sad reflection after an adventure in Iceland

Caolino

New to Mu-43
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
2
Hi guys,
I'm an early user of oly omd em-10 and a strong supporter of the mirrorless system but after this trip I have changed my mind.
We have been trekking in this fantastic island and, because of weight, we have been forced to use only one lens. Most of my friend were using dslr with tamron 18-270 and I was struggling with my 14-42 not having enough wide and enough zoom.
Suddenly I was realizing that m43 doesn't have any solution comparable to dslr and I'm really considering to switch to dslr.
What is your experience and your reflections?
Thanks
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
3,955
Location
Killarney, OzTrailEYa
Real Name
pellicle
Hi

because of weight, we have been forced to use only one lens.
Seems illogical to me. You could take a second lens and still weigh less. Were you using a grip on the camera to make it more macho (that could have been taken off to save weight?)
Just my GH1 body weighs 300g less than a 60D. If weight was the consideration then surely that counts towards another lens?

Most of my friend were using dslr with tamron 18-270
Not a high quality optic, even good old Ken isn't fussed with it http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/18200.htm


nd I was struggling with my 14-42 not having enough wide and enough zoom.
Suddenly I was realizing that m43 doesn't have any solution comparable to dslr
What is wring with the Panasonic 14-140 which was released on the original GH1? Even adding a second zoom like the 45-200 would add but a few hundred grams to your outfit and have greater reach and better IQ than that tamron.

I often hike with my GH1 the 14-45 and an FD200f4 (series two) which weighs only 440g


p1100399-400

This is two shots stitched together to make the lens effectively 100mm and gave stunning quality.


Or you can just take one shot and have an excellent telephoto


scalyBreasted

There are always solutions it you use your imagination not your wallet

Are the things that drew you to micro43 now suddenly gone?
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,471
Location
Boston
You could have brought along the Oly 14-150. It would cover 28-300 FF equivalent.

by the way -- 18mm on APS-C DSLR is still only 27mm in FF equivalent (on a Nikon -- on Canon, 18mm=29mmeq). Your 14mm kit lens is 28mm equivalent. It is just as wide as that Tammy.

Then you could bring out your "D" sized battery Panny 7-14 and really blow their minds! (or the Oly 9-18) Yes, it's a second lens, but the 14-150 and the 7-14 together would take up far less room and weight than that 18-270, and would be a lot quieter too :) (assuming the 18-270 makes as much noise as all the other "angry bees" Tamrons I've used in the past)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#317.314,521.97,ha,t <-- and that's with a Nikon D3200, one of the smaller DSLRs.
 

fin azvandi

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
1,172
Location
South Bend, IN
I would think that for the same amount of weight as your friend's DSLR and super zoom you could have brought an extra lens or two...
 

Mellow

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,122
Location
Florida or Idaho
Real Name
Tom
Hi guys,
I'm an early user of oly omd em-10 and a strong supporter of the mirrorless system but after this trip I have changed my mind.
We have been trekking in this fantastic island and, because of weight, we have been forced to use only one lens. Most of my friend were using dslr with tamron 18-270 and I was struggling with my 14-42 not having enough wide and enough zoom.
Suddenly I was realizing that m43 doesn't have any solution comparable to dslr and I'm really considering to switch to dslr.
What is your experience and your reflections?
Thanks
There's your problem. With a DLSR, sure, weight will limit how many lenses you can carry. But with m43 not so much . . . as others have written you could take a basketfull of tiny and light lenses for less than the weight of a single DLSR lens. And then you wouldn't be stuck with a compromise lens like the 18-270--jack of all trades, master of none.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,150
Location
Houston
Lets see........

