Time to move on, up to Oly E5 or Canon/Nikon FF???
RovingEyePhoto
Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
I've shot the last several years with an Oly E-3, the last 2 years mated with Zuiko's one-of-a-kind f/2 equiv 28-70. I'm an old Oly film shooter, so going 4/3 with the E-3 was kind of natural progression to digital. I've never doubted my decision, product quality and service have been impeccable, and the kit fits my primary modeled-street genre: close-up/wide-std/shallow-DOF/natural-light/hand-held-on-the-fly (for examples, see 30+ modeled sets on my signature Flickr page). Technology moves on, though, time to renew gear, so decisions to be made. Have no interest in sport and video shooting, don't expect either of those to factor in.
First question here is one of understanding. I've long wrestled with the physics of sensor size vs. DOF, don't pretend to fathom the underlying science, but accept the premise that sensor size is a factor in DOF same as aperture size, using as a guide the rough equation: aperture x crop factor = effective aperture for DOF equivalent (recent Shutterbug article repeats this old saw, adds crutch to my thinking). In other words, my Oly 4/3 f/2 with crop factor of 2 equates roughly to an effective FF aperture of f/4; a Nikon APS-C f/2.8 with crop factor of 1.5 equates roughly to an effective FF aperture of f/4.2, a Canon APS-C f/2.8 with crop factor of 1.6 equates roughly to an effective FF aperture of f/4.5, and so on. A FF f/2.8 with crop factor of 1 equates to an effective FF aperture of f/2.8, so shallow-DOF king of the hill, and therein lies its attractiveness to my brand of shooting. You techies out there, am I off in this area of science? If so, gotta start all over in my reasoning; if not, read on.
Second question again is in the science. Is it not true that the Zuiko f/2 still will let in 1 step more light than a FF f/2.8, unrelated to equivalent DOF considerations, so indeed is "faster"? I realize that relative noise/ISO performance affects this comparison, but a separate issue. Do I have the 1 step conclusion right, or do I again step back and for some esoteric reason reconsider relative sensor size?
I'll focus the rest of this post on the Canon 5D Mk III coupled with f/2.8 24-70 L II or 28-70 L, although a like Nikon kit is of equal possibility, not married to either brand. My Oly kit is a tank, similar to the Canon, so size/weight isn't an issue, I carry only the one body/lens when shooting, the only way to handle modeled-street's essential mobility. My principal interest is in the Canon's apparently higher IQ, better noise/ISO capability, shallower possible DOF, and possibly more dead-on auto focus, factors where the newer Oly E5 either hasn't seemed to keep pace or its 4/3 sensor size makes it impossible to keep pace. At this point in my life, price isn't a deciding issue, been there, done that, ready to face cost differences here up to a point somewhere short of total insanity.
Thanks in advance for any answers/opinions provided relative to the science and brands/models. Your input leading to my earlier E-3 acquisition was invaluable, presumably I'll find the same friendly/knowledgeable/critical/competitive quality in this latest foray.
First question here is one of understanding. I've long wrestled with the physics of sensor size vs. DOF, don't pretend to fathom the underlying science, but accept the premise that sensor size is a factor in DOF same as aperture size, using as a guide the rough equation: aperture x crop factor = effective aperture for DOF equivalent (recent Shutterbug article repeats this old saw, adds crutch to my thinking). In other words, my Oly 4/3 f/2 with crop factor of 2 equates roughly to an effective FF aperture of f/4; a Nikon APS-C f/2.8 with crop factor of 1.5 equates roughly to an effective FF aperture of f/4.2, a Canon APS-C f/2.8 with crop factor of 1.6 equates roughly to an effective FF aperture of f/4.5, and so on. A FF f/2.8 with crop factor of 1 equates to an effective FF aperture of f/2.8, so shallow-DOF king of the hill, and therein lies its attractiveness to my brand of shooting. You techies out there, am I off in this area of science? If so, gotta start all over in my reasoning; if not, read on.
Second question again is in the science. Is it not true that the Zuiko f/2 still will let in 1 step more light than a FF f/2.8, unrelated to equivalent DOF considerations, so indeed is "faster"? I realize that relative noise/ISO performance affects this comparison, but a separate issue. Do I have the 1 step conclusion right, or do I again step back and for some esoteric reason reconsider relative sensor size?
I'll focus the rest of this post on the Canon 5D Mk III coupled with f/2.8 24-70 L II or 28-70 L, although a like Nikon kit is of equal possibility, not married to either brand. My Oly kit is a tank, similar to the Canon, so size/weight isn't an issue, I carry only the one body/lens when shooting, the only way to handle modeled-street's essential mobility. My principal interest is in the Canon's apparently higher IQ, better noise/ISO capability, shallower possible DOF, and possibly more dead-on auto focus, factors where the newer Oly E5 either hasn't seemed to keep pace or its 4/3 sensor size makes it impossible to keep pace. At this point in my life, price isn't a deciding issue, been there, done that, ready to face cost differences here up to a point somewhere short of total insanity.
Thanks in advance for any answers/opinions provided relative to the science and brands/models. Your input leading to my earlier E-3 acquisition was invaluable, presumably I'll find the same friendly/knowledgeable/critical/competitive quality in this latest foray.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
0
Comments
You're right on the first question. FF is shallowest for DOF. An APS-C crop (Canon and Nikon are basically equivalent) effectively loses stop of DOF so f/2.8 lenses effectively are now f/4 for DOF (but remain truly 2.8 for focus and taking advantage of AF sensors/light). Your 4/3 I believe ends up being 2 stops less as far as DOF so your f/2 would look like f/4 on FF.
