Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"

[Paul Ciszek]

Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
article that would help me make some choices.
My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
SLR are twofold:

1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.

2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
will then be committed to. Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
its lenses:

1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
focus and exposure on its own.

2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
"kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

4) Camera must support "raw mode".

Things that would be nice, if practical:

1) Image stabilization

2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
when used with the micro 4/3?

So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[ray]

2x

>
> So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of the
> different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.

I have researched this recently. The Panasonic m4/3 has an adapter for
35mm lenses available. The Nikon 1 series also has an adapter for Nikon
lenses (though the sensor is a bit smaller - 2.7x instead of 2x). All the
m4/3 systems I've looked at support raw formats - usually offered with or
without a jpeg at the same time.

The m4/3 systems that I've seen either have only the lcd on the back or
have that plus an electronic viewfinder (which I have as a requirement) -
point is, both systems use the sensor data. At the current time, I'm
leaning towards the Pansonic G3.

I believe it's the case that m4/3 is a 'standard' and that lenses from
one system will be usable on another although some of the features may
not go through - someone please correct if that's not the case.

[RichA]

On May 28, 2:14 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
> I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
> article that would help me make some choices.
> My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
> SLR are twofold:
>
> 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
>    situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
>    what good does the SLR light path do me?  I would rather get my
>    viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.

Look up, EVF.

>
> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
>    gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
>    allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
>    to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
>    doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

Wrong. The sensor isn't that small. You want an 800mm f4 lens? It's
going to be huge.

>
> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
> will then be committed to.  Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
> its lenses:
>
> 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
>    lenses.  I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
>    happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
>    focus and exposure on its own.

They do it. But given the glacial slowness of he P&S's you use, why
worry?

>
> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
>    typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have.  I
>    realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
>    superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
>    and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
>    fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
>    Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
>    bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
>    "kit" lens.  (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
>

You can get 2 zooms to cover 12mm to 300mm. Buck up and carry one in
a bag.

> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>    lens.  (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?)  It would also have
>    to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

They do.

>
> 4) Camera must support "raw mode".

They all do.

>
> Things that would be nice, if practical:
>
> 1) Image stabilization

Panasonic has it in some of the lenses, Olympus in the bodies.

> 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
>    provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
>    What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
>    when used with the micro 4/3?

They will do auto-exposure but not auto-focus from different brands.
P.S. The 35mm camera lenses (SLR you mean?) lenses also have to have
AF in order that anything use AF.

> So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
> the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.

Being a compact camera user, insisting on auto-everything and not
being able to do the leg-work to find out some of this stuff on your
own, you might consider you aren't ready to move on from superzooms.
If their awful image quality is good enough, stick with them.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <jq0faq$q86$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek says...

> 1) Image stabilization

Only available on Olympus bodies. If you use a Panasonic camera you have
to buy an IS lens (they are available). See for an overview of m4/3
lenses:
http://myolympus.org/E-PL3/#Lenses

(still have to add a couple of recently announced lenses, otherwise the
list is complete)
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[David J Taylor]

"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a2e2161...@news.supernews.com...

> In article <jq0faq$q86$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek says...
>
>> 1) Image stabilization
>
> Only available on Olympus bodies. If you use a Panasonic camera you have
> to buy an IS lens (they are available). See for an overview of m4/3
> lenses:
> http://myolympus.org/E-PL3/#Lenses
>
> (still have to add a couple of recently announced lenses, otherwise the
> list is complete)
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

.. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter, but
this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

David

[Alfred Molon]

In article <jq1pfc$aus$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...

> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter, but
> this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

Not all lenses are IS...

[David Dyer-Bennet]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
> I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
> article that would help me make some choices.
> My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
> SLR are twofold:
>
> 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
> situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
> what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
> viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.

Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
from prosumer cameras and up.

> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
> to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
though. IS can only do so much.

> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
> will then be committed to.

Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
exposure, and so forth.

> Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
> its lenses:
>
> 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
> lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
> happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
> focus and exposure on its own.

You should be more than "willing"; power zooms are very hard to control,
and much slower to work with.

> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
> and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
> fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
> Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
> bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
> "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
describing.

> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
that's *so much* better than 35mm.

> 4) Camera must support "raw mode".

Good choice.

> Things that would be nice, if practical:
>
> 1) Image stabilization

One of your big choices is IS in the body, or in the lenses. Olympus
bodies have IS, Panasonic do not, they put theirs in the lenses.

In-body IS works with any lenses, including c-mount video lenses on
adapters (i.e. totally mechanical, very old-school, lenses).

> 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
> provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
> What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
> when used with the micro 4/3?

You've got that sort-of backwards. It's not "multiplier for 35mm
lenses"; it's "multiplier to give 35mm equivalent focal-length".

And the answer is 2x. A 300mm lens on a micro four thirds body gives
the angle of view of a 600mm lens on a 35mm body.

You can get adapters for a huge range of lenses to micro four thirds.
Mostly they're cheap mechanical adapters for old lenses, so that means
manual focus. Even the adapters for modern AF lenses rarely (never in
my experience, but some may exist) give you AF.

> So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
> the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.