E-M10 = 396 grams
14-150 = 260 grams
9-18 = 155 grams
75-300 = 423 grams

Canon T5i = 525 grams
Tamron 18-270 = 450 grams

DSLR + Lens = 975 grams (effective focal length = 27-405)

E-M10 + 14-150 = 656 grams (effective focal length = 28-300) - close to the same coverage in a much smaller and lighter package
E-M10 + 75-300 and 9-18 = 974 (effective focal length = 18-28 / 150-600) - has a gap but get get much wider and still 1 gram lighter

There are lots of other combinations you could come up with. Yes, there is no lens that covers the same focal lenght. Now that Tamron has made a lens for MFT maybe they will offer this one. When it comes to weight there is almost no way for an SLR to be lighter than MFT. What this looks like is your choice of lens for this trip was not the correct one as there are ways to cover that focal lenght that are lighter or about the same.

Regards
 

CiaranCReilly

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
487
Location
Dublin
Real Name
Ciaran Reilly
I'd say investigate one of the 14-140mm lenses, either the Panasonic 14-140 II or the Olympus 14-140. I'd go with the Panasonic preferably.

This will get you 28mm to 280mm equivalent, 10x zoom from wide to tele in other words. While not the same as the Tamron, I'd say you would really need a tripod to get the benefit of the extra range beyond 280mm equivalent.
 

silver92b

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,031
Location
Atlanta, GA
There are definite advantages to a FF camera over M43. However, there are huge advantages of M43 vs FF if one considers the weight and heft. When I travel I take all my bodies and lenses, but I only take one body and a couple of lenses when I walk around taking pictures. The O 12-40f2.8 or the PL12-35 f2.8 are fabulous for much of my shooting. Taking along the Rokinon 7mm FE or the (larger) Oly 4/3 9-18mm covers the wide angle and the PL35-100 has pretty decent reach. If I want more reach with a super light and very good IQ, the Oly 40-150 is wonderful. It's all up to you, but if you decide to go with the larger cameras, you definitely pay the price in $$ and comfort. Make no mistake, the larger bodies and lenses are much less easy to carry around.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,471
Location
Boston
Just to be specific, the DSLRs his friends were using were not full frame, the were APS-C, if they were using an 18-270. DSLR does not always mean full frame. There are full frame DSLRs, APS-C DSLRs and even 43 DSLRs.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,015
Location
Southwest Virginia
Real Name
Steve
The Panasonic 45-200 would have as much reach as the Tamron and is pretty cheap these days. If you really want small, grab an Oly 14-45 EZ or the Panasonic 12-35 in addition to the long zoom.
 

LovinTheEP2

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
619
Location
Toronto
I'm more confused how you left with kit zoom and expected to be long enough. There's plenty of good inexpensive zoom like the 100-300 that have easily the same iq. There's a couple of medium priced options with just less on long end but I bet you'd hardly see the difference that match that tamron.

Get the 12-60 olympus and couple it with a 100-300 and you kill that tamron setup for less money.

Too bad you didn't think ahead.. like the other people did.
 

broody

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
388
That Tamron lens is so bad that you will get better results just by cropping a picture from the 14-150mm to match the perspective at the long end... Your mistake was not bringing a telephoto lens, your system of choice has nothing to do with it.
 

MuBear

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
46
Location
Costa Rica
Have you thought this feeling could be just peer pressure? Your friends are having a lot of fun trading, swapping and comparing their DSLR lenses, maybe you need to meet and hang out with MFT users. As for focal length, that has never been a problem for me. If I can't take a good shot at 28mm, I don't think it'll look any better at 27mm.
 

m4/3boy

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
317
Hi guys,
What is your experience and your reflections?
Thanks
You go on a trip to Iceland and take only the 14-42mm lens? I'd say you didn't put much thought into your trip. However, that lens alone should have met most of your needs shooting landscapes. In my many years of experience many people make the mistake thinking an ultra-wide lens is needed to shoot landscapes. About 99% of the time taking a few steps back can solve the FOV problems you may think you have. Not to mention the potential of stitching.

On the long end a 45-200 zoom would have done the rest of the work for you. And not a very expensive lens to boot.
 
Top Bottom