I like mft because I can carry 2 bodies easily. And they are just not as expensive. I think in some cases I am more than fine trading the 2 stops of light, but can see why a professional would choose ff. Also just found your channel, really liking the backlog!
Honestly a lot of lenses give you the light advantage right back too. Maybe not on portrait equivalents, but in shooting a zoom at 800 6.3 when the canon 800s are f9 or f11. Or the 400 equivalent zoom at 2.8. Price and weight wise, it really works out!
I owned the OM1 and the 300 f4 with 40-150f2.8 and 12-40 f2.8. Great kit and some great pictures, AF all good but I really struggled with all the post processing to clean-up noise and the DR to recover shadows. So I sold all and went back to Nikon Z8 and the 400 f4.5, I love the 400mm for most of my wildlife work shooting mammals and big birds. Then had to opportunity to try the G9ii and the 200 f2.8 and the TC1.4. Yes the MFT sensor have it's limitations and that is why I keep the Z8 and 400 f4.5. Back the the G9ii with this lens. I often travel into Africa and want the smalles gear that can produce quality for these trips. Also a second body system for the Z8. This is where I will get the 40-150f4 for wider shots. I love the slightly bigger body of the G9ii over the OM-1. I also find the noise from the files less problematic and the DR to lift shadows better. I have not used the 200-800 but seriously f8 at the price is probably OK but this for my work is way to slow. I would rather shot wide at f5.6 than tight with f8. Great video.
Yea everyone definitely has to get gear that suits their needs. I love shooting my z9 and 500 f4 when it all lined up, but it was just too big and unwieldy most of the time. When I had an accident and damaged it, I really had to think about what I valued in a replacement kit. I think it also comes down to subject. If I were shooting mammals, I’d probably look to a full frame and 400-500mm lens. But I mainly shoot songbirds and need 800-1000mm. The canon 200-800 is a great lens, but I’d take the Lumix kit any day personally.
Mike great discussion and great pictures - it seems like you are getting a lot better at shooting wildlife as you keep at it. We need more people like you showing the masses that virtually any sensor size, combined with great glass, can take great shots if you know what you are doing. If I had all the money in the world I'd definitely give the Panasonic + 100-400 a try. It seems like a sweet setup. Any issues with the buffer BTW? I saw where, once full, it takes a LONG time to clear - like a minute or more. Very easy to hit the buffer limit on my XT3, but with UHS-II cards, it clears in about 8 seconds or I can keep shooting at a limp speed. I shot in misty overcast rain today, crappy sky, with the Fuji 150-600, mostly shots at 600mm f/8, shutter 1/250, ISO anywhere from 2500-12,800. Stunning and sharp images. It is all about how close you can get (despite 900+mm small birds need to be, I don't know, 10-20 feet away ideally, the closer the better). After that, it is about quality/intensity of the light or just having some direct light on the subject. It was overcast, but even at high ISO, I had enough intensity to pull out PLENTY of detail. In-camera JPEGs will look excellent, a carefully processed and "enhanced" LR session will be awesome. Though my setup is definitely easy to manage, it is pretty big, and having that little 100-400 would be sweet.
Glad it’s helpful! The Fuji lens basically fits the description of the rf200-800 for me in the sense that I found it too big to carry around all the time. Granted, the Fuji lens is a much more comfortable lens to carry weight wise. I was and still am a big fan of that lens if someone is looking for a good Fuji option. The g9ii buffer is overblown. Yes, it does take forever to write the buffer to the card. But it also has a way, way bigger buffer than most cameras. If you hold down the shutter nonstop, it’s going to buffer out. But I’m about 10,000 shots into it so far and haven’t hit the buffer yet. I usually shoot 20fps raw and rattle off 5-10 frames every time I shoot. If I’m shooting action, I’ll do longer bursts but still take little breaks. Hasn’t caused me any problems yet. If I were specifically shooting action, I’d probably prefer the smaller jpg file sizes and shoot that instead of if I were having an issue.
