{} GF1 with an adapted Nikon fit Sigma 50-500@500mm. First time Ive tried this combo to shoot wildlife, personally feel it needs good light or a powerful flash to get better detail. Mark
mark - have you compared the shot with what you would get from your Nikon? interested to know your views
Mark, I'm well impressed having just been trying to get a feel for what I could get with an Olympus 50-200mm, f/2.8-3.5 4/3 mount lens on a G1. I was shooting through double glazing in appalling light this morning, iso 400, 1/13 sec @ f/8 and although tripod mounted virtually every shot was spoilt by camera shake. The lens has a tripod mount built in, so I guess a sturdier tripod and quick release set up would be called for. I had contemplated the purchase of something like a Nikon 300mm, f/4.5 lens for bird photography, now I'm not so sure that it would be a wise investment, just continue with my 50 years of ornithological study and let others concentrate on the photography side of it. Barrie
{} This is shot on same lens, same day but Nikon D80 body, again no cropping. {} This is quality I am looking for! Mark
but I don't think you'll get it with :43: still I'd be surprised if you couldn't get something significantly better than the first shot using the Bigma on your GF1 with a bit more practice with that combo
Thanks Mort - I have found that it is "horses for courses" with M43 - I'm happy with the kit(s) 14-42/45 and the 17mm and 21/1.7 plus a few adapted lens, but when I get, say over 50mm, even on a tripod, for me, IMHO, (before a few start to disagree), I find the system disappointing and I dislike the Pany 45-200mm most of the time. when it comes to tele lens of longer fixed, I much prefer my D300 again, just my opinion
Like I did say in my first post, it was the first time I'd tried this combination, better light and maybe a bit of flash may give me better results, but there will be lots of practice to get it. Personally I got the GF1 for landscape work, but so far I am impressed with other aspects of it too, so am not being negative about this camera at all. Properly used this camera is capable of excellent results, but for a first attempt with this lens I am impressed. Mark
you clearly know what you're doing with that lens on the Nikon, Mark ... I have the Olympus 4/3 70-300mm for my E-P2, which is pretty much a budget lens, and with good light and a steady hand can produce some very nice record shots indeed, so the Sigma should be able to outshine it on a :43: body
It may just be me, but it looks like it was focused just a little too far out. The wing tip, tail and main branch (not little one it is on) are slightly further away and seem sharper than the body/head of the bird. Could it be the difficulty in focusing a GF1 manually rather than its ability to resolve detail?
On some lens I find it almost impossible to focus (exactly) manually using the LCD (or even the OVF on the G1) - even if you have plenty of time IMHO - M43 cameras need a "focus confirm" indicator plus a more "user friendly" menu and set of controls - as todays DSLRs have
you find some lenses harder to focus than others on :43:, Bill? I'm interested to know which ones (I have a thread on this so do please add your twopence-worth! https://www.mu-43.com/f40/observations-focusing-adapted-lens-8401/) [Hijack=OFF]
In praise of Canon Fd Long Optics Those are really nice shots. Thanks for sharing. I use a G1 with Canon FD L lenses and like the results that I can get with the combination. I started using Manual focus lenses with a Pentax digital camera and slowly worked my way through many of the different brands. I used to convert the canon lenses for use on my Pentax body. When I finally discovered the :43: bodies, I was like a junkie who had found an infinite amount of crack. Using manual focus lenses longer than 300mm require the use of solid tripods and heads and good long lens technique. It always takes me a while to get comfortable with a new lens and I find that the more I use it, the better the results. This shot of a Purple Finch shows the detail you can obtain wide open with the 300mm lens in decent light. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gscara/4632705288/" title="Purple Finch by gscara, on Flickr"> {} "767" height="1024" alt="Purple Finch" /></a> This shot of a humming bird was taken with the 300mm lens, plus 1.4X adapter, plus the 2X adapter for a total effective film focal length of 1,680mm. {} You can find some real bargains with these longer lenses because they are generally not affected by defects in the front glass. For this reason, I now look for lenses with defects on the front surface, for 200mm and longer focal lengths, as these become the real bargains. I have one older 300mm lens with a deep scratch in the middle of the lens that is easily 1/4" square. This defect does not show up in the image in any way. Cheers
Long lenses are much more forgiving to defects on the front of the lens, whereas an ultra-wide with only a dusty UV filter will start to give problems at apertures of around f8 or smaller, especially with the sun in or just to the side of the frame.
Siskin Mk2 {} Had a crack at shooting with the Bigma again today, used an SB-600 to fill in some missing light. I am quite happy with the results, however I did feel it was a bit hard work to manually focus and track any birds using the rear screen. I was using a tripod with this combination, because garden birds are tricky at the best of times, but due to their speed, and manually focusing it got 10 times harder to take a picture of any bird. Although Its a possible alternative, I am going to stick to wider lenses in future on this camera and use it for landscapes, or get the 100-300 to ease the focusing if I am doing wildlife. I havent given up though, so expect to see some more. ;-) Mark