--

David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2a2e2161...@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <jq0faq$q86$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek says...
>>
>>> 1) Image stabilization
>>
>> Only available on Olympus bodies. If you use a Panasonic camera you have
>> to buy an IS lens (they are available). See for an overview of m4/3
>> lenses:
>> http://myolympus.org/E-PL3/#Lenses
>>
>> (still have to add a couple of recently announced lenses, otherwise the
>> list is complete)
>

> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
> but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
quite useful -- even with old lenses.

[nospam]

In article <ylfksjei...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet

<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
> > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
> > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
>
> My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
> 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
> with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
> quite useful -- even with old lenses.

i'm not sure what was wrong with your 70-200 but nikon's vr is very
good. on the other hand, sigma is a crapshoot if you get a good one and
even then, its stabilization is not as good as nikon, which is actually
a little surprising since sigma stole nikon's design and is being sued.

in any event, one major advantage of in-lens stabilization is that it
stabilizes the viewfinder which makes composing easier and also helps
autofocus track the subject. another advantage is it's tuned
specifically to a given lens.

the advantage to in-camera stabilization is that it works with just
about any lens, although its effectiveness goes down as the focal
length goes up (which is where stabilization matters the most) because
the sensor needs to move a greater distance. at some point, it will
reach a limit and no longer be able to move enough to stabilize the
image.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <ylfkwr3u...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
>particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
>screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
>from prosumer cameras and up.

Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For situations
where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD screen in the
sun.

>> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
>> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
>> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
>> to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
>> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.
>
>You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>though. IS can only do so much.

Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.

>> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
>> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
>> will then be committed to.
>
>Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
>companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
>lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
>exposure, and so forth.

That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?

>> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
>> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
>> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
>> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
>> and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
>> fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
>> Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
>> bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
>> "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
>
>This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
>describing.

OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with
a better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?

>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.
>
>You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
>lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
>that's *so much* better than 35mm.

Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
price of the Panasonic version.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-05-29 15:04:39 -0700, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) said:

>
> In article <ylfkwr3u...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

<<< Le Snip >>>

>>
>> You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>> though. IS can only do so much.
>
> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.

...and that is one of the times IS/OS/VR is contraindicated.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[ray]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:04:39 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

> In article <ylfkwr3u...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
>>particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
>>screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
>>from prosumer cameras and up.
>
> Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For
> situations where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD
> screen in the sun.

That is possible since several of the m43 cameras come with no viewfinder
but have an optional one - but as far as I know, they only attach to the
top of the camera - like a flash shoe. I'm not aware of any with a
feature like that.

>
>>> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
>>> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
>>> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in
>>> magnification to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm
>>> terms) whereas I doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for
>>> a 35mm.
>>
>>You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>>though. IS can only do so much.
>
> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
>
>>> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on
>>> the merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that
>>> you will then be committed to.
>>
>>Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
>>companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
>>lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
>>exposure, and so forth.
>
> That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?

Primarily, it is Panasonic and Olympus at this point.

>
>>> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
>>> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
>>> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
>>> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and and
>>> take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in fairy
>>> makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses. Toward this
>>> end, it would be nice if the camera body could be bought "bare" so
>>> I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o "kit" lens. (Unless
>>> the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
>>
>>This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're describing.
>
> OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
> whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
> the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
> better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with a
> better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?

'kit lens' does indeed mean the lens that comes with the camera. The real
reviews I've read indicates that the 14-45 (28-90 35mm equiv) that comes
with the Panasonic G3 is a **GOOD** lens.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <a2l8ie...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
>> whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
>> the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
>> better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with a
>> better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?
>
>'kit lens' does indeed mean the lens that comes with the camera. The real
>reviews I've read indicates that the 14-45 (28-90 35mm equiv) that comes
>with the Panasonic G3 is a **GOOD** lens.

I have seen reviews on Amazon that say they like the older, more expensive
14-45mm lens made of metal with the IOS cutoff switch better than the newer,
cheaper 14-42mm one made of plastic that makes you do the IOS cutoff through
the camera. The camera as advertized on Amazon says it comes with a 14-42mm
lens, so I assume they mean the newer cheaper one. The bare camera costs
$50 less on Amazon than it does with the 14-42mm lens; that is half the cost
of the 14-42mm lens on its own. It would be nice to be able to buy the
camera bundled with the old lens as you describe; it would have to be cheaper
than buying them separately, wouldn't it? How risky is it to buy stuff like
this used?

[David J Taylor]

"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.2a2f430c3...@news.supernews.com...

> In article <jq1pfc$aus$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...
>> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
>> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
>> but
>> this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
>
> Not all lenses are IS...
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without IS.
For me, it's a must-have feature.

David

[David J Taylor]

> Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
> Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
> price of the Panasonic version.

Paul,

In-lens IS does not need to add substantially to the price, as proved by
lenses in the Nikon DSLR range. Perhaps the Panasonic optical design is
simply better?

Think carefully before buying a telephoto lens without IS (and try holding
the camera & lens on a moving ship in windy conditions...).

David

[David J Taylor]

> My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
> 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
> with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
> quite useful -- even with old lenses.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

Can't comment on Sigma (but you know what to expect from that company),
but the Nikon VR lenses I've used have had excellent stabilisation - even
the low-cost kit lenses. The stabilisation on the Leica-branded Panasonic
lenses used on their P&S models has also been fine.

Yes, if you already have a bag full of lenses, it alters the trade-off
somewhat.