@@heymikeriley I get it - the Fuji is 100% a two-handed lens, even if it is relatively light and well balanced. With kids, you will not be shooting it one-handed. Mine is either in my hand, on a black-rapid strap, or in a backpack depending on what I'm doing. I've looking at cotton carriers or that peak design clip thing, but not pulled the trigger. If I knew I was going to nail the shot, I would shoot JPEG more often myself since it deepens the buffer and shortens workflow. But frankly it is impossible to know in advance if I'll be 100% happy with the exposure/noise reduction/sharpness/color/film sim/white balance that I've selected. That said, if I nail a shot in very good/high quality light, I am more than happy to just apply a film sim to the in-camera RAW with whatever tweaks and spit out a file, because the Fuji colors are often stunning. The main problem I have is with the resulting file size - a typical Large/Fine Fuji file is actually pretty darn big. So my option is to throw away megapixels (but what if I want a large print?). In C1 or LR I get excellent quality full resolution (after any crop anyway) JPEGs roughly 1/3rd or 1/4th the file size. Not to mention, I can STRAIGHTEN the image! Imagine that Fuji - a straight image! Can you hear me? I want to straighten in-camera! I also want compression algorithms built-in to manage file size/quality trade-off. You can't tell me they cannot do that - these beasts can already spit out "lossless" RAWs after all, at a million FPS.
How many gears and lenses have you buy in a small bunch of years 😅 ? I can't image to pass a lot of time to try so many gears... But I'm pleased for you if you like to do it ❤. For the moment I'm happy with my XF 100-400mm on the X-T5. May be in some years I'll go to Canon for the wildlife 😊
An insane amount lol. But when you’re used to buying and selling, it’s pretty easy. Usually when I decide to switch systems, I have all of my gear sold within a week.
Ya that’s interesting for sure, but 1.7 is a big deal. I’ve already been doing Astro with it, lots of indoor video etc. while they may have a similar dof, the 1.7 is really nice for shooting in low light for sure.
@@Horrrrrrrrst sure, but exposure is exposure. Regardless of the sensor size, if your aperture is 1.7, you can offset your other exposure triangle components. This lens in particular is giving up depth of field for sure, but I’m able to shoot higher shutter speeds inside my house at low light vs the full frame lenses I’ve had.
People should know there is no good reason the bodies to be priced differently other than brand name. MFT camera costs exactly the same as FF camera. Canon and Sony asking $6K+ for their bodies is just a way to rip off shooters who are working for companies or have too much cash at hand. I shoot both Canon and recently Pani, and i find the Pani way better value for money, easier to handle, and with more features than Canon gear.
I have been shooting with Lumix G9II and 100-400 and I could not get many sharp shots with it. I recalibrated it (it was slightly misfocused) and this helped somewhat, but the lens was still too soft for my liking. I don't know if I want to try another unit or if I should go for 200mm/f2.8. In terms of everything else, I agree with everything you said in this video and am the same type of shooter, which is why I got this kit (and the camera itself is great, barring the fact it's almost twice as heavy as my old m4/3 camera), but what do you think about using the prime instead? I haven't shot primes in my life yet, but I hear this is an exceptionally sharp lens, but I don't know if the lack of versatility could be offset by the sharpness (sidenote: I'm not satisfied with jpegs at all and I always edit my raws, even if the photos are not exceptional). If you had to shoot with just one of those lenses, which one would you pick?
