With the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5, and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, the MFT technology is getting tantalizingly close to the best of DSLR performance. Perhaps only 1 or 2 generations and they will be there in their own right ..... bring on the Olympus OM-G! :king:
where are the seriously long, fast lenses?? A 300 f4 is just about it ..... I know some will say these would upset the balance of the outfit, but with such a small sensor you need all the aperture you can get....
Are such lightweight purpose designed high performance lenses on the cards for MFT? .
I personally am too old to be excited about lenses that weigh many lbs. I would not want a lens heavier than the pana-Leica lens I have now. If you need reach corresponding to 1200mm then you are at a distance where air movement likely has deteriorated the result anyway. This might be different if you take photos in the Arctic-- but I live in the tropics.
Niels
Dave, I would like to ask you what size sensor you are used to. The attached images is uncropped at 728 mm equivalent. At 1200 you would not have been able to keep the whole thing inside the frame.
The attached image is completely unedited, and I have not evaluated whether this or one of the others will be edited. So do not criticize the camera due to flaws in this image. I expect I can do better.
Niels
The Oly is close - but not quite. Not quite D500 levels of AF tracking, or sensor range, and the EVF lag and blackouts is probably the biggest issue. Definitely headed in the right direction though, and mirrorless is no doubt the future.Personally, I think the Olympus E-M1 mk 2 has already arrived in terms of matching the performance of apsc DSLRs. It has comparable DXOmark sensor scores, and even exceeds the best such DSLRs in some respects such as fps burst shooting.
For me, the promise of micro 4/3rds has been to develop a birding camera/lens combo that is light enough to comfortably carrier around all day, while getting image quality comparable to apsc DSLRs, but with superior “reach” than the typical hand carried dslr setup due to the 2x crop factor. I think with the new bodies and lenses, that promise has now been fulfilled.
The lenses you are suggesting would eliminate one of the benefits of MFT: being light enough to carry around comfortably all day. I find with the new bodies, which are incrementally heavier than the old, carrying around the Oly 300 f4 (w/ teleconverter) is as much weight as I want to carry. For the first time (and I've been using mft for 5 years), I get muscle fatigue and have to shift carrying shoulders frequently when using that lens. (The lighter 100-400 is less of a burden).
I haven't seen any references to longer or faster lenses being in the works. And for the reasons I mention, I probably wouldn't be interested in them myself. There already exist long, heavy, fast lenses for dslrs, if that is what you are looking for.
As for not getting excited about the PL100-400 f4.5-f6.3, maybe it will help if you think of it as being a 200-800 equivalent? Also, the IS in these cameras/lenses is very good; so they encourage you to develop your skills at shooting at lower shutter speeds, which can help offset the restraints of the narrow aperture.
My 2 cents.
Yep, I would agree with this. Both 1200mm+ and fast apertures are needed to capture the little geewhizzits!Although you are right about distortion due to haze much depends on how big your subject is in the first place. If you want a small bird fairly full in the frame 1200mm isn't really that much reach.
The Oly is close - but not quite. Not quite D500 levels of AF tracking, or sensor range, and the EVF lag and blackouts is probably the biggest issue. Definitely headed in the right direction though, and mirrorless is no doubt the future.
There is the opportunity to make even 600mm long, fast f4 purpose designed lenses for MFT that are much lighter than their FF counterparts. I think it seriously hamstrings the system not to.
Chosun :gh:
Dave, I would like to ask you what size sensor you are used to. The attached images is uncropped at 728 mm equivalent. At 1200 you would not have been able to keep the whole thing inside the frame.
The attached image is completely unedited, and I have not evaluated whether this or one of the others will be edited. So do not criticize the camera due to flaws in this image. I expect I can do better.
Niels
Yes, with a standard refractive design, the changes would be incremental in nature, but still very worthwhile.Unfortunately a 600mm F4 is still going to have the same amount of heavy glass in it-the objective lenses are still going to be 150mm in diameter and 20-40mm thick. The length will not change significantly either, the best you could hope for is a slight reduction due to the shorter flange depth.
Diffractive optics will help, and will save a bit of weight, though there are drawbacks with them-presumably why Canon and Nikon arent using them in the big lenses.