Cheers,
David

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jq4gch$hor$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mostly, I keep hearing about Olympus vs. Panasonic, with Sony trying to
create its own standard. Does anyone have anything good or bad to say
about the Nikon mirrorless cameras and the lenses available for them?

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

> You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
> lenses at a sane price.

You also won't get that much resolution with compact cameras
at such long focal lengths (diffraction due to small
apertures compared to the sensor size).

> But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
> that's *so much* better than 35mm.

I doubt that "that's *so much* better than 35mm".

Let's look at the Canon DSLRs as an example (they also have a
slightly bigger crop factor of 1.6 instead of 1.5 with Nikon :-> ):
- 300mm (effective 480mm as 35mm equivalent) is quite normal:
* <120 EUR: Sigma AF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 DG Makro
* 128 EUR (Amazon): Tamron AF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 Di LD Makro 1:2
* <170 EUR: Sigma AF 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 DG APO Makro
* <200 EUR: Canon EF 75-300mm 4.0-5.6 III

- 400mm (effective 640mm as 35mm equivalent) is quite available,
though at a somewhat higher price:
* 570 EUR (Amazon): Tokina AT-XD 80-400mm 4.5-5.6
* <800 EUR: Sigma AF 120-400mm 4.5-5.6 DG APO HSM OS

- 500mm (effective 800mm at 35mm equivalent):
* <900 EUR: Sigma AF 150-500mm 5.0-6.3 DG APO HSM OS
* 953 EUR (Amazon): Tamron SP AF 200-500mm 5-6.3 Di LD IF

(no, they aren't the best lenses. Just the cheap ones.)

I don't see that much of a monetary advantage ...

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> In article <ylfksjei...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
>> > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
>> > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
>>
>> My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
>> 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
>> with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
>> quite useful -- even with old lenses.
>
> i'm not sure what was wrong with your 70-200 but nikon's vr is very
> good. on the other hand, sigma is a crapshoot if you get a good one and
> even then, its stabilization is not as good as nikon, which is actually
> a little surprising since sigma stole nikon's design and is being sued.

And I get better results on the longer Sigma than on the slower Nikon.

> in any event, one major advantage of in-lens stabilization is that it
> stabilizes the viewfinder which makes composing easier and also helps
> autofocus track the subject. another advantage is it's tuned
> specifically to a given lens.
>
> the advantage to in-camera stabilization is that it works with just
> about any lens, although its effectiveness goes down as the focal
> length goes up (which is where stabilization matters the most) because
> the sensor needs to move a greater distance. at some point, it will
> reach a limit and no longer be able to move enough to stabilize the
> image.

Which both argue for putting in-body stabilization in the camera, and
in-lens stabilization on the longer lenses, and having the computer sort
it out (maybe they could even cooperate sometimes).

What I've found testing VR in lenses is that it will frequently bring
the image to *nearly* sharp.

[ray]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:16:50 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

> In article <jq4gch$hor$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor
> <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
>>> Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
>>> price of the Panasonic version.
>>
>>Paul,
>>
>>In-lens IS does not need to add substantially to the price, as proved by
>>lenses in the Nikon DSLR range. Perhaps the Panasonic optical design is
>>simply better?
>>
>>Think carefully before buying a telephoto lens without IS (and try
>>holding the camera & lens on a moving ship in windy conditions...).
>
> Mostly, I keep hearing about Olympus vs. Panasonic, with Sony trying to
> create its own standard. Does anyone have anything good or bad to say
> about the Nikon mirrorless cameras and the lenses available for them?

Only that, after comparing them, I consider the Nikon entries greatly
overpriced. For a smaller sensor which, according to most testers, takes
worse photos, you pay twice as much.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> In article <ylfkwr3u...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
>>particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
>>screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
>>from prosumer cameras and up.
>
> Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For situations
> where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD screen in the
> sun.

Bunches of them, I think. Zigview is a name I remember.

Also, you can plug the video out from any modern camera with LiveView
into an externalmonitor to get a similar (but more expensive) effect.

>>> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
>>> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
>>> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
>>> to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
>>> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.
>>
>>You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>>though. IS can only do so much.
>
> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
>
>>> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
>>> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
>>> will then be committed to.
>>
>>Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
>>companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
>>lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
>>exposure, and so forth.
>
> That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?

No, neither of them make Four Thirds gear of any sort (cameras or
lenses). They each have their own, incompatible, mirrorless systems.

>>> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
>>> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
>>> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
>>> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
>>> and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
>>> fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
>>> Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
>>> bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
>>> "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
>>
>>This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
>>describing.
>
> OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
> whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
> the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
> better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with
> a better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?

Okay, you're probably right that that's what it means to most people.
But it's also used some to mean "the lens you mostly leave on the
camera".

It seems to me you may be looking for a a longer zoom range than kit
lenses and P&S cameras usually provide -- something in the superzoom
range. The trouble with that is that such superzoom lenses for DSLRs
are both expensive and not very good (and the Nikon 18-200, for example,
is unexpectedly good for what it is). Long zoom ranges are very hard to
make, and the larger the sensor the harder it gets.

>>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
>>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.
>>
>>You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
>>lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
>>that's *so much* better than 35mm.
>
> Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
> Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
> price of the Panasonic version.

Really? What I find at Amazon is "Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 ED
Digital Zoom Lens (Black) by Olympus Buy new : $899.99" And it's f/6.7
at the long end, REALLY slow.

