Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?  (Read 7359 times)

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4224
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2016, 07:54:53 AM »

When I downsized from Canon DSLR system, I tried m43; not good enough for my long exposures.

Then I found Sony A7 system, perfect for me, in terms of quality and size-weight.

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 278
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2016, 08:02:34 AM »

Correction understood!  And I totally agree with your statement.   :)

In fairness that's not what I said  ;)

I said I HAVE printed them at 13" x 19" - which is the largest size I regularly print to and sell at. At that size, I can't really tell the difference between GH4, Canon 7D and Sony A7RII pictures. As you point out that's 300 dpi native size.

I can tell the difference on-screen of course, especially pixel peeping. And the few times I've printed larger I notice the difference, but not at normal viewing distances.

For me, if I were printing too much larger, I'd feel the need for the "head room" of more pixels. Perhaps unnecessarily:  I'm not claiming you can't produce 20" x 30" prints from a m43 image. At 13" x 19" nothing is lost by shooting on m43. Printing too much larger than that and something is lost- it just may not be significant to you or your customers, especially at normal viewing distances.

The point I should have been making was that if you only print up to 13" x 19" or so, there's no functional difference at output resolution between shooing on a 16 megapixel m43 vs. a 42 megapixel Sony. But if you may print larger, you should factor that in to your decision.

Regards,

  Hywel






Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 545
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2016, 10:22:59 AM »

I print things in the neighborhood of 28x36 all the time, and, given the subject isn't extreme low light, the difference between that an FF is essentially zero.

This is w/a GH4 and various Oly and Panny primes, notably the insanely good 75mm 1.8 and the 42.5 1.2

Just nothing else like them.
Logged

Mousecop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2016, 10:43:03 AM »

To add another voice... I prefer M43 for landscape.

It's lighter and smaller, which is easier for transport and in the field. I shoot handheld, so both the outstanding IS and greater DoF work to my advantage. The lenses available now are outstanding, the new 12-100 looks like a great choice for landscape, and there are several other potentially excellent lenses on the horizon.

My largest print size is currently 17" x 22". I've done side-by-side comparisons with a Sony A7R II, and the differences in resolution are very subtle -- as in, you'd really only notice when the prints are right next to each other.

DR is a little more noticeable, but only in those situations where the scene exceeds the DR of the M43 but not the 35mm. You also need to be more precise in your exposure. Auto bracketing is an easy way to ensure you've nailed the exposure.

There are several other features I rely on heavily -- e.g. aspect ratios, larger and brighter view in the finder, automatic review in the finder, previewing in B&W.

Since I'm not making wall-sized prints, I have no problems sacrificing a small amount of image quality in exchange for the advantages.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2016, 04:13:44 PM »

My largest print size is currently 17" x 22". I've done side-by-side comparisons with a Sony A7R II, and the differences in resolution are very subtle -- as in, you'd really only notice when the prints are right next to each other.

I'm a MFT user and I have been since the GF1. I now have the GX7, G7 and GX80 and also a Sony A7. I find that one obvious difference is sharpness, the A7 files being noticeably sharper.

In isolation MFT shots do look very nice and most people will not see the differences I (or you...) see but I do think that if we want to see them they're there and for me the big difference is sharpness and side by side it's easy to see.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2416
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2016, 04:41:49 PM »

Since I'm doing more plane travel these days, and prefer to avoid checking baggage whenever possible, keeping my photo gear small & light is important. I can fit a Pany GX8 with 12–35/2.8, 35–100/2.8 & three small-ish "prime" lenses in a Domke 803 satchel bag with plenty of room left over for spare batteries, SD cards and accessories. Depending on what else I'm taking the Domke either goes in my rolling bag or over my shoulder, then stowed overhead (or tucked under the forward seat if I want to take in-flight pics).

Image quality in technical terms beats any 35mm film system I've ever used (I still like film æsthetically but have no interest in traveling with film gear) and, as mentioned by Mousecop, results in 15x20" or 14x21" prints (my max size) all but indistinguishable to those from a Sony A7rii (I own one of those too). The Sony's advantages are at the margins…on a photo-centric trip I might opt for it, or if I decide to take just one lens on a trip and get the most out of it.

-Dave-
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2083
    • Photos
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2016, 10:30:31 PM »

Same here. I'm on vacation now and with a heavy heart I left my Fuji system with the very nice bright primes at home and took the E-M5 mark II with the 12-40 F2.8, 35-100 F2.8, Oly 17 F1.8 and 45 F1.8, Rokinon 8 fisheye F3.5. The main reason was the Pana 35-100 as I have nothing anywhere close for the brightness and reach that is that light.
Now I could have come close with Fuji if I were to give up few primes or forget the telephoto. I still took the instax printer with me though.

