shoot any images at f5.6. I have no idea how this happen because I was being very conscious about taking comparison images, but it doesn’t really effect the comparison so it’s all good.

Data on the images taken……………………………………
  • All taken handheld
  • All processed identically
  • No crop except going to 16:9 aspect ratio
Data on the 300/4 from Lenstip
  • Center MTF 50 = ~69 @ f4.0
  • Center MTF 50 = ~74 @ f5.6
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~62 @ f4.0
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~68 @ f5.6
Data on the 150/2 from Lenstip
  • Center MTF 50 = ~49 @ f2.0
  • Center MTF 50 = ~52 @ f2.8
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~45 @ f2.0
  • Edge MTF 50 = ~47 @ f2.8
I include the MTF data for several reasons. The first is because this comparison is about resolution or what people tend to call sharpness. Another reason is I have been doing a lot of lens testing the last couple of years and when testing my lenses I look up their MTF data. This information gives me a good idea about how much detail I can expect from a lens, or how sharp images will appear at 100%. I have also learned that the higher the MTF the farther away you can shoot or the more you can crop and still maintain acceptable levels of detail. Now when a new lens is released I can look at the MTF data and know if it’s a lens I should consider buying since I have done so much testing of various lenses with very different MTF numbers. But resolution is not everything when it comes to images that a lens creates (it is the one thing that can be measured though) and that’s why I like shooting the same subject at the same time for comparisons. Doing that allows me to compare the aspects of an image other than sharpness.

I should also point out that I included the edge MTF numbers because that is a concern of mine when looking at lenses. I don’t use the center focus point and crop for composition like a lot of people do, I hate cropping so I get close and shoot with composition in mind. That means that the eye of my subject is never at center and is typically somewhere close to one of the vertical and horizontal rule of thirds line. So for wildlife shooting a lens that has serious sharpness drop off towards the edge is not something I want to shoot with. Why people tend to think edge sharpness is only important for landscape photographers has always baffled me.

Data on the 300/4 shot
  • ISO 250, 1/400 @ f4.0
  • Taken from a distance of 10.4 feet
  • DoF = 0.5 inches
Data on the 150/2 shot
  • ISO 200, 1/800 @ f2.0
  • Taken from a distance of 6.4 feet
  • DoF = 0.4 inches
Data on other 150/2 shot
  • ISO 200, 1/320 @ f2.8
  • Taken from a distance of 6.4 feet
  • DoF = 0.5 inches
Ok………………………so here are the wide-open shots. The framing is not perfectly identical, but it’s close enough to compare the lenses.

View attachment 598283
Baby Gator 005 by RRcoleJR Photography, on Flickr

View attachment 598284
Baby Gator 006 by RRcoleJR Photography, on Flickr

I am fine with you posting what lens you think took what shot, but if you click thru to Flickr I ask that you wait a few days before posting the truth. Gives everyone who comes a chance to guess without any spoilers.

Since Flickr only displays just over 2000px I have uploaded full resolution images to DPR and at the end will include links to them so you can pixel peep until your eyes bleed.
Thank you for sharing this. I enjoy your photos very much. Ironically, I enjoy looking at datagov’s photos as well and think he is a very good photographer. Anyway, I would be much more interested in finding a 150/2 if it would af with a Panasonic camera. I may buy a G9 one day and my understanding is you need an EM-1 for the old 4/3 lenses. But it looks like the 300/4 is a better lens is some ways anyway. If I only had an extra couple grand lying around.
Having picked up a couple 4/3s lenses on the sorta cheap, and using them on my EM-1...the focusing there is quick enough for me in most situations. On the EM-5ii, the chimping away gets focus slowly, but accurately, however I reckon those lenses wouldn’t work worth a flip on a G9...maybe not at all. I have read that focus is very good on the EM-1 mark ii, but perhaps that is incorrect?
I was leaning towards a G9, but the EM-1ii seems more logical, especially if it works as well or better than the original EM-1 with the 4/3s lenses. Having the focus stacking, the extended shutter speeds for HiRes, and very good IBIS might be enough to persuade me to stick with Oly for the next m4/3 body. Of course there’s always the allure of FF....Is Phocal really going for a Sony? ...This tangent could go sailing way out into the swamp, my interest in FF being to use manual legacy lenses, even Mam 645s....but getting back on topic...
Count me as another reader perfectly happy to see lens comparisons done in nature, whether of butterflies or gators in swamps. And since I recently acquired a 150 f2, more than happy to see how well it performs for others. I am more than happy with mine so far, whether straight or with the 1.4X. Best regards and Seasons Greetings to all.
 