And the Panasonic 100-300/4.0-5.6 is now showing ar $848.50. Ouch.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Depending on, not just the manufacturer, but the specific lens (or
body). You need to read the instructions on the actual equipment you're
using.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>
>>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
>>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.
>
>> You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
>> lenses at a sane price.
>
> You also won't get that much resolution with compact cameras
> at such long focal lengths (diffraction due to small
> apertures compared to the sensor size).
>
>> But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
>> that's *so much* better than 35mm.
>
> I doubt that "that's *so much* better than 35mm".

It is if you include the f/5.6 aperture at 600mm-e.

> - 400mm (effective 640mm as 35mm equivalent) is quite available,
> though at a somewhat higher price:
> * 570 EUR (Amazon): Tokina AT-XD 80-400mm 4.5-5.6
> * <800 EUR: Sigma AF 120-400mm 4.5-5.6 DG APO HSM OS

That Sigma is $999 at Amazon right now. I paid about $850 for it a few
years ago.

> (no, they aren't the best lenses. Just the cheap ones.)

> I don't see that much of a monetary advantage ...

I was comparing to 35mm, not to DX crop.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2a2f430c3...@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <jq1pfc$aus$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...
>>> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
>>> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational
>>> jitter, but
>>> this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
>>
>> Not all lenses are IS...
>

> Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without
> IS. For me, it's a must-have feature.

Many of the telephotos I most value do not come in IS versions. It's
fine if I'm buying super-telephotos for wildlife (at 4- and 5-figure
prices), but 85, 105, and 135 lenses tend not to have it. Even prime
200mm lenses tend not to.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <jq4g34$gbn$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...

> Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without IS.
> For me, it's a must-have feature.

And I don't buy bodies without IS. It's a must have feature for me. So
many lenses, even good and very good ones, don't have IS.
It's one of the reasons I don't buy Nikon or Canon cameras. They should
finally add in-body IS to their cameras.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-05-30 13:11:42 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-05-29 15:04:39 -0700, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) said:
>>
>>>
>>> In article <ylfkwr3u...@dd-b.net>,
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>> <<< Le Snip >>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>>>> though. IS can only do so much.
>>>
>>> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
>>
>> ...and that is one of the times IS/OS/VR is contraindicated.
>
> Depending on, not just the manufacturer, but the specific lens (or
> body). You need to read the instructions on the actual equipment you're
> using.

That might be true for lenses from manufacturers I am not familiar with.

My IS/OS/VR experience is currently limited to three Nikkor VR lenses
and one I no longer own; 18-200mm VRII, 70-300mm VR, & 80-400mm VR. The
printed words of wisdom for those, contained in the manuals, reads as
follows:
"When the lens is mounted on a tripod, set the vibration reduction
ON/OFF switch to [OFF]. However, set the switch to [ON} when using a
tripod without securing the tripod head, or when using a monopod."

So I guess there might come a time when a Nikkor VR lens mounted on a
tripod might benefit from VR being activated.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2012-05-30 13:11:42 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-29 15:04:39 -0700, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article <ylfkwr3u...@dd-b.net>,
>>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>>>>> though. IS can only do so much.
>>>>
>>>> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
>>>
>>> ...and that is one of the times IS/OS/VR is contraindicated.
>>
>> Depending on, not just the manufacturer, but the specific lens (or
>> body). You need to read the instructions on the actual equipment you're
>> using.
>
> That might be true for lenses from manufacturers I am not familiar with.

Both.

> My IS/OS/VR experience is currently limited to three Nikkor VR lenses
> and one I no longer own; 18-200mm VRII, 70-300mm VR, & 80-400mm
> VR. The printed words of wisdom for those, contained in the manuals,
> reads as follows:
> "When the lens is mounted on a tripod, set the vibration reduction
> ON/OFF switch to [OFF]. However, set the switch to [ON} when using a
> tripod without securing the tripod head, or when using a monopod."

If you've checked them all carefully, then you must be right (no
overlap, I don't have a single one of those lenses). However, the Nikon
VR do NOT all have the same tripod rules; you merely seem to have set
that are all the same. We've discussed this extensively every year or
so on the d1scussion mailing list and had people post instructions from
a wide range of lenses.

[nospam]

In article <ylfkd35l...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet

<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >> > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
> >> > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
> >> > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
> >>
> >> My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
> >> 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
> >> with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
> >> quite useful -- even with old lenses.
> >
> > i'm not sure what was wrong with your 70-200 but nikon's vr is very
> > good. on the other hand, sigma is a crapshoot if you get a good one and
> > even then, its stabilization is not as good as nikon, which is actually
> > a little surprising since sigma stole nikon's design and is being sued.
>
> And I get better results on the longer Sigma than on the slower Nikon.

huh? the sigma is slower.

it really sounds like there was something wrong with that nikon lens.

> > in any event, one major advantage of in-lens stabilization is that it
> > stabilizes the viewfinder which makes composing easier and also helps
> > autofocus track the subject. another advantage is it's tuned
> > specifically to a given lens.
> >
> > the advantage to in-camera stabilization is that it works with just
> > about any lens, although its effectiveness goes down as the focal
> > length goes up (which is where stabilization matters the most) because
> > the sensor needs to move a greater distance. at some point, it will
> > reach a limit and no longer be able to move enough to stabilize the
> > image.
>
> Which both argue for putting in-body stabilization in the camera, and
> in-lens stabilization on the longer lenses, and having the computer sort
> it out (maybe they could even cooperate sometimes).

only if money is no object.

