Micro Four-Thirds

[Jules Gobeil]

I would like to introduce a discussion on Micro Four-Thirds technology since I haven't seen it yet on this site.

I presently use a Canon 50D with a 300mm EF L and a 1.4X TC II. I find 3 main weaknesses to this setup:


It is very heavy at 2.7 kg. My birding style is to walk and look for photo opportunities, most of the time between 4 and 10 km. With the usual add-ons like backpack, binoculars, tripod, batteries, water, etc., I carry about 12 kg. I'm 68 and, honestly, I find it heavy after a few hours.
The sensor is quite noisy. Careful noise processing is needed from ISO 800. Going to higher ISO is looking for trouble.
The focus in not very effective: it is not very fast, hunts a lot and is often not accurate.


Of course, switching to a 7D would mean less sensor noise and improved focusing. However, my rig would still be big and heavy.

My main photo interest is nature: birds and other animals, flowers and landscapes. See my portfolio here:
http://julesgobeil.com/photo/portfolio/?lang=en

Searching for alternatives with my limited budget, I considered mirrorless cameras. Canon and Nikon are not yet mature and Sony does not have long telephoto lenses, but M43 seems interesting in terms of weight, reach and performance.

Panasonic offers a long zoom, the Lumix G Vario 100-300mmm F4-5.6 (600mm 35mm eq.). It compares well with my current 300mm and 1.4X TC in terms of reach and speed (672mm 35mm eq.). Users and reviewers consider it a good performer.
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/H-FS100300?t=overview

The new Panasonic GH3 camera seems like a winner. Early reports say that it focuses extremely fast, has a decent noise performance and state of the art video. At 980 g. with the 100-300mm lens, the ensemble weights only 43% of my current Canon kit and is much smaller.
http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMC-GH3KBODY

M43 technology is now mature, it has improved substantially and corrected its original weaknesses. Some cameras are said to focus as fast or faster than any DSLR, distortion and CA are corrected in-camera, electronic viewfinders and live-view provide interesting advantages, video performance is outstanding, top of the line cameras provide the same bells and whistles as their DSLR counterparts, lens choice and quality is interesting, etc...

Resistance to change is normal and we all do it at times. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to own both systems and I hesitate to make the change because of deeply encrusted paradigms. It's even more difficult when change would take us away from a proven path. But what about these statements ? Are they still true ?


The bigger and heavier a bird photography setup is, the better it is.
A high quality DSLR is mandatory for serious bird photography.
Phase-detection autofocus is needed for fast and accurate focusing, especially for moving objects.


I'm not suggesting that M43 becomes the new standard for bird photography. Far from that ! Looking at the fine quality work shown on this site would prove me wrong of course. I'm merely wondering if it would be possible to generate the same quality with a light weight camera system like the M43 one described above or similar. Aren't we due for a change in paradigm ?

What do you think ? Can it be a worth while alternative for my needs ?

[Roger Clark]

Hi Jules,
Some answers below



Resistance to change is normal and we all do it at times. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to own both systems and I hesitate to make the change because of deeply encrusted paradigms. It's even more difficult when change would take us away from a proven path. But what about these statements ? Are they still true ?



The bigger and heavier a bird photography setup is, the better it is.


Only if the system quality is high and more importantly, that one can carry it.







A high quality DSLR is mandatory for serious bird photography.


For much bird photography, I would say this is true, but not necessarily for all. For example, a non DSLR can get some very nice portraits.







Phase-detection autofocus is needed for fast and accurate focusing, especially for moving objects.


This is definitely true for moving subjects.





I'm not suggesting that M43 becomes the new standard for bird photography. Far from that ! Looking at the fine quality work shown on this site would prove me wrong of course. I'm merely wondering if it would be possible to generate the same quality with a light weight camera system like the M43 one described above or similar. Aren't we due for a change in paradigm ?

What do you think ? Can it be a worth while alternative for my needs ?

Contrary to popular belief and much misinformation on the web, here are some facts.