At a first look the E-M1 mark II with 12-100 F 4.0 sounds very good for landscape. Then I look at the weight. Still better than some.
But can anyone tell me why not take the Sony RX-10 mark II? Has similar DOF and light gathering ability and some weather resistance. Dynamic range is not that bad either and it's lighter.

Borealis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2016, 10:44:28 PM »

Spend a few weeks in Germany this November. I took my D800e with 24-70 for landscape and Gh3 with 7-14 and 25/1.4 pany for everything else.I used the Panasonic gear most of the time. I knew that the weather would be gloomy dark/grey/rain and foggy most days. Jack Hogan's reply earlier was a good one, when I did use the Nikon it was almost always with a tripod (that I also took along). If I did not have the tripod I think I would not even have pulled that Nikon out... if you want to cash in on the FF advantage vs MFT you can't take shortcuts on technique. Not that a tripod won't help any other format if you know what I mean.

William
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2083
    • Photos
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2017, 10:49:51 PM »

Interesting comparison: http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/omd-em1-mark-ii-vs-fuji-xt2/
I wonder how much validity is in their findings that the dynamic range is similar. I still enjoy the Fuji more but with similar DR and much better stabilization one can shoot closer to the base iso without a tripod, you could probably leave the tripod home if you don't plan night shots.

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2017, 08:46:35 AM »

Interesting comparison: http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/omd-em1-mark-ii-vs-fuji-xt2/
I wonder how much validity is in their findings that the dynamic range is similar. I still enjoy the Fuji more but with similar DR and much better stabilization one can shoot closer to the base iso without a tripod, you could probably leave the tripod home if you don't plan night shots.

If you want dynamic range, the DSLR systems totally beats both the Olympus and Fuji systems. For me, the A7R is the perfect landscape system. It is light enough to carry everywhere with you yet delivers both outstanding resolution allowing you to make very large prints or to crop and still make large prints and it has outstanding dynamic range which in my opinion is critical in landscape photography.

The savings in weight using something like the Olympus system is really not that much...especially when you add a tripod and filters etc... into your package. Those that don't shoot their landscapes with a tripod are really missing something. You are either:

1.  Not shooting during the sweet light which happens to be quite dim.
2.  You are pushing your ISO which drastically affects the resulting image quality.
3.  You are not getting the most quality out of your images as you will inherently introduce some camera shake.

 
Logged

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 278
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2017, 11:59:33 AM »

I could never imagine leaving a tripod home.  If I have to hold my camera...who is going to handhold the filters? Or paint with light?  The tripod also allows for shots that require secondary shots with pixel registration.  So like HDR bracketing...but for other things.  Adding a person in later, removing people, capturing elements in different places, or bracketing focus for deep DOF, etc...  Can't be done handheld, no matter how good stabilization is. 

Personally I find I have plenty of dynamic range with the equipment that is out there.  Even for landscape.  I'de much rather shoot a second shot and paint in the parts I need if absolutely necessary, instead of just boosting the shadows.  It's often a different look.
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2083
    • Photos
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2017, 03:45:17 PM »

For one thing these guys got several seconds handheld, that should cover many of the dimmer situations.

The second thing, my particular interest is for backpacking. Last time I brought the tripod. The only time I used it was for a couple of groups shots with me included, could have probably just put it on a rock. It was a short trip but we stretched our limits and there was no time or disposition to use a tripod. Did I get any shots handheld? Here are some: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113795.msg937123#msg937123 , http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113724.msg935987#msg935987, http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113741.msg936105#msg936105

More recent I went and got this: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115806.msg956569#msg956569
No tripod either or golden hour.

Would I carry a tripod with me if weight would be of no concern? Yes.
Would I miss that many shots if I don't? If a couple seconds of exposure handheld are doable there won't be that many.

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2017, 07:49:53 PM »

For one thing these guys got several seconds handheld, that should cover many of the dimmer situations.

The second thing, my particular interest is for backpacking. Last time I brought the tripod. The only time I used it was for a couple of groups shots with me included, could have probably just put it on a rock. It was a short trip but we stretched our limits and there was no time or disposition to use a tripod. Did I get any shots handheld? Here are some: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113795.msg937123#msg937123 , http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113724.msg935987#msg935987, http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113741.msg936105#msg936105

More recent I went and got this: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115806.msg956569#msg956569
No tripod either or golden hour.

Would I carry a tripod with me if weight would be of no concern? Yes.
Would I miss that many shots if I don't? If a couple seconds of exposure handheld are doable there won't be that many.