> What I've found testing VR in lenses is that it will frequently bring
> the image to *nearly* sharp.

it's sharper than without, that's what matters.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2a309f991...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred

Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without IS.
> > For me, it's a must-have feature.
>
> And I don't buy bodies without IS. It's a must have feature for me. So
> many lenses, even good and very good ones, don't have IS.
> It's one of the reasons I don't buy Nikon or Canon cameras. They should
> finally add in-body IS to their cameras.

what for?

nikon and canon are obviously doing something right since they have
about 80% of the market combined.

[nospam]

In article <2012053013580044303-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>>> You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
> >>>> though. IS can only do so much.
> >>>
> >>> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
> >>
> >> ...and that is one of the times IS/OS/VR is contraindicated.
> >
> > Depending on, not just the manufacturer, but the specific lens (or
> > body). You need to read the instructions on the actual equipment you're
> > using.
>
> That might be true for lenses from manufacturers I am not familiar with.
>
> My IS/OS/VR experience is currently limited to three Nikkor VR lenses
> and one I no longer own; 18-200mm VRII, 70-300mm VR, & 80-400mm VR. The
> printed words of wisdom for those, contained in the manuals, reads as
> follows:
> "When the lens is mounted on a tripod, set the vibration reduction
> ON/OFF switch to [OFF]. However, set the switch to [ON} when using a
> tripod without securing the tripod head, or when using a monopod."
>
> So I guess there might come a time when a Nikkor VR lens mounted on a
> tripod might benefit from VR being activated.

older vr implementations didn't detect tripods and the results would be
worse. more recent vr implementations will detect a tripod and can
sometimes improve the results, such as on a windy day when even the
best tripod will not be truly steady.

in other words, it depends.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> In article <ylfkd35l...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> >> > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
>> >> > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
>> >> > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
>> >>
>> >> My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
>> >> 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
>> >> with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
>> >> quite useful -- even with old lenses.
>> >
>> > i'm not sure what was wrong with your 70-200 but nikon's vr is very
>> > good. on the other hand, sigma is a crapshoot if you get a good one and
>> > even then, its stabilization is not as good as nikon, which is actually
>> > a little surprising since sigma stole nikon's design and is being sued.
>>
>> And I get better results on the longer Sigma than on the slower Nikon.
>
> huh? the sigma is slower.

Yeah, I have no idea what I was trying to say there. Sigma longer,
Nikon faster, certainly.

> it really sounds like there was something wrong with that nikon lens.

Maybe, but I haven't been able to convince myself of that yet. Other
people's tests aren't that much better.

Here's my main set of tests, others are nearby in time
<http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2008/12/vr-tests-pass-3-part-2-not-impressed/>.

>> > in any event, one major advantage of in-lens stabilization is that it
>> > stabilizes the viewfinder which makes composing easier and also helps
>> > autofocus track the subject. another advantage is it's tuned
>> > specifically to a given lens.
>> >
>> > the advantage to in-camera stabilization is that it works with just
>> > about any lens, although its effectiveness goes down as the focal
>> > length goes up (which is where stabilization matters the most) because
>> > the sensor needs to move a greater distance. at some point, it will
>> > reach a limit and no longer be able to move enough to stabilize the
>> > image.
>>
>> Which both argue for putting in-body stabilization in the camera, and
>> in-lens stabilization on the longer lenses, and having the computer sort
>> it out (maybe they could even cooperate sometimes).
>
> only if money is no object.

Actually, I think this is the cheapest approach. Most people own
multiple moderate-length lenses where in-body stabilization would be
cheaper over the sum of their bodies and lenses. And it's pretty
generally agreed that when you get up to super-teles, in-lens is a clear
win, so it has to be there.

>> What I've found testing VR in lenses is that it will frequently bring
>> the image to *nearly* sharp.
>
> it's sharper than without, that's what matters.

No, what matters is whether it's sharp enough to be usable.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jq4g34$gbn$1...@dont-email.me>,

David J Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.2a2f430c3...@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <jq1pfc$aus$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...
>>> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
>>> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
>>> but
>>> this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
>>
>> Not all lenses are IS...
>

>Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without IS.
>For me, it's a must-have feature.

At what point would you give up on hand-holding the camera? I.e., since
you are supposed to turn off IS if the camera is on a tripod, a lens "long"
enough to require a a tripod anyway wouldn't need IS, in theory.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jq4gch$hor$1...@dont-email.me>,

David J Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

I have been assuming that a 300mm (600mm equivalent) would be used only
with a tripod; is IS really good enough to use a telephoto like that
handheld?

[Paul Ciszek]

I would call that "something bad to say".

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <ylfk8vg9...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>> OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
>> whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
>> the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
>> better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with
>> a better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?
>
>Okay, you're probably right that that's what it means to most people.
>But it's also used some to mean "the lens you mostly leave on the
>camera".
>
>It seems to me you may be looking for a a longer zoom range than kit
>lenses and P&S cameras usually provide -- something in the superzoom
>range. The trouble with that is that such superzoom lenses for DSLRs
>are both expensive and not very good (and the Nikon 18-200, for example,
>is unexpectedly good for what it is). Long zoom ranges are very hard to
>make, and the larger the sensor the harder it gets.