Yes, your lens is 'faster' in terms of letting in light which is important for autofocus. The light hitting the smaller sensor is what takes away the DOF though.
I'll leave the 24-70 question for those who have experience with that lens.
Good luck deciding
E
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
The Oly advantage is that you can use your current lens investment on a m43 body with an adapter.
However, if you are looking for a long term solution that will last you through many bodies, Canon would be a better fit.
*Warning on MarkR's gut instincts:
c. 2004 they thought that Apple would rebound very nicely, Itunes would be a huge success, and that its $18 stock was "a steal." (Yay, gut instincts!)
c. 1992 They also thought that Hypertext was slow and confusing, and would never catch on, and that FTP and Usenet would be the backbone of the 'NET. (Boo, gut instincts!)
This is correct, and I proved it for myself when I owned a 7D and a 5DII together.
It is faster*. If a FF camera with an f/2.8 lens at say ISO 400 meters a scene at f/2.8 and 1/50, your m4/3 camera at ISO 400 with f/2 lens will meter the scene at f/2 and 1/100.
*However...
It's not a separate issue. A FF camera is theoretically 2 stops "faster" than a m4/3 camera. That is, the FF camera can crank up to ISO 1600 and have the same noise as the m4/3 camera at ISO 400. So then the FF camera can meter the above scene at f/2.8 and 1/200.
Furthermore, later generation FF cameras are faster still. For example my 5D3 is as much as 2 stops better than my 5D2 was at high ISO. 12800 on the 5D3 is about as usable as 6400 was on the 5D2.
I didn't see a question in there. If you are looking for a Canon vs. Nikon recommendation, that debate is endless. As for the 5D3 vs. D800, without owning any lenses basically you buy the 5D3 for the 6fps and manageable file size, or you buy the D800 for the 36mp. But you should also handle them in person and evaluate the lens systems. The most glaring differences are Nikon's lack of a 70-200 f/4, and a competent affordable 100-400. Nikon's 14-24 is unsurpassed, but Canon has narrowed that gap in software (Digital Lens Optimization - it works).
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
You have it right that f/2 is faster than f/2.8. However the sensor collecting that light is also a factor.
I didn't mean to say that. I've edited my post, please see above.
Software can give the E3 the same noise performance as the 5D3? I'd like to see those tests.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yes and no. At the same ISO, yes, a larger aperture gets you a faster shutter speed. But a larger format allows you to use higher ISO with the same noise as the smaller format at a lower ISO.
(I'm neglecting the fact that Medium Format is currently lagging behind 35mm in terms of sensor efficiency)
It's not just the software, it's mostly the format. A 5D2 with an f/2.8 lens is still faster overall than a m4/3 camera with an f/2 lens. Because the 5D2 can shoot at an ISO 2 stops higher.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I was an olympus shooter, E-5, 35-100, 50-200, 300 f2.8, both macros 7-14 and some that I haven't listed too. Bottom line is your bound to miss some of the glass. The Zuikos just are some of the best corrected lenses at every price point, and you would have to look for a clunker to find one.
I now shoot Nikon full frame and I won't go back for a majority of my use. The lattitude of the raw files and the lack of high ISO noise just allow you to shoot where you never though you would. I can shoot a clean ISO 800 and shoot very comfortablly at ISO6400. The autofocus just plain runs circles around the E-5, which is already better than the old E-3. It just allows you to forget the focus in almost all situations. It just works, low light and all.
Nikon isn't as well developed as Canon with f4 lenses, which allows for lighter kit than the f2 zuikos and the same perspective. I'm shooting some f2.8 lenses, 70-200 and 14-24, and both are outstanding. I also have the 50 f1.4 which is nice compared to what Oly offers. Outside of that my lenses go far longer than you are talking of.
I did go back to Olympus (my old E-3) for shooting macro. 2x focal length multiplier and the great Zuiko macros just make more sense to me, and I was never to equal their performance with Nikon macros, but that's me.
I cannot tell you what's better for you. I can tell you that its nice to not worry about the future releases.
Good luck with your decision, and one thing for certain, the camera doesnt make the photographer. If you can shoot with one, you will likely do fine with the other. There are areas that full frame will extend the capabilities. Reading between the lines with your shooting style, that might be the strengths your looking for.
www.spanielsport.com
It's not really splitting hairs. Because Full Frame ISO 1600 looks like ISO 400 on m4/3. Full Frame simply collects more light. Total light.
Next time you're suffering insomnia, check out Joseph James Photography's essay on Equivalence.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Hope you don't mind, but I'd rather have a root canal done. The 5D gearhead bible doesn't go well with the 4/3 crowd, mostly because of the personality of the author.
www.spanielsport.com
Maybe technically true, but I doubt any but the most dedicated pixel peeper will see a noticeable difference between both either camera's output at, say, ISO 800 or less. Certainly if you need to hang at crazy-high ISOs, the full frame is the one to get-- but not everyone needs to hang out there.
Agreed. Although I can tell you I did see a difference between my 7D and 5D2 at ISO 800. And I would not call 1600 crazy high. At least, not on FF.
But yeah, if you spend most of your time below 800, and you're not doing critical landscape or studio work, then m4/3 is a compelling package. I'm digging the OM-D.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My first DSLR was a Pentax K100D-- same sensor as the Nikon D40. 1600 was emergency only, 3200 was a waste of time.
For sure. I remember when I was using my 2002 Canon S45 I thought man if I could just have clean ISO 400 I'd be all set!
First DSLR was a Canon 30D in 2006. Same deal as your K100D.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.