Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]They are out there, Mark. But for underwater photography, m4/3 is getting very popular indeed for several reasons. First, you are correct in that there weight makes little difference underwater. But most divers are also avid travelers. We go all over the world to dive the photograph in the best spots and for a couple that means hauling around as much as 250lbs of gear. A person with a standard Canon 5Dmk3 UW kit is going to be hauling around a Pelican case that weighs over 50lbs, and that doesn't include the camera equipment itself. We're just talking the housing itself, ports for your macro, fisheye, your superwide wide zoom, two common Sea & Sea YS-D1 strobes, cables, brackets, arms, floats, batteries, chargers, tools, spares, wet diopters, etc. Then, you are hauling the camera gear itself as carry-on. You will need a pair of 5dmk3 bodies (because you will inevitably destroy one in a flood one day), the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro, the 8-15 f/4L, and the 16-35 f/2.8L. Then for topside shooting, you will have your 24-70 for general shooting as well as at least one fast prime in the 35-50mm range. My wife shoots a 5Dmk3 in a Nauticam housing and I'm well familiar with the weights because her huge Domke J-1 with all that full frame stuff ends up on my Porter case. My Pelican case with the OMD EM-5 kit is about half the weight, while the cameras and lenses weigh maybe as little as 1/4 as much as hers and all fit into a small Domke J-803 satchel. This carry-on weight really matters, especially since you're usually hand carrying your regulator as well. Underwater, the OMDs have several advantages. Blazing fast autofocus. TTL flash (not available for the 5dmk3). The IBIS stabilization effectively gives you a stabilized full frame fisheye. Underwater video looks like it was shot on a steadicam. One touch white balance. The EM-1 now has 1/320th sec flash synch, which is a big deal because it allows us to shoot sunballs with things like giant sea fans in the foreground with less strobe power. And the more compact size is just easier to swim with, especially if you're finning off into the blue after things like sharks and mantas. Is the quality as good as the 5Dmk3? No, but it's not as far off as you may think. I would challenge anyone to tell the difference under all but the most extreme circumstances, like very large enlargements, or maybe critical pixel peeping. We were doing 17x22s at the last digital shootout and it was hard to tell the difference looking at prints on the wall. When you take everything on board - the logistics of moving equipment, ease of use, weight of carrying equipment topside, especially on rough shore entries, m4/3 starts to look better and better. BTW, have you ever tried to do manual white balance on a Canon camera underwater? It is an unbelievable pain in the rear. Finally, Panasonic and Olympus just happened to produce the exact lenses we need underwater. The Panasonic 8mm is about as good as it gets. The Olympus 60mm macro is also an incredible performer. Along with the Panasonic 7-14, you have everything you need to shoot everything from underwater seascapes, to macro critters to large pelagics. The line between the APS-C and m4/3 is blurring for real, not magical reasons. The IQ difference is very small to the point of insignificance. The M4/3 consortium members are exploiting the small sensor by making small dedicated lenses of, in many cases, exceptional quality. And companies like Voigtlander are solving some of the problems with shallower depth of field with their high speed f/.95 lenses. The difference in weight between an APS-C system and an M4/3 with top class lenses is dramatic. And I think it's hard to argue about the handling. The EM-1 is a very fast-handling and enjoyable little machine. --Jim On Feb 24, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > You're just not selling me on the idea that serious shooters or pros are > shooting 4/3's cameras. certainly a cameras does not need to be light or > tiny underwater. I cant think of any other convoluted reason. > There is no logic to the idea that the line between 1.5x and 2x formats has > been somehow magically blurred. > In general what is happening is not "the technology is advancing lets more > down in format" but quite the opposite. > > > On 2/24/14 4:55 PM, "Jim Laurel (gmail)" <jplaurel at gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you stop in at Glazers Camera here in Seattle (a "real" camera store >> with >> complete lines in stock at any given time and knowledgeable sales people), >> you'll see that the largest number of people are always milling around the >> mirrorless counters. Every time I walk in there, someone is fondling an >> EM-5, >> GX-7 or EM-1 and marveling at their handsome design and good handling. >> Then >> there's the look of disbelief on their faces when the salesperson hands >> them >> Panasonic's 12-35 (24-70 equiv) f/2.8 that weighs only 305 grams, or the >> Olympus 12mm f/2 (24mm equiv) that weighs just 130 grams... Once you >> educate >> buyers and show them the alternative (i.e., a Canon 60D with the 24-70mm >> f/2.8L), then let them take a few shots and look at them on a computer, >> they >> understand where things are going. ;) >> >> --Jim >> >> >> On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:41 PM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Another problem with REAL camera sales is so many REAL camera stores are >>> gone from the scene. >>> >>> As far as I know there are only four camera stores left in all of >>> Louisiana, all in New Orleans. >>> >>> There's no inventory of serious choices at the Best Buys and Targets that >>> have "replaced" them. >>> >>> We're reaping what we sowed when we shunned the little camera stores for >>> mail order. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Jim Laurel (gmail) >>> <jplaurel at gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> They are doing well in at least one area, albeit very niche area: >>>> underwater photography. A couple of the major dealers in the country >>>> for UW >>>> photo and video gear tell me that m4/3 is outselling DLSR systems 6 to >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> The disappointing popularity of mirrorless in North America is due to >>>> uninformed consumers and also the fallacy that really good image quality >>>> starts at APS-C. Already M4/3 is very hard to distinguish from APS-C for >>>> most applications. And the fact remains that larger sensors mean larger >>>> lenses. Neither of the top 2 manufacturers of APS-C DSLRs has ever made >>>> a >>>> serious attempt at a high quality lens line for their cop sensor >>>> cameras. >>>> I'm talking about a full range of high speed primes and fast zooms, so >>>> if >>>> the users of APS-C cameras want really good glass, they're forced into >>>> the >>>> full frame lines. Only the m4/3 consortium have made a serious attempt >>>> at a >>>> complete system with premium glass optimized for the smaller sensor. The >>>> jewel-like Olympus 12mm f/1.8, the 75mm f/1.8, Panasonic 8mm fisheye and >>>> 7-14 are the result. Extremely compact lenses of extremely high optical >>>> quality. >>>> >>>> It's funny to look back and remember all the prejudice against the >>>> "small >>>> format" 24mm x 26mm when it was first introduced. But as film quality >>>> improved, so did the viability of the 135 format for almost every >>>> application. The same will be true of sensors, only it will happen >>>> faster, >>>> and in 10 years' time, a lens the size and weight of Canon's 70-200mm >>>> f/2.8 >>>> IS USM will look like quite the relic, while Panasonic's 35-100 f/2.8 >>>> will >>>> be regarded as having been a harbinger of the future. >>>> >>>> --Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> And Panasonic. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to the average western consumer a mirrorless is a step up from >>>> what >>>>> they get with their Smartphone but they don't find it necessary to take >>>> that >>>>> step they are more conserved with getting the pix out of their phones >>>> onto >>>>> their facebook or Instasgram or other social network galleries than >>>> hanging >>>>> a show on the wall of a gallery with exposed brick behind them. >>>>> We have to be careful when we say "mirrorless" now as they seem to come >>>> in >>>>> two distinct form factors. The original flat ones which could also >>>> emulate >>>>> compact rangefinder cameras. And ones which look like DSLR'S which are >>>>> lightweight but too chunky to be called flat. >>>>> The articles states Asian ladies like the mirrorless as they are light >>>> into >>>>> to put in their purse. Western ladies don't see that? >>>>> The bottom line from all I can see is how to get the publics smart >>>>> phones >>>>> out of their cold dead hands to take a picture or do anything with >>>> anything >>>>> else. One step up is not enough over here it seems it seems we need to >>>>> go >>>>> two steps up and make it a camera which really shoots a quality >>>>> pictures >>>> IE >>>>> having a sensor at least 1.5x crop. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-disappoint-2013-12 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sonny >>> http://sonc.com/look/ >>> Natchitoches, Louisiana >>> 1714 >>> Oldest Permanent Settlement in the Louisiana Purchase >>> >>> USA >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information