I am coming around to the idea that I will have to be content with a 3x
"kit lens" (your definition) for "real time" use (parades and the like)
and save up to eventually buy a long lens that doesn't overlap the kit
lens' range for telephoto work. Right now, I am kinda bummed that the
Lumix G3 is sold with the newer, less desirable 14-42mm lens instead of
the older 14-45mm everyone seems to rave about. By the time I actually
take the plunge and buy the damn thing, the good lens may not be around
at all.

>Really? What I find at Amazon is "Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 ED
>Digital Zoom Lens (Black) by Olympus Buy new : $899.99" And it's f/6.7
>at the long end, REALLY slow.
>
>And the Panasonic 100-300/4.0-5.6 is now showing ar $848.50. Ouch.

Yes, true telephoto is seeming rather ouchy. But here is the Olympus
for $399:

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Panasonic-Standard/dp/B000V72AXM/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338419924&sr=1-1

I think the one you cited doesn't say "four thirds"; the one I linked to
to does.

And here is the Panasonic four-thirds 100-300mm for $499:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-100-300mm-4-0-5-6-OIS-Interchangeable/dp/B0043VE28S/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338420086&sr=1-1

So, telephotos for four-thirds are significantly cheaper than for other
SLR's, and when used with micro four-thirds sensors, are more telephotoey.
That, in a nutshell, is why I want to go micro four-thirds instead of
"real" SLR.

Now, I have been mentally doubling the focal lengths of these lenses to
get the 35mm equivalents--should I be doing something similar with the
f numbers? Or is that already taken care of, being a ratio?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> In article <jq4gch$hor$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David J Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
>>> Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
>>> price of the Panasonic version.
>>
>>Paul,
>>
>>In-lens IS does not need to add substantially to the price, as proved by
>>lenses in the Nikon DSLR range. Perhaps the Panasonic optical design is
>>simply better?
>>
>>Think carefully before buying a telephoto lens without IS (and try holding
>>the camera & lens on a moving ship in windy conditions...).
>
> I have been assuming that a 300mm (600mm equivalent) would be used only
> with a tripod; is IS really good enough to use a telephoto like that
> handheld?

Depends on the light. If you can use 1/1000 second exposure,
hand-holding 600mm-equivalent isn't a problem.

I haven't yet tried putting the Sigma 120-400 on the Micro Four Thirds
adapter. In fact nothing longer than 85mm that I recall.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> So, telephotos for four-thirds are significantly cheaper than for other
> SLR's, and when used with micro four-thirds sensors, are more telephotoey.
> That, in a nutshell, is why I want to go micro four-thirds instead of
> "real" SLR.

I'm mostly fighting that -- because I have so much better high ISO on my
DSLR, and because one of my uses for telephotos also benefits from
high-end AF.

> Now, I have been mentally doubling the focal lengths of these lenses to
> get the 35mm equivalents--should I be doing something similar with the
> f numbers? Or is that already taken care of, being a ratio?

Already taken care of. Angle of view is cut in half, but aperture stays
the same. Note that depth of field is not the same. Mostly that's a
constraint rather than a goal for me, so I mostly ignore it in lens
selection, but. Sometimes.

[David J Taylor]

> Many of the telephotos I most value do not come in IS versions. It's
> fine if I'm buying super-telephotos for wildlife (at 4- and 5-figure
> prices), but 85, 105, and 135 lenses tend not to have it. Even prime
> 200mm lenses tend not to.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

I suspect there is a slight trade-off there - I don't buy 4- or 5-figure
priced lenses, nor (with on exception) fixed focus lenses. Consequently,
my lenses are not of the very best quality, and hence will produce
somewhat better images when stopped down. Having the stabilisation allows
me to use the lenses at smaller apertures with the consequent longer
exposures.

But I am in the position of having sold off all my bulky 35mm SLR kit, and
started from scratch with DX format and more modern lenses, which have
tended to include VR for little extra cost.

Cheers,
David

[David J Taylor]

>>Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without
>>IS.
>>For me, it's a must-have feature.
>
> At what point would you give up on hand-holding the camera? I.e., since
> you are supposed to turn off IS if the camera is on a tripod, a lens
> "long"
> enough to require a a tripod anyway wouldn't need IS, in theory.
>
> --
> Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
> pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief,
> nor

Virtually all of my photos are taken on location, without a tripod. For
exposures longer than 1/10s (say) I try and brace the camera as best I
can. I've even made several second exposure that way. Virtually the only
time I use a tripod is at home for "test" or "studio" style shots.

Here's a one-second hand-held shot, 35mm f/1.8, no IS.

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/NorthernNorway/album/slides/2010-02-17-2158-45.html

Cheers,
David

[David J Taylor]

> I have been assuming that a 300mm (600mm equivalent) would be used only
> with a tripod; is IS really good enough to use a telephoto like that
> handheld?
>
> --
> Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
> pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief,
> nor

Absolutely! With a 4-stop gain (Nikon VR II) you could use a shutter
speed as low as around 1/40s. What light would that allow you to work in?
In good conditions, you could use an exposure of around 1/500s - 1/000s
and not even need the benefit IS/VR. For me, the stabilisation of the
image in the viewfinder when it's windy or you are on a moving platform is
a major advantage of VR, in addition to the longer exposure it allows.