Last edited:

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,167
Location
Houston
I do wonder about the performance with the 2x teleconverter. The 150mm f/2 looks like a competitive option so far...
Hopefully Saturday I will be able to get some shots to look at that. Going in the kayak, so will be taking the EC-20 with me. Also plan on taking the 75-300 on my EM5 and can hopefully get test shots of all three lenses to compare.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,167
Location
Houston
Having picked up a couple 4/3s lenses on the sorta cheap, and using them on my EM-1...the focusing there is quick enough for me in most situations. On the EM-5ii, the chimping away gets focus slowly, but accurately, however I reckon those lenses wouldn’t work worth a flip on a G9...maybe not at all. I have read that focus is very good on the EM-1 mark ii, but perhaps that is incorrect?
I find all 4 my 4/3 lenses to work very well on my EM1. I have shot sports and airshows with the 150/2 and 50-200 SWD and have never felt they couldn't do the job, only downfall is the slower fps in CAF. I found focus on my EM5 to be unacceptable unless it was something that is never going to move. The 50-200 SWD would also front focus every single time and could only be used in manual focus on my EM5. Personally I would never use a 4/3 lens on anything except an EM1. That is with the exception of the CDAF optimized ones, the one I have (14-54mm mk2) works well enough for most stuff on my EM5 but is much better on the EM1. I don't own the EM1mk2 but a friend who I respect says his 300/2.8 focuses much faster and better on the mk2, the cross PDAF sensors and the dedicated processor to autofocus really do make a huge difference. Plus the in camera focus limiter would be really great on something like the 50-200 SWD.

I was leaning towards a G9, but the EM-1ii seems more logical, especially if it works as well or better than the original EM-1 with the 4/3s lenses. Having the focus stacking, the extended shutter speeds for HiRes, and very good IBIS might be enough to persuade me to stick with Oly for the next m4/3 body.
Personally I am an Olympus shooter, not a m4/3's shooter. The design philosophy and goals of Olympus align much more with the types of cameras and lenses I want, so I am not the person to ask about Panny or Oly camera.................................I will always say Olympus.

Of course there’s always the allure of FF....Is Phocal really going for a Sony? ...This tangent could go sailing way out into the swamp, my interest in FF being to use manual legacy lenses, even Mam 645s....but getting back on topic...
I am now looking for a used A7Rii to use my collection of FD lenses on for street photography. It is for a play thing and for days I just don't feel like crawling thru the swamp. After a lot of research, the A7Rii is the first A7 that gives access to full RAW files so I wouldn't buy anything made before that. They still are priced a bit higher than I want to pay, so for now I am waiting for the price to drop some.

FYI.....................I would never take a Sony into the swamp, their weather sealing is pure crap...............................

Count me as another reader perfectly happy to see lens comparisons done in nature, whether of butterflies or gators in swamps. And since I recently acquired a 150 f2, more than happy to see how well it performs for others. I am more than happy with mine so far, whether straight or with the 1.4X. Best regards and Seasons Greetings to all.
Well, any comparison I do will be using wildlife as the subject...............I don't shoot charts and it would be stupid for me to shoot portraits to compare two lenses when I know nothing about portrait photography or have any interest in it.

The 150/2 is amazing bare lens and with the EC-14. If you want/need 300mm it works amazingly well with it also.

Seasons Greetings..................
 

KeithT

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
230
Location
South Africa
Real Name
Keith Temlett
@Phocal
Well done and thank you :2thumbs:. Really enjoyed the post and I was one of those hoping you would be kind enough to show this comparison.

I however did get them the wrong way round. Gave the alligator 06 (with the leaves in front of it in focus) to the 300/f4.:eek-31:

Just shows how good the 150/f2 really is – with EC-14 or 20 attached – amazing piece of glass.

As an enthusiastic amateur and on a personal note I do follow some members (there are others too) whose work I find outstanding:

@Phocal I will HAVE to get the 50-200 (and if I’m lucky a 150/f2 sometime down the line)

@ijm5012 I now have the 12-60mm SWD, thanks Ian (plus a EC-14 – waiting for a EC-20)

@bbarnett51 great shots with both the 12-60 and 50-200

@datagov 50-200 pics and others

@MichaelSewell consummate professional

@m43renegade stunning pics and contributions

@alex g stunning pics and contributions

@barry13 stunning pics and contributions

@ak300 stunning pics and contributions

@SVQuant stunning pics and contributions

:wtf:I was a little saddened :( by the comments made to the @Phocal post as I personally have learnt a lot from all of you.