Pixel size and sensor size are not the key factors to high quality images; lens aperture and resolution are. The main fact that small sensors used in P&S cameras have lower image quality than typically found in DSLR systems, is due to the smaller lenses which collect less light, and diffraction which limits resolution.

Shallow depth of field is controlled by clear aperture (the diameter of the lens) not f/ratio (at a given focal length). Scaling the camera down while keeping the f/ratio constant (e.g. f/4) increases depth of field because the aperture diameter is decreasing.

If you want to image moving subjects, the only technology that has proven to work fast and accurately is phase detect AF.

So choosing a smaller system you give up: 1) detail on subject, 2) signal-to-noise ratio (get noisier images), and 3) shallow depth of field.

In order to save weight, you could try working without the tripod, or switch to a monopod.

More on telephoto reach and smaller sensors as well as pixel size:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/

Roger

[Jules Gobeil]

Thanks for your answer Roger. You gave me a good explanation of the differences between the 2 systems for bird photography. However, the articles you refer to are quite technical and I will have to read them many times to try and understand well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what I understand:



The amount of light reaching the sensor is the governing principle. So, the lens diameter and aperture of a lens are critical factors. The 90mm diameter of a Canon 300mm f/4 gives it a 34% advantage over a 67mm Panasonic 100-300mm lens. However, using a TC with the Canon diminishes its effectiveness. On the other hand, the 4.2 micron of a 7D gives it a small advantage compared to the 3.75 (+/-) microns of the M43.




Good M43 systems should not be confused with the P&S super zooms. These have very small sensors with 1.5 micron pixel size, very small diameter 100mm glass, and poor quality lenses given the price. The M3 is thus much closer to the DSLR than the P&S in terms of performance even if it is closer to the P&S in terms of weight.


Unfortunately, I have been unable to find actual comparisons between M43 and DSLR systems in terms of sharpness and effectiveness for long reach telephoto work. It would have been nice to be able to compare both systems and measure the differences. I will see if I can calculate it using the formulas in your articles.

I was disappointed to see how little interest this post generated. Maybe it is because everybody understand the difference between the 2... You have helped me a lot towards this understanding and you have suggested good articles to help me dig deeper. I thank you very much for that.

[Roger Clark]

The amount of light reaching the sensor is the governing principle. So, the lens diameter and aperture of a lens are critical factors. The 90mm diameter of a Canon 300mm f/4 gives it a 34% advantage over a 67mm Panasonic 100-300mm lens. However, using a TC with the Canon diminishes its effectiveness. On the other hand, the 4.2 micron of a 7D gives it a small advantage compared to the 3.75 (+/-) microns of the M43.



Hi Jules.
The light reaching the sensor with a 300 f/4 versus a 300 f/5.6 is one f/stop, so a factor of two.
Here is where that comes from:
diameter of 300 f/4 = 300/4 = 75 mm, area = pi*r*r = 4418 square mm
diameter of 300 f/5.6 = 300/5.6 = 53.57 mm = 2254 square mm.
Ratio of areas = 1.96 (close to 2x)
Ratio of the f/stops squared = (5.6/4)*(5.6/4) = 1.96.

Bottom line, you are down 2x in light for the same focal length. Diffraction will have a greater effect on the f/5.6 lens.
... more below...








Good M43 systems should not be confused with the P&S super zooms. These have very small sensors with 1.5 micron pixel size, very small diameter 100mm glass, and poor quality lenses given the price. The M3 is thus much closer to the DSLR than the P&S in terms of performance even if it is closer to the P&S in terms of weight.



The M43 is a 2x crop sensor with 3.75 micron pixels. This means that with perfect 300 mm lenses, the DSLR+300 f/4 will be less affected by diffraction which will impact contrast in the fine detail. But you are also comparing the 300 fixed focal length with a zoom. The zoom will have other aberrations. I would bet that the 7D+300 f/4 with its larger pixels would show more detail on a subject than the M43 with the 300 zoom. Than add the 1.4x TC and the 7D+300+1.4 will significantly surpass the M43+300 zoom.

