Looking into the OM-D system

[outwithmycamera]

I'm starting to consider the om-d micro 4/3s system as a replacement for my dslr gear that was stolen recently. I want to go lighter and more compact at this point but haven't worked out yet which body appeals to me most - I could go for any of the e-m1 or e-m5 variants. At the moment however, I'm mostly interested in deciding which lenses to put on whatever body I decide on. The 14-42 kit lens covers a decent range and seems good optically, but it's slow - what would be a good alternative that is faster? I was also looking at the Zuiko 12-40, which is faster but commensurately expensive. My interests are in landscapes, close ups (mostly nature subjects), architecture, and the ability to isolate subject from background, so recommendations of lenses with strengths in these areas would be helpful. I can see the 14-42 as a general walk around lens, and situations where maximum DoF is desirable, but would want both wider and longer options, and macro capabilities. I'm not concerned about specifying a budget just yet as all of this will come together piecemeal over the next year as I build up a new system. Appreciate your thoughts!

[mugge]

Chris, I have the e-m1 and also the Zuiko 12-40. I have used this camera and lens for about 12 months and I love it. If you are conscious about budget also consider the 40-150 4.6 (I think). It is a forth of the cost of the 40-150 2.8. It is not a bad lens, a bit 'plasticly' but will take decent pictures.
Cheers Ole

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Chris,

Can I ask what Camera and Lenses you are/were used to shooting with?

Thanks, Dave

[jcuknz]

I chose Panasonic, brand loyalty or 'habit' and since I was using a bridge camera with a x12 zoom I found the kit lens extremely limiting and frustrating and went for the 14-140 zoom and the addition of a two dioptre CU lens enables me to take most small things with 50mm across filling the frame. Bearing in mind that you do not have to go close for tight framing when you have a longer lens [ 280mm Angle of view in this case...... not as good as the 430mm {40mm across}of my bridge camera but I am surviving ] Subsequently getting a 10/16mm extension tube set for smaller stuff.
But if you didn't have the longish zoom/lens with your DSLR you will find the shorter kit lens very good ... my problem was I like reach

[outwithmycamera]

Hi Chris,

Can I ask what Camera and Lenses you are/were used to shooting with?

Thanks, Dave

Hi Dave, I still have a Nikon D80 and a Tokina 12-24 lens attached - thats what i was carrying when someone got into my car and took my bag that had a variety of lenses (a 50-135, 18-70, 105mm macro, 50mm) and a Canon eos-m with a 22mm lens attached. I often used the Tokina 12-24 and 50-135 as a pretty easy 2-lens walk around kit though neither of those lenses can be considered small or light.

Chris

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Dave, I still have a Nikon D80 and a Tokina 12-24 lens attached - thats what i was carrying when someone got into my car and took my bag that had a variety of lenses (a 50-135, 18-70, 105mm macro, 50mm) and a Canon eos-m with a 22mm lens attached. I often used the Tokina 12-24 and 50-135 as a pretty easy 2-lens walk around kit though neither of those lenses can be considered small or light.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the info. - the reason I asked was to see what you were used to with regard to lens apertures and crop factor.

This is relevant if considering the move from (as it turns out) APS-C to m4/3.

As you probably know, your Canon gear had a crop factor of 1.6 and m4/3 has a crop factor of 2.

The effects you may notice is that the angle of view for a given numeric focal length will be a bit tighter in m4/3.

That said; most of the m4/3 kit lenses will have their focal length ranges tailored to give quite a similar angle of view range to a standard kit lens in any format.
e.g. The 18-70 (on Canon) approx. = 14-42 (on m4/3).

You did mention "the ability to isolate subject from background", which I assume means by use of a narrow DoF, meaning with a fast lens. The point I am trying make is that comparing between formats, the smaller sensor of m4/3 will make almost a stop difference to to the DoF you experience. By this I mean that if you had an f/2.8 lens on the Canon system (and were used to the amount of DoF that gave you), you will need to be able to achieve almost f/2 on an m4/3 lens to achieve the same Depth of Field (all other things being equal).

So, although the faster lenses are more expensive, you may want/have to spend that money to achieve the subject isolation you desire.

It's just one of the compromises you have to accept in return for the advantages of smaller kit when reducing format size.

Of course, even this can be an advantage; it works in your favour for macro, where more DoF is a good thing.


Bottom line is that between APS-C and m4/3, and given that I don't think you had any particularly fast lenses, you may not even notice the DoF increase, but had you been moving 'down' from FF, I'm sure it would have been quite noticeable (since then it would have been 2 stops).

Hope that helps, Dave

[Manfred M]

Chris - the one thing that you can do if you go mFT is use both Olympus or Panasonic lenses on the Olympus body. The mFT lenses are 100% interchangeable. Of course there are always the usual third-party lens suppliers as well. Both Panasonic and Olympus lenses are usually of equal quality; you should check the reviews to see which one is better value for money or optically better. Panasonic also puts out Leica branded lenses. These are primes only, not inexpensive, but the reviews have generally been very, very good.

There are a few more third party players in or about to enter the mFT market. Cosina's Voigtländer line is excellent and the lenses are produced in a more traditional metal body. They are 100% manual focus. There are a couple of really fast lenses (f/1 or faster) that are very popular with video shooter because of their extremely narrow depth of field (helps overcome the 2-stop loss of DoF over FF). Carl Zeiss has subcontracted the manufacture of all their small format lenses to Cosina, so they do know how to build high quality lenses.