I question your ability to take couple second exposures that are pin sharp. Even with a tripod any little movement will result in degrading the image. If one is happy with 2 second exposures hand held...whose to argue...but that ain't me.

Many of my images are around water where I show movement with exposures into the 10's of seconds. I feel my tripod is one of the most important tools I have in taking landscape photos.

Just another viewpoint. I love the weight savings I get with the Sony system. I used to lug around a Pentax 6x7 camera with 3 lenses, a big heavy tripod and a bunch of film all through the Rockies...so the Sony system is a breeze. ;)
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2083
    • Photos
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2017, 11:53:06 PM »

I have no ability to hand hold a couple of seconds and get sharp images with the current equipment. The best I might have got was around 0.5 with a Fuji 10-24 @ 10 (15 mm equivalent).
The point is in the link I provided earlier they were able to for several seconds. I added my grain of salt and that's why I say "only" 2 seconds at 24 mm equivalent which should be around 5.5 stops; they claim 6.5 stops.

My question was mostly about the dynamic range. If it's comparable then for backpacking the E-M1ii with the 12-100 (or even 12-40 or 12-60) becomes very tempting. Yes, I could carry more but last time I carried so much crap that I want to make cuts everywhere.

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2017, 08:57:58 AM »


My question was mostly about the dynamic range. If it's comparable then for backpacking the E-M1ii with the 12-100 (or even 12-40 or 12-60) becomes very tempting. Yes, I could carry more but last time I carried so much crap that I want to make cuts everywhere.

If dynamic range is your most important consideration, then cameras like the A7R and D810 have 2 stops more compared to the E-M1II at base ISO. Now if you are hand holding you will most likely increase the ISO which will dramatically lower your dynamic range.

No easy way out. If you want top notch landscape photos, you must bring top notch gear including tripods...otherwise you are compromising a lot to save weight. Choose your poisons.
Logged

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 278
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2017, 09:47:17 AM »

People have been making top notch landscape photography for years even without the latest and greatest D810 and Sonys.  The bottom line is technique, patience, and having the right tools for the job and desired outcome.  Or knowing how to extract the best and use equipment to its limit. 

At the end of the day, only you can decide what trade-offs are worth it with any piece of gear.  Will 2 stops of dynamic range make all the difference in every shot?  Depends if your shots will take advantage of that.  What did you do before?  All the new features and abilities in cameras today are such bonuses if we think about it. 

It's funny, with everything getting smaller...I still think...wow how can I get even lighter.  Soon I'll be walking around without a camera and just blinking my eyes at this rate. 

 
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2017, 02:21:56 PM »

People have been making top notch landscape photography for years even without the latest and greatest D810 and Sonys.  The bottom line is technique, patience, and having the right tools for the job and desired outcome.  Or knowing how to extract the best and use equipment to its limit. 

At the end of the day, only you can decide what trade-offs are worth it with any piece of gear.  Will 2 stops of dynamic range make all the difference in every shot?  Depends if your shots will take advantage of that.  What did you do before?  All the new features and abilities in cameras today are such bonuses if we think about it. 

It's funny, with everything getting smaller...I still think...wow how can I get even lighter.  Soon I'll be walking around without a camera and just blinking my eyes at this rate. 

 

Sure great photos were taken back in the film days with manual cameras...hey I still shoot a 4x5 Tachihara.

As far as 2 stops of dynamic range...I use on many shots as many of my photos have extremes in them especially during sunrise and sunset. I used to use GND filters or merge multiple exposed images together to gain dynamic range. With the new cameras, the need to go through these hoops has been reduced for me by at least 50% if not more. I'd gladly not have to resort to filters or multiple exposures as those techniques are prone to all sorts of issues which ruin many photos.

I love the lighter mirrorless cameras, but I don't want to sacrifice image quality just for lightness. When I'm out shooting landscapes, I have a backpack which I use to carry my gear. The extra couple of pounds in the pack is a very small price to pay for getting great images.

Everyone makes their tradeoff's. For me, there is no way a m43 system would replace my full frame system for landscapes...the quality is just too high a price to pay for the weight savings.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2017, 03:34:09 PM »

Image quality in technical terms beats any 35mm film system I've ever used...
-Dave-

Same here.
Logged

SZRitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: m43 - is it really (yet) a DSLR replacement for landscape work?
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2017, 04:12:58 PM »

Image quality in technical terms beats any 35mm film system I've ever used

I too would agree with this. I'm actually personally putting it up against 645 film, and it's a battle of trade offs. m43 is smaller, and has a lot of technological advantages, but print film still has a higher DR and in all honesty, I enjoy using the more simple cameras sometimes.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up