Ronnie I applaud you:th_salute: for the amount of effort you put into your posts, you obviously are meticulous in your planning and the effort and time you put into your posts is awesome - and you know and understand your cameras and lenses intimately. A true professional and it shows.:bowdown:

I was disappointed when you left the forum and I’m glad you back!!!! I do miss your earlier posts which sadly were deleted.

The motto ‘’sharing is caring’’ comes to mind.

Good luck with the eagles.

Living in South Africa means the bush and wildlife is in your blood. And NO, elephants and lions do not roam the streets unless you live in a remote village.

For those of you who appreciate how good :mu43: can be for wildlife photography you are welcome to check out this link.

Wildlife Photography with the OMD EM-1 Mark II - Wild Eye

In concluding I wish all of you a blessed Christmas and a photographic rewarding 2018.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
1,245
Location
Burnley, UK
Real Name
Michael A. Sewell
I confess, I tend to concern myself probably a little less than most with regards to resolving power, and I've shot more images at f16 and above than I can recall. But, that's me, and my feedback is most important from the clients I shoot for.
That doesn't mean to say I don't find the articles interesting. I don't doubt the day will come, when I have a hypercritical client that wants images he can shave with.
He's the client I tend to read these articles for. Not necessarily to rush out and buy a new lens. More likely, just so I get an idea of the location of a swamp to hide his body.

@Phocal
I always enjoy your imagery, whatever the subject. I also appreciate the experience and subject knowledge you pass on to the forum members. And whilst I don't read these articles with the explicit goal of deciding which lens would be better suited for me, it's surprising how much I recall when mentoring others who ask about such things. Whilst resolving power isn't the utmost of my personal needs, I fully appreciate we are all different, and more to the point, so are our clients.

My point of view regarding my own imagery is likely influenced by the fact my career focus is lighting, whereas others are ambient light. In this case, out of necessity. In these circumstances, I have no doubt the resolving power of a lens may well be paramount.

This wasn't intended as a soapbox post, more of a thank you to @Phocal and to point out that we are all different.
In my wife's case, very different.
 

mattia

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
2,391
Location
The Netherlands
I am now looking for a used A7Rii to use my collection of FD lenses on for street photography. It is for a play thing and for days I just don't feel like crawling thru the swamp. After a lot of research, the A7Rii is the first A7 that gives access to full RAW files so I wouldn't buy anything made before that. They still are priced a bit higher than I want to pay, so for now I am waiting for the price to drop some.
Honestly, the 'compressed RAW' thing is overblown, IMO. I've never run into issues, as I understand it it's mostly an issue in. Wet high contrast scenes with heavily pushed shadows, generally at borders. I have an a7r mark I and now a Mark III. The latter is better, by maybe a stop or so, but both are much better (smoother files, more post-processing latitude) than the E-M1 for pure IQ.

For shooting manual lenses, the Mark I is a pretty excellent camera if you don't mind the handling (some people hate the shutter placement) and the admittedly loud shutter (and no silent shutter). It is overall a very slow camera compared to the E-M1, but for a manual lenses only 'digital back' I find it works really very well indeed. I will likely convert mine to infrared (or full spectrum), since I've used it so enthusiastically since I bought it 4 years ago that it's cosmetically not particularly nice any more.
 

Sam0912

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
299
Location
Manchester UK
Real Name
Sam Roberts
Thanks for another amazing post Phocal, I’m actually moving more towards panny bodies and probably a G9, but the fact that the choice is their (especially with lenses) is what I love about m43. Have got to say my old GF1 has had an awful life and survived everything thrown at it, so hoping the “Pro” panny bodies are as well sealed and robust as the olys (my EM5 has also seen plenty of hard times and never missed a beat).

I love your gators, to me they’re a living dinasour (I that makes sense!), a really fascinating creature and amazing survivor. If I had the chance to get in that swamp, doubt I’d be away from it very often.

Good luck with the book, I’ll be one of the first in the queue to buy it (well I’ll probably buy from Amazon, but you get the idea!)
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom