Using m4/3 system for landscape

T

taxboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,985
Edit My Images
Yes
As per the title I'm sure there are plenty on here using these and I was looking for your thoughts on changing from a dslr to it for landscape use e.g any quality issues, handling issues, lack of lenses etc that sort of thing.

The big appeal for me is the lack of weight but I'm not certain if I can justify the cost of an additional system

All comments appreciated
 
I use both FF and MFT for landscapes and there is little in it for finished images. MFT is great for having everything in focus and there is no shortage of lenses or filters and it is small and light. And that is what swings it for me I can take the body and 3 lenses for less than the 6D plus one lens.
AboveChapelStile by TheWub, on Flickr
 
I normally use a Nikon D810 for landscapes but wanted something lighter / smaller to carry around when going out with the wife.

I got myself a little Olympus Pen F as a 50th birthday present.

I must admit that the D810 hasn't been used for a couple of months and the Olympus goes with me on most trips.

Sleepy Staithes by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Bolton Abbey by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Last of the Autumn sunshine by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Time Tunnel by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
A quiet moment (away from the Xmas shopping) by Dave Semmens, on Flickr

The 9-18 lens is fantastic and tiny :)
 
Last edited:
Dave Semmens said:
I normally use a Nikon D810 for landscapes but wanted something lighter / smaller to carry around when going out with the wife.

I got myself a little Olympus Pen F as a 50th birthday present.

I must admit that the D810 hasn't been used for a couple of months and the Olympus goes with me on most trips.

Sleepy Staithes by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Bolton Abbey by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Last of the Autumn sunshine by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Time Tunnel by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
A quiet moment (away from the Xmas shopping) by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Love the last one Dave :)

edit: the arches are great too.
 
Last edited:
I have both an Olympus OMD EM1 and a Canon 6D. I hardly ever use the 6D as I prefer the way the Olympus works and it is much lighter to take on holiday. Also you can get away with a smaller tripod. I am seriously considering selling all my Canon kit to fund the new EM1 mark 2. In good light there is little to choose between the image quality from each camera. When using high ISO the Canon is far superior. However, I hardly ever need to use very high ISO on the Olympus as the pro lenses are sharp at F2.8 and the amazing image stabilisation means you can hand hold quite slow shutter speeds. With the new EM1 mark 2 with the new 12-100 lens fitted I have seen examples of hand held shots of up to 5 seconds that are sharp.

Here are a couple I took this summer for an example:


url=https://flic.kr/p/LZmjpc]Col De Aspin View[/url] by Andrew Reynolds, on Flickr


Dom Luis Bridge.JPG by Andrew Reynolds, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
That's the thing that did it for me, in good light I had to go to 100% and actively look for differences to see any at all.

Yes low light isn't as good as the FF kit I (used to - sold it all) have but still good enough for all but night-football.
 
It is also worth mentioning that the Olympus (not sure about Panasonics but someone can confirm) also adds some great features that really help with actually taking photos. I wish my DSLR had the same features:

Live Bulb
Live Time
Auto focus stacking in camera
True custom modes that save every setting
IBIS that means all lenses are stabilised and it works really well.
Fully adjustable screen (on my Pen F)
 
Thanks for all the input together with some cracking images. For those that state its not as good as a full frame for noise suggest the tipping point where I so starts to become an issue.
 
I can only echo what everyone else has said so far. I use a Panasonic GX8 with a combination of Olympus, Panasonic and Sigma lenses for landscape work, and have yet to find the system lacking. I've had a print made from this combination make it into the top 3 in my camera club landscape competition. The point that @Dave Semmens makes though is a good one. When the time comes to replace my GX8, I will look very closely at the Olympus bodies for the very reasons he lists. It seems to me that Panasonic have positioned their m4/3 bodies to be ever more videocentric but capable of great stills, where as Olympus bodies are very much photography centric with ever improving video capability.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
I only use m4/3 and 4/3 before that. I am very happy with it and often use two cameras at once. The weather sealed models are great and stand up to the abuse they recieve from the way I work

Buttermere reflections 4 by Alf Branch, on Flickr


My E-M1 got wet at Niagra falls but never faltered it has been covered in sea water too suffered hail stones etc too

Close-to-the-horseshoe by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
taxboy said:
Thanks for all the input together with some cracking images. For those that state its not as good as a full frame for noise suggest the tipping point where I so starts to become an issue.
Click to expand...
Smaller sensors collect less light and so need more amplification, this gives more noise at an equivalent ISO. When it becomes an issue is very much dependent on the sensor and what you are doing. Newer sensors are much better than older ones and for a lot of landscale work you can put it on a tripod, keep the ISO low and increase the shutter speed.
 
I own a D800 and a Sony A6000 mirrorless and both are capable of producing great images, I do enjoy the weight advantage the mirrorless system has over FF and it's my choice when travelling, on holiday etc.

I do still stick with the D800 for my "serious" landscape shots though as I do find its dynamic range and ability to recover shadow detail noise free noticeably better than the Sony, the extra detail captured does start to show too when you start printing large prints although I'm talking 30x20inch and larger.

Ultimately they're both great options and I completely understand why mirrorless is becoming so popular and wouldn't hesitate to recommend one.

Simon
 
taxboy said:
Thanks for all the input together with some cracking images. For those that state its not as good as a full frame for noise suggest the tipping point where I so starts to become an issue.
Click to expand...

It depends on your use and how big you want to display. We have an E-M10, and for web work probably 800-1600 tops for a well exposed image. If I were printing to 30"X20" then I wouldn't want to go above base ISO (generally 200). There's an astro/night image from one of the forum users posted on TP where at first glance it looks OK, but on more careful examination fine detail is smeared & blurred by the sensor noise, even at web size. Andrew's lovely bridge shot above is at base ISO.

Compared to my D610 and sony a58 the sensor is noisy, and if you're a pixel peeper then it's unlikely you'll be happy at more than 200.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
For me the biggest drawback in using a m4/3 system is battery life; it's really poor in a panasonic gx7 compared to the Canon kit I'm used to.......
Click to expand...
Shot an hour of my lad at ruby on Sunday with a telephoto lens on AF and high speed burst, must have taken well over a hundred shots, battery still going strong.
 
It depends, they always say the best camera is the one you have with you :)

I moved away from DSLRs as dragging a Nikon pro body and large glass up a hill wasn't fun, so mirrorless made this easier, and I shoot more.

Shoot it, print it, hang it.

Unless you want to look on a screen, and pixel peep for hours on end and back yourself into disappointment.

If you are shooting for billboards then maybe worry a little.
If you are shooting for fun, shoot. I never look at an image closer than 50%
 
jerry12953 said:
For me the biggest drawback in using a m4/3 system is battery life; it's really poor in a panasonic gx7 compared to the Canon kit I'm used to.......
Click to expand...

Good point - just a couple of hundred shots in the E-M10 vs 1100+ in both the a58 and D610.
 
I've moved from DSLR to mirrorless. I've used some great Panasonic and Oly cameras. I was amazed with my gx7 and 20mm lens combo at how sharp it was, but using Fuji now and I'm amazed at the detail recovery available even when just shooting jpg compared to M4/3. I think I'll stick with fuji, but time will tell... I do like the M4/3 equipment for size convenience and still brilliant performance. Also choice of lenses and price... But there's something about Fuji.
 
Thanks for all the input. Its much appreciated. I think I may be spending some of the Xmas break researching suitable cameras. I expect I'll be back to the forum once I've got a short list !
 
taxboy said:
Thanks for all the input. Its much appreciated. I think I may be spending some of the Xmas break researching suitable cameras. I expect I'll be back to the forum once I've got a short list !
Click to expand...
I hope whatever you choose suits your needs.
 
None of the great images posted in this thread are screaming out that they were shot on m4/3 cameras. So while I have no experience of using an m4/3 camera, it seems they are well capable of delivering good results.
 
A few years back I took a Canon 1DIV and bevvy of L lenses to the Faroe Islands, along with an Olympus OMD-EM5 and a 9-18, 20 and 45 lenses.

I did a comparison side-by-side shot using both cameras and honestly couldn't really see any difference. I then used the Olympus constantly for the rest of the trip.

I did a video with some stills in it here which you might find amusing (video done with the Olympus too):
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UeCoKVvVbs
 
TBH you could get close to this level of quality with a better 1" sensor compact, but yes, the images are great.
 
What about filters? Do people still go for LEE type systems or the smaller Cokin P series?

P.S Sorry to gate crash your thread @taxboy
 
twhite87 said:
What about filters? Do people still go for LEE type systems or the smaller Cokin P series?

P.S Sorry to gate crash your thread @taxboy
Click to expand...

Tim, I use the Formatt HiTech 67mm filters. I find them a really compromise between quality and cost - cheaper than Lee (excluding the Firecrest ND filters where there's little in it) and way better quality than Cokin (i.e. very little colour cast even when stacking filters). Having said that, I find that the holder causes some vignetting on my (fairly recently acquired) Oly 12-40mm at the 12mm end, so I may end up upgrading to a larger set of filters at some point.

Simon.
 
TBH the only filters I use are a polariser or a ND type that screw on.
 
srhmoto said:
Tim, I use the Formatt HiTech 67mm filters. I find them a really compromise between quality and cost - cheaper than Lee (excluding the Firecrest ND filters where there's little in it) and way better quality than Cokin (i.e. very little colour cast even when stacking filters). Having said that, I find that the holder causes some vignetting on my (fairly recently acquired) Oly 12-40mm at the 12mm end, so I may end up upgrading to a larger set of filters at some point.

Simon.
Click to expand...

Using a Cokin Type A holder will probably help with the vignetting, as the slots to hold the filters are a lot shorter and kept well away from the corners.
Not a huge fan of the Hitech holder to be honest, in fact mine sits in a drawer most of the time in favour of an ancient Cokin A and another from Boots the chemist dating back to the early 1980's. Only problem is that you will need different mounting rings aswell, they are a lot smaller than the Hitech ones.
I cant say for certain it will work with your 12-40mm as I dont have one, but reasonably confident it will based on the geometry of the holder.
 
Steve B said:
Using a Cokin Type A holder will probably help with the vignetting, as the slots to hold the filters are a lot shorter and kept well away from the corners.
Not a huge fan of the Hitech holder to be honest, in fact mine sits in a drawer most of the time in favour of an ancient Cokin A and another from Boots the chemist dating back to the early 1980's. Only problem is that you will need different mounting rings aswell, they are a lot smaller than the Hitech ones.
I cant say for certain it will work with your 12-40mm as I dont have one, but reasonably confident it will based on the geometry of the holder.
Click to expand...

Cheers Steve, I shall look into that :-).

Simon.
 
I use the 100mm Lee system with Hitech filters. I already have these for my Nikon DSLR so no point paying more out.

I just bought 3 77mm step up adaptors (each lens is a different size) for around £5 each and am ready to go. The step ups also allow me to use a screw in polariser or 4 and 10 stop circular filters if I am travelling light (without the Lee bits)

Its quite funny that half my bag is taken up with the Lee holder/ filters in a pouch and the camera and 3 lenses (that give me equivalent 18 to 300mm coverage) take up the other half.
 
I use Formatt Hitech mostly though I do have Cokin Nuances 10 stop filter which is very neutral.
They are 85mm (P size) filters the Aluminium filter holder is good but I get vignetting with two slots plus the polariser at 9mm on the 9-18mm and 12mm on the 12-40mm f2.8 at 12mm.

I am getting another for 1 slot plus polariser to get round this.
 
Interesting thread indeed.
I wonder if I may pose a question to those here scholared in the ways of the m4/3. I bought my wife a couple of years ago a Panasonic G5 which she uses and I have been teaching her photography with. Nice little camera may I say (apart from I get lost in the menus) However my question is about the lenses. Are all m4/3 lenses interchangeable? I seem to have picked up the idea through bits and pieces I've read that the lens mounts are the same across the manufacturers, is that so?
Cheers Guys

Oh and Merry Christmas to all(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top