I’m going to do some jpg vs raw testing soon, haven’t played around much with the Lumix jpgs but considering I’m typically running noise reduction on any m43 file anyways, the jpgs I’m seeing at first glance are really appealing. Honestly my first day with the 100-400ii was a mess and nothing was sharp. I took a breath and realized that I was shooting way too far away, cropping hard and the light was atrocious. No camera or lens I’ve owned would have been sharp there. I think it’s important to realize that a m43 sensor is already cropping for you. So if you are shooting at 100-400 for 800 equivalent, if you have to do major cropping then you’re just too far away. If you’re close, the lens should be very, very sharp. If it’s not, check your shutter settings etc and make sure you’re not doing something wrong. Shoot a teddy bear on a tripod and remove lens shake etc. if that’s not sharp, then you may indeed have a faulty copy. The 200 2.8 is definitely way sharper, I’ll be doing a comparison soon on them. I definitely prefer the images out of that lens, but only if I’m close enough to not crop significantly. The image quality is stunning, but 400mm isn’t long enough for a lot of stuff I shoot. So far I’ve only had success with birds at my feeder that tolerate me being very close. If I had a gun to my head, I’d probably take the zoom for the flexibility but I love that they’re both reasonably price and I typically bring both with me. I had dreams of shooting loons with the 200 and I started the early morning with that lens on but the birds just weren’t getting close enough and I was glad I had the other option with me.
@@heymikeriley I don't like jpegs from the camera because they are unnaturally soft (on "standard"), they make human faces look washed out and bird feathers look like one big lump yes, I spent a whole week with the lens wondering what I'm doing wrong because it was terrible. I then recalibrated it and it was better to the point that the next time I went out I immediately noticed the difference and was like "woah so that's how it's supposed to be!" unfortunately though it was still a far cry from what I had hoped for, and as you said it must be the distance. I was happy with photos that were taken with a bird on a tree right above me (even in darker conditions), but I was terribly unhappy with whatever I'd get from shooting water birds or birds on much taller trees at 400mm. The only photos at 400mm I couldn't find fault with were those shot of still subjects (e.g. frogs) at 50ISO at high-res (lol). I didn't test it with a teddy bear - good call - but I did test with a cereal box and letters and it was very soft at anything but f6.3 - at some focal distances f7 so I returned it but now I'm wondering if it was just a bad copy or my high expectations or a combination of both, and whether 200mm/f2.8 is the solution I had hoped for or not. you're saying it's too short even when you use teleconverter? isn't it still better quality at 280 + crop vs 400 without the crop?
With the tc and a crop it’s probably close, prime is probably sharper but losing the zoom again. But yea distance is key. If you’re shooting a bird that’s close, the prime and a crop will look good, and the zoom should look good. I’ll try to do a comparison on them this weekend. I need to shoot them side by side to get similar comparisons but will give it a go!
@@heymikeriley thank you very much! Is there any way to determine a "usable" distance? as in, how far away you can be with either lens to get a decent shot? maybe this could be tested on a teddy, as you said?
Lumix 100-400mm is semi-decent in terms of sharpness. Olympus 100-400mm is noticeable sharper across the zoom range while being only marginally bigger. The problem is that it doesn't Sync with Lumix IBIS. Not a problem for stills though. Also: If you consider Lumix 100-400mm and Canon 200-800mm to have the same focal length you clearly mean EQUIVALENT focal length. If so, you also need to factor in crop factor to the apeture. Equivalent apeture of the Lumix is f8-12.6. Much slower.
The fov really doesn’t matter. That’s what I was getting at. Whether you’re shooting f9 or f6.3 with f13 dof equivalence, or f11 on the rf800. They’re all slow lenses. If you want smooth backgrounds with any of them, you have to compose a smooth background. If you do, f13 doesn’t matter. If you don’t, f9 won’t save ya.
@@heymikeriley Mike what you mean is that, indeed, f/4-f/5.6 is "faster" than Canon f/6.3-f/9 (by about 1.3 stops). In terms of EXPOSURE - all else equal, the Panasonic can run FASTER shutters than the Canon at a given ISO (reducing the ISO advantage of FF in that sense by an equal 1.3 stops). In terms of "equivalence", both lenses have a similar FOV and similar DOF. That is to say, they produce similar images. People confuse the fact that compression, and not just aperture, is what is "smashing" the background. Smaller sensors give up compression to match a given FOV, while larger sensors (like medium format), will have MORE compression for a given FOV. The benefit of MFT is, as you know, that lenses can generally be smaller. The wider aperture compensates for losing some compression. To make sure we don't hurt the feelings of those who spent more money, and carry more weight, we should say that, at the of the day, larger sensors and necessarily larger glass usually produces higher quality photos because surface area = more total light. But IMO that is more relevant to those that print large images, or those needing maximum quality out of a variety of crops that might be taken out of an image. I'm guessing 99% of people on the internet don't print. If they did, they'd know that iPhones make perfectly acceptable 4x6 images. But as you go larger, the benefits of the bigger sensors are more and more obvious.