But more significant in my view is the lack of phase detect AF on the M43. If you want to photograph any action, the phase detect AF is crucial to have. If you are comfortable photographing only more static subjects, and are comfortable with the reach of the 7D+300 (no TC), then you might be satisfied with the M43 image quality (but it will be noisier).

Roger

[Jules Gobeil]

Well, this is it. You convinced me ! And you also improved my knowledge.

I guess I'll try to change the 50D for a 7D. This will improve focus and sensor noise performance. Maybe this will help me feel that the system is lighter...

Many thanks for your help Roger. It is much appreciated.

Best regards
Jules

[Jerry amEnde]

Hmmm... just stumbled across this thread. I own a Panasonic GH2 & Lumix G Vario 100-300mm that I've used for bird and wildlife photography for a while now. I really love it for its portability and have been happy with the image quality. You can see some of my M43 images over in "Eager to Learn"

The one area that I've been very disappointed in has been focus speed. About the only way I can get a "bird in flight" is to pre-focus on the location and hope the bird crosses my focus point. As such, I have a Canon 7D / 400mm F/5.6L USM that I use for BIFs - and love it. However, if I go to the zoo or a walk or take family shots, I'm back to the GH2 because it's so handy. IMHO, the 7D/400mm has superior images, but there is not a huge difference.

I also perfer the video on the GH2 (it's hacked). Quality is great (great kudos in the Zacuto shootout (http://www.eoshd.com/content/8528/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2)). No problems with aliasing & moire. It will continuously autofocus video. And I can use the viewfinder for video.

Hope this helps,
...Jerry

[Jules Gobeil]

Hey... Thanks for your comments Jerry. It's nice to hear from someone who has both types of gear I'm trying to compare. I looked at your pictures and they are very nice.

It is a known fact that focusing on moving objects is difficult with M43 and pre-focusing does not bring many keepers !!!. Depth of field is another difference but not necessarily a weakness and it can be worked around.

Image quality is the other factor and Roger Clark has explained why quite clearly. However, the M43 pictures I look at are very sharp to my eyes, are noise free and have vibrant colours. Is pixel peeping needed to see the difference ? Technology is so advanced these days that it is often the case.

So I have decided to acquire a M43 that I will use as my main camera for family photos, travelling and nature when long walks are involved. I will keep the Canon for birding when there is not too much walking and will probably change the 50D for a 7D.

I still have to decide on the camera. The Oly OM-D is nice and the reviews are quite good. The Pana. G5 is also an alternative and is less expensive. The Pana. GH3 seems to be the best available but is quite big and heavy compared to the other 2. The Sony NEX-6 is a nice camera, has a larger sensor, but no longer lenses than 210mm (315mm eq.). Well, no hurry until Spring anyhow !

Regards
Jules

[Jerry amEnde]

Image quality is the other factor and Roger Clark has explained why quite clearly. However, the M43 pictures I look at are very sharp to my eyes, are noise free and have vibrant colours. Is pixel peeping needed to see the difference ? Technology is so advanced these days that it is often the case.

Jules, As I mentioned in my earlier post, I must say the 7D/400mm image is better than the GH2/100-300mm, but imho it's not that much better and I'm not sure that most of the improved quality is not due to the Canon's 400mm prime lens. I'd love to see a M43 stabilized, autofocus prime lens in the 300 to 400mm range.

I do have a 50mm Canon prime & a 25mm Leica M43. That might be a good comparison test. A better test would be to use the same lens on both camera bodies. Aaahh... maybe someday - if I feel particularly ambitious.

...Jerry

[Roger Clark]

Jules, As I mentioned in my earlier post, I must say the 7D/400mm image is better than the GH2/100-300mm, but imho it's not that much better

It would be nice to see a side by side comparison of the same subject from the same distance, including some tough light.