Cheers,
David

[C. Neil Ellwood]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:16:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> "David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2a2f430c3...@news.supernews.com...
>>> In article <jq1pfc$aus$1...@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...
>>>> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than
>>>> a do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational
>>>> jitter, but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).
>>>
>>> Not all lenses are IS...
>>
>> Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without
>> IS. For me, it's a must-have feature.
>
> Many of the telephotos I most value do not come in IS versions. It's
> fine if I'm buying super-telephotos for wildlife (at 4- and 5-figure
> prices), but 85, 105, and 135 lenses tend not to have it. Even prime
> 200mm lenses tend not to.

Canon have a 200mm IS lens it has a max aperture of f2.0 and your wallet
will wince if you show it - £73499.99 rrp.

Why wasn't my wife rich.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>> Now, I have been mentally doubling the focal lengths of these lenses to
>> get the 35mm equivalents--should I be doing something similar with the
>> f numbers? Or is that already taken care of, being a ratio?

> Already taken care of. Angle of view is cut in half, but aperture stays
> the same.

You only get 1/4th of the light (compared to 35mm) on a 1/4th
sized sensor, so that cancels out. (Unless you're short of
light).

> Note that depth of field is not the same.

It's about 1 stop deeper than DSLR-crop and about 2 stops deeper
than FF. Nice if you want a deep DOF anyway (but then FF can stop
down 2 stops and raise ISO by 2 stops and still not be worse off),
not so good if you want to go real shallow.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> I have been assuming that a 300mm (600mm equivalent) would be used only
> with a tripod; is IS really good enough to use a telephoto like that
> handheld?

The usual rule of 1/f (35mm) seconds yields 1/600s. As far as
I know this rule of thumb (which is accurate only to 1 stop)
tends to fail at long lenses, which need faster times. So let's
say 1/1500s.

With an IS of 3-4 stops gain (and for once the gain seems to be
an understatement) you'd get 1/200s or 1/100s, which at ISO 100
and f/8 (you probably want to stop down a bit) means LV 13-14.
That's enough for anything in a cloudy-bright daylight to
noon-to-afternoon sun (not overcast, not in the shade), or if
you shoot the moon, a 3/4 to full moon.

Raise the ISO to 400 and you can probably work even when the
subject is in open shade (and the sun shines) or when it's
bright-overcast. (If ISO 400's noise free enough for you is
the other question.)

So yes, there are conditions when handheld shooting --- given
proper technique for framing and the like --- is possible.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>>>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>>>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
>>>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

>>> You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
>>> lenses at a sane price.

>> You also won't get that much resolution with compact cameras
>> at such long focal lengths (diffraction due to small
>> apertures compared to the sensor size).

>>> But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
>>> that's *so much* better than 35mm.

>> I doubt that "that's *so much* better than 35mm".

> It is if you include the f/5.6 aperture at 600mm-e.

With an equivalent DOF of f/11 on a 35mm camera.
600mm f/11 isn't that hard to beat. Just take an 70-300 and
a 2x converter. :-)

>> - 400mm (effective 640mm as 35mm equivalent) is quite available,
>> though at a somewhat higher price:
>> * 570 EUR (Amazon): Tokina AT-XD 80-400mm 4.5-5.6
>> * <800 EUR: Sigma AF 120-400mm 4.5-5.6 DG APO HSM OS

> That Sigma is $999 at Amazon right now. I paid about $850 for it a few
> years ago.

761,99 EUR. And Amazon is not the cheapest source (however,
it is not a fly-by-night).

>> (no, they aren't the best lenses. Just the cheap ones.)

>> I don't see that much of a monetary advantage ...

> I was comparing to 35mm, not to DX crop.

Crop is a valid choice between 4/3rds and 35mm.

And then there are all the cheap catadioptric solutions. :-)

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Does it work with EOS FF cameras?

> Why wasn't my wife rich.

Because then she might not have been your wife? :-)

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:

>> I have been assuming that a 300mm (600mm equivalent) would be used only
>> with a tripod; is IS really good enough to use a telephoto like that
>> handheld?

> Absolutely! With a 4-stop gain (Nikon VR II) you could use a shutter
> speed as low as around 1/40s. What light would that allow you to work
> in? In good conditions, you could use an exposure of around 1/500s -
> 1/000s and not even need the benefit IS/VR. For me, the stabilisation
> of the image in the viewfinder when it's windy or you are on a moving
> platform is a major advantage of VR, in addition to the longer
> exposure it allows.

Not that I get anywhere NEAR 4 stops gain consistently. 1/40s at
200mm-e works for me nearly as often without IS as with.

I did spend a few hours at the zoo today, shooting exclusively with the
120-400, sometimes on a tripod and sometimes handheld (depending mostly
on the subject movement). I sometimes got over a stop of benefit from
the IS, it looks like.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[David Dyer-Bennet]

USD 6000, looks like (at B&H). AND it has IS.

Interestingly, Nikon has one as well, with VRII, and it's actually a
couple of dollars cheaper.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

> C. Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:16:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>> Many of the telephotos I most value do not come in IS versions. It's
>>> fine if I'm buying super-telephotos for wildlife (at 4- and 5-figure
>>> prices), but 85, 105, and 135 lenses tend not to have it. Even prime
>>> 200mm lenses tend not to.
>
>> Canon have a 200mm IS lens it has a max aperture of f2.0 and your wallet
>> will wince if you show it - £73499.99 rrp.
>
> Does it work with EOS FF cameras?