I understand that both Zeiss and Schneider-Kreuznach have announced that they will be entering the mFT lens business and should be shipping before the end of the year.

The other consideration is the Panasonic line of mFT bodies. I went that route when I picked up a GX-7 about 18 months ago. When I was handling the Olympus bodies, I just did not like the way they felt in my hands and the way they operated, so I went the Panny route. Mechanically and optically they are easily as good as the Olympus products.

[outwithmycamera]

Thanks for to Manfred and Dave - the loss of DoF as you point out is one of the concerns that I have about entering the mFT space. None of my lenses were in the 1.4 or faster category but the ones i used most were moderately fast and I favor constant aperture lenses over variable aperture - the Nikon F mount lenses were my 12-24 (a constant f/4) and the 50-135 was a constant f/2.8, the 50mm was f/1.8 and the 22mm on my EOS-M was f/2.0. I also need to get into a brick and mortar store and handle some of these bodies because I need to make sure i understand the ergonomics of each, including the APS-C bodies that I am evaluating. My thinking of late is to spend more money on lenses than on the body, but I want to make sure my body is reasonably up to date and capable, so the challenge is finding that tipping point - for instance, if IQ can be held constant, I would consider an olympus em-5 or a fuji x-e1 which are fairly inexpensive, and spend the savings i get from using those on glass. The problem is that the updated versions of those bodies have some very tempting desirable attributes.

I appreciate the observations and suggestions, I'm intrigued with (and was not aware of) the entry of Zeiss and others into the mFT space, so will be watching more closely for announcements from that quarter.

The shot below was taken with my EOS-M with the 22mm lens, Mr. Toad was very cooperative. I'm fairly frustrated that Canon has given such short shrift to the mirrorless market, there is a lot to like about the M cameras, but I am not trusting Canon to support it at the moment.

[Manfred M]

I also need to get into a brick and mortar store and handle some of these bodies because I need to make sure i understand the ergonomics of each, including the APS-C bodies that I am evaluating.

Getting out there and seeing and feeling the camera in your hands is critical, in my view. That's how I ended up going Nikon, when I bought my first DSLR. The Canon bodies did not feel right in my hands and I was concerned that I might drop one because of the surface finsh and hand grips. I don't have large hands either.

For my personal way of shooting; making adjustments by pressing buttons and turning dials, without ever taking my eye off the viewfinder, is a bit problematic on a mFT body. A small body means minimal on-camera real estate for controls.

The main reason I went for the GX7 was size and weight. My wife and I were in South Asia last fall, backpacking for two months. You only have so much space in a backpack. My biggest beef with mFT camera (and that includes all the ones I looked at in the shop, is that camera adjustments are more difficult because the buttons are small and much of the functionality is menu drive. I was missing shots because of this limitation.

[inkista]

Just my opinion, but here's my take on the closest MFT analogs to the lenses you say you already have:

Tokina 12-24 (18-36 equiv)
Olympus 9-18 f/4-5.6 (18-36 equiv)

50-135/2.8 (75-200 equiv.)
Panasonic 35-100/2.8 (70-200 equiv.)

18-70 (28-105 equiv.)
Olympus 12-50 f/3.5-6.3 EZ (24-100 equiv.)

105mm macro (150 equiv.)
Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro. (120 equiv.)

50mm (75mm equiv.)
Olympus 25/1.8 (50 equiv)
Panasonic Leica 25/1.4 (50 equiv. if you really want to spoil yourself)
Olympus 45/1.8 (90 equiv) [my fave lens of my mft gear]

EF-M 22mm (35 equiv)
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 (40 equiv. pancake)
Olympus 17/1.8 (35 equiv.)
Olympus 17/2.8 (35 equiv. pancake)

a pretty good listing of mft lenses can be found here.

And while Zeiss isn't really in the mft sphere yet, Leica's been developing lenses with Panasonic since the get-go.

[jcuknz]

I would not and never have particularly bothered with getting restricted depth of field at the camera stage since I learnt how easy it is usually to achieve in editing. I never get involved in the quality bokeh arguments because apart from obvious donuts of mirror lenses I cannot see it makes much difference ...I isolate the subject and that is what a wide aperture can do but in editing.
I do not like the idea of loosing aperture when zooming, never had it with movie lens, but it comes with stills and the ability to use higher ISO compensates to a degree.
So there are two points which would not unduely influence any choice I make.

edit .. that is a nice shot of the frog

[Chris Hale]

Hi Chris,
I have recently re-kindled my interest in photography having previously used film and now holding a small professional medical portfolio. (I'm a retired Doc.) I chose the OMD EM1 because I read a lot of good reviews and liked the feel of the camera when I went to the shop. The lens is the excellent f2.8 12-40 and I am really enjoying using and exploring this. I have a number of Olympus primes from previous years and, with an adapter, I am able to use these. I know there are technical reasons to use digitally designed lenses but these prime Zuikos work great for most purposes and they can be obtained very cheaply these days. The camera itself is great and can now do so much more than the old SLRs that I used to use with film, something that the early DSLRs didn't really match up to; focus peaking, keystone correction, colour management etc. The versatility is fantastic but as a recent convert to digital from film I did have to spend a lot of time with the camera and its 170 page pdf to learn all its intricacies. Still learning