And I guess it is all relative, and the phase detect system (7D) will be in focus with a moving subject when the contrast detect system fails. And moving subjects are much more interesting.

Roger

[Jules Gobeil]

Thanks Jerry and Roger.

There is indeed a big picture quality difference between primes and zooms. As a former user of a Canon 100-400mm, I have been able to compare. My 300mm is sharper, even with the 1.4X converter. However, the 100-400 focused better and faster than the 300 with TC, for both static and moving objects.

However, looking at good M43 pictures, I'm not sure I need better quality. Human eyes are not microscopes...

To me, the big difference in weight is the main advantage of M43. The main disadvantage is focus on moving objects.

I'm more and more inclined to switch to M43 and here's why. My 50D +300mm + 1.4X TC is already not very good at focusing on moving objects so I won't see much difference. In order to improve the focus capability, I would have to change the 50D for a 7D and it would cost me about 500$ but I would still carry a very heavy system. Selling my Canon equipement would give me enough money to buy a state of the art GH3, a 100-300mm and a few good quality lenses - and I still would have enough money left to exchange the GH3 in a year or 2 for a newer model that can hopefully focus better on moving objects.

Also, while it is too soon to know how the GH3, being a new model, will behave on moving objects, I have seen very good pics of birds in flight taken with a Olympus OM-D - so its possible do do it.

Here is another factor that makes me hesitate: I tend to crop a lot... Of course, I like it better if the original doesn't need to be cropped but I don't hesitate to crop substantially to improve a picture, often at the expense of quality. That will be more difficult with a M43 sensor, meaning that I will have to get closer, frame better and be more careful at picture quality.

Food for thought !

[Jay Yutzey]

I have yet to find a rig for birding that I'm happy with. I like to move around a lot while birding, and my Nikon D90 with a long lens in addition to binocs, a bird book, water, rain jacket, etc. is more bulk and weight than I prefer to carry all day in the field. I tried my Pana G1 with a 45-200mm lens last year, but it wasn't long enough, and I don't have the Pana 100-300. (The Pana didn't do as well as the Nikon in lower light, either) . So I bought a used Olympus E-PL2 and EVF, and I'm going to try it with an old 75-300mm Tamron film lens attached with an adapter. The Oly has camera based image stabilization, which should help (I don't use a tripod or monopod), and the Tamron is an inexpensive lens that is primarily plastic, so it's light. Focus will be manual, but I use manual focus for birds in foliage anyway. However, with the 2x crop factor, manual focus is VERY touchy, and I anticipate that shooting birds in flight will just be impossible. Anyway, this is my next attempt to find gear I'm happy with, so we'll see how it goes.

[Jules Gobeil]

I have yet to find a rig for birding that I'm happy with. I like to move around a lot while birding, and my Nikon D90 with a long lens in addition to binocs, a bird book, water, rain jacket, etc. is more bulk and weight than I prefer to carry all day in the field. I tried my Pana G1 with a 45-200mm lens last year, but it wasn't long enough, and I don't have the Pana 100-300. (The Pana didn't do as well as the Nikon in lower light, either) . So I bought a used Olympus E-PL2 and EVF, and I'm going to try it with an old 75-300mm Tamron film lens attached with an adapter. The Oly has camera based image stabilization, which should help (I don't use a tripod or monopod), and the Tamron is an inexpensive lens that is primarily plastic, so it's light. Focus will be manual, but I use manual focus for birds in foliage anyway. However, with the 2x crop factor, manual focus is VERY touchy, and I anticipate that shooting birds in flight will just be impossible. Anyway, this is my next attempt to find gear I'm happy with, so we'll see how it goes.

Hi Jay,

Good luck with your new system. When I bought a DSLR, after many years with film cameras, I got a low end ??-300 Tamron and the IQ was not there unfortunately. I hope yours will be better. Manual focus for stationary birds is not that bad but will be difficult, if not impossible, for BIF. Unfortunately, BIF photography is not a strong point of MFT anyway.