Yes, of course. (Well, it says it does.)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been assuming that a 300mm (600mm equivalent) would be used only
>> with a tripod; is IS really good enough to use a telephoto like that
>> handheld?
>
> The usual rule of 1/f (35mm) seconds yields 1/600s. As far as
> I know this rule of thumb (which is accurate only to 1 stop)
> tends to fail at long lenses, which need faster times. So let's
> say 1/1500s.
>
> With an IS of 3-4 stops gain (and for once the gain seems to be
> an understatement) you'd get 1/200s or 1/100s, which at ISO 100
> and f/8 (you probably want to stop down a bit) means LV 13-14.
> That's enough for anything in a cloudy-bright daylight to
> noon-to-afternoon sun (not overcast, not in the shade), or if
> you shoot the moon, a 3/4 to full moon.
>
> Raise the ISO to 400 and you can probably work even when the
> subject is in open shade (and the sun shines) or when it's
> bright-overcast. (If ISO 400's noise free enough for you is
> the other question.)

If you're buying the super-teles, there's no excuse not having a body
that lets you use ISO 400 :-).

> So yes, there are conditions when handheld shooting --- given
> proper technique for framing and the like --- is possible.

I shot a lot handheld at the zoo today, as I said. ISOs up to 3200, but
on the D700 that's easily tolerable.

[David J Taylor]

> Not that I get anywhere NEAR 4 stops gain consistently. 1/40s at
> 200mm-e works for me nearly as often without IS as with.
>
> I did spend a few hours at the zoo today, shooting exclusively with the
> 120-400, sometimes on a tripod and sometimes handheld (depending mostly
> on the subject movement). I sometimes got over a stop of benefit from
> the IS, it looks like.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

A few sites have measured gain through VR/IS, but I don't know whether
there is an industry standard measurement. I rather suspect not. If you
are a stable lens holder, as it seems, then you may well get less gain.
It seems that you technique alone provides a couple of stops. I also
found this when shooting 35mm film, that I could go well under "1 / focal
length" without problems. Mind you, I wasn't doing large prints then, but
slide projection onto a large screen.

As I mentioned before, having the image be more stable in the viewfinder
(under windy or other adverse conditions) is a major improvement through
VR/IS for me, and having the image more stable on the focus and exposure
sensors can't be a bad thing either.

Cheers,
David

[C. Neil Ellwood]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:15:59 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> C. Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:16:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>> Many of the telephotos I most value do not come in IS versions. It's
>>> fine if I'm buying super-telephotos for wildlife (at 4- and 5-figure
>>> prices), but 85, 105, and 135 lenses tend not to have it. Even prime
>>> 200mm lenses tend not to.
>
>> Canon have a 200mm IS lens it has a max aperture of f2.0 and your
>> wallet will wince if you show it - £73499.99 rrp.
>
> Does it work with EOS FF cameras?

It is an EF lens.

>
>> Why wasn't my wife rich.
>
> Because then she might not have been your wife? :-)

More than likely.
>
> -Wolfgang

[Alfred Molon]

In article <ylfkzk8n...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...

> I shot a lot handheld at the zoo today, as I said. ISOs up to 3200, but
> on the D700 that's easily tolerable.

I've noticed that high ISO shooting in bright daylight is less noisy
than in low light conditions. Another reason why the noise is more
tolerable.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ylfkzk8n...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> I shot a lot handheld at the zoo today, as I said. ISOs up to 3200, but
>> on the D700 that's easily tolerable.

> I've noticed that high ISO shooting in bright daylight is less noisy
> than in low light conditions. Another reason why the noise is more
> tolerable.

Try high ISO once high-key and once low-key with the identical
bright daylight and again with the low light conditions.

You'll probably find that shadows are noisy and that the blue
channel is more noisy if you use incancescent light. Neither has
direct impact with daylight versus low light.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>> C. Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:16:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>>>> Many of the telephotos I most value do not come in IS versions. It's
>>>> fine if I'm buying super-telephotos for wildlife (at 4- and 5-figure
>>>> prices), but 85, 105, and 135 lenses tend not to have it. Even prime
>>>> 200mm lenses tend not to.

>>> Canon have a 200mm IS lens it has a max aperture of f2.0 and your wallet
>>> will wince if you show it - £73499.99 rrp.

>> Does it work with EOS FF cameras?

> Yes, of course. (Well, it says it does.)

And that costs £73k? 3k or 5k, OK, but it's not the 1200mm ...
The price sounds like a TV or at least video lens ...

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yep, that's certainly my experience.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I think it's the units -- RRP. I'ts USD 6000 at B&H.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>>>> C. Neil Ellwood <cral.el...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:16:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>>>>> Canon have a 200mm IS lens it has a max aperture of f2.0 and your wallet
>>>>> will wince if you show it - £73499.99 rrp.

>>>> Does it work with EOS FF cameras?

>>> Yes, of course. (Well, it says it does.)

>> And that costs £73k? 3k or 5k, OK, but it's not the 1200mm ...
>> The price sounds like a TV or at least video lens ...

> I think it's the units -- RRP. I'ts USD 6000 at B&H.

Recommended Retail Price well over ten times higher than the
street price? Really??

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Okay, never occurred to me that's what RRP might mean (the usual term is
MSRP, Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price). I thought it was a foreign
currency identifier; though now that I look, I can't find one by that
name.