I finally decided to go with the Oly OM-D, the 12-50mm and the Pana 100-300mm. BIF was the negative side, size and weight were the positive. So far, I love the camera - it is very very very small and needs getting used to. I'm amazed at all I can do with this system - macro, video, digiscoping... The weather has been bad so I have been unable to go birding with it yet but I expect it to be as good or better as my 50D-300mm-1.4X, except for BIF. Walking with it is a joy - it is so light... - I went for a 10 miles walk and it is like carrying nothing at all. Amazing !

[Jay Yutzey]

Nice!

The Tamron 75-300mm (which is an old Nikon mount film lens) is undistinguished, but since MFT cameras use the sweet spot of the lens, I'm keeping my fingers crossed on IQ. If I'm not happy with that, my next step is to try my old Canon fd 100-300, which is a better lens but one stop slower and a bit heavier. I also have a Tamron 18-270mm, which I'm quite happy with, but it defeats the purpose of going MFT to reduce bulk and weight, and at the long end it's f6.3 wide open.

I think when it's all said and done, I'll end up with the Pana 100-300mm, but that will probably be a year from now (and only if I'm a very good boy). I'll use that on my G1 rather than the Oly since it has IS in the lens.

[Sandy Clyburn]

Anybody thinking about MFT ,check this link out:http://photofocus.com/2012/12/31/whats-in-scotts-bag-now/

This is Scott Bourne we are talking about!!!

[Randy Stout]

AS a V1 user for casual stuff, I have no doubt that some form of mirrorless camera will be able to do a creditable job for birds in the not too distant future, keeping Rogers caveats in mind. The autofocus of the V1,in good light, where it uses phase detection, is very good, probably equal to most of my DSLRs. With its native lenses, which aren't really long enough yet for most bird work, it can use AF-C. With the FT1 adapter and F mount lenses, it is limited to center point only, which makes moving targets very difficult.

I suspect this latter issue is a marketing move and not a physical limitation.

Having no mirror flopping around opens up lots of other intriguing capabilities, so as insanely high fps, true silent shooting and a bunch of other interesting stuff, so I believe we are heading in that direction.

There has been a little chatter about the D400 being mirrorless and using some of the tech. introduced on the V1. I doubt Nikon will do that, just too conservative, but it will happen eventually.

Cheers

Randy

[Jules Gobeil]

AS a V1 user for casual stuff, I have no doubt that some form of mirrorless camera will be able to do a creditable job for birds in the not too distant future, keeping Rogers caveats in mind. The autofocus of the V1,in good light, where it uses phase detection, is very good, probably equal to most of my DSLRs. With its native lenses, which aren't really long enough yet for most bird work, it can use AF-C. With the FT1 adapter and F mount lenses, it is limited to center point only, which makes moving targets very difficult.

I suspect this latter issue is a marketing move and not a physical limitation.

Having no mirror flopping around opens up lots of other intriguing capabilities, so as insanely high fps, true silent shooting and a bunch of other interesting stuff, so I believe we are heading in that direction.

There has been a little chatter about the D400 being mirrorless and using some of the tech. introduced on the V1. I doubt Nikon will do that, just too conservative, but it will happen eventually.

Cheers

Randy

Thanks Randy,

I have looked in great depth at all mirrorless systems before getting the Oly OM-D EM-5. Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji seem to be quite a bit behind the Olympus and Panasonic M43 offers, in particular the OM-D and the GH3. They lack either a decent viewfinder or long lenses. In fact, the only really long M43 lenses are 300mm (600mm) zooms - no primes yet but there are strong rumors they are coming.

The OM-D is an amazing camera. It has not been awarded Camera of the Year on many sites for nothing. It packs a lot of power but one needs to get used to it. Focus is amazingly fast and accurate. As far as I can see, its only weakness is BIF - it is not impossible but much more difficult. And the weight... well it is a dream come true.

Regards
Jules