Dont shoot m4/3 but like small and lite, I have 25k in Sony gear and the cameras i shoot the most are the rx100 and 10, both have 1 inch sensors, if you know what you are doing small sensors have their place. I would have tried m4/3 but I was leary about the autofocus compared to Sony, now it seems Panasonic has been stepping up their game, good for them the more the merrier ✌✌🌞🌞
Yea honestly I was in the same boat. I desperately wanted to shoot sigma mirrorless lenses but wasn’t gelling with the price of the Sony bodies that I liked so I looked at an s5ii but was worried about the autofocus. My research suggested it wouldn’t be up to the standard of the full frame flagships I’ve been used to. But someone suggested the g9ii and the af gives me no issues at all with their new system. And then after I bought it, the s5ii fit a big firmware update and apparently is way better lol. I love that the Lumix bodies are all the same battery and form factor regardless of ff or m43. I do hope to try one of the ff options out for some wider things. Stuff like the laowa probe lens etc that don’t have m43 comparable. But for long lens stuff, I’m very happy on m43.
Nice to see you back - and congrats on kid #2!
It’s amazing how kids eat into your hobby time haha
Yes,, G9ii + Pana-Leica 100-400ii, excellent conbo!
It really is!
I like mft because I can carry 2 bodies easily. And they are just not as expensive. I think in some cases I am more than fine trading the 2 stops of light, but can see why a professional would choose ff. Also just found your channel, really liking the backlog!
Honestly a lot of lenses give you the light advantage right back too. Maybe not on portrait equivalents, but in shooting a zoom at 800 6.3 when the canon 800s are f9 or f11. Or the 400 equivalent zoom at 2.8. Price and weight wise, it really works out!
I owned the OM1 and the 300 f4 with 40-150f2.8 and 12-40 f2.8. Great kit and some great pictures, AF all good but I really struggled with all the post processing to clean-up noise and the DR to recover shadows. So I sold all and went back to Nikon Z8 and the 400 f4.5, I love the 400mm for most of my wildlife work shooting mammals and big birds. Then had to opportunity to try the G9ii and the 200 f2.8 and the TC1.4. Yes the MFT sensor have it's limitations and that is why I keep the Z8 and 400 f4.5. Back the the G9ii with this lens. I often travel into Africa and want the smalles gear that can produce quality for these trips. Also a second body system for the Z8. This is where I will get the 40-150f4 for wider shots. I love the slightly bigger body of the G9ii over the OM-1. I also find the noise from the files less problematic and the DR to lift shadows better. I have not used the 200-800 but seriously f8 at the price is probably OK but this for my work is way to slow. I would rather shot wide at f5.6 than tight with f8. Great video.
Yea everyone definitely has to get gear that suits their needs. I love shooting my z9 and 500 f4 when it all lined up, but it was just too big and unwieldy most of the time. When I had an accident and damaged it, I really had to think about what I valued in a replacement kit. I think it also comes down to subject. If I were shooting mammals, I’d probably look to a full frame and 400-500mm lens. But I mainly shoot songbirds and need 800-1000mm. The canon 200-800 is a great lens, but I’d take the Lumix kit any day personally.
i found 200 to be very helpfull in my photo shooting love my 200-800
Would def rather have some zoom potential than not, but I’d say the 60-600 sigma is the dream zoom range for usability
Mike great discussion and great pictures - it seems like you are getting a lot better at shooting wildlife as you keep at it. We need more people like you showing the masses that virtually any sensor size, combined with great glass, can take great shots if you know what you are doing. If I had all the money in the world I'd definitely give the Panasonic + 100-400 a try. It seems like a sweet setup. Any issues with the buffer BTW? I saw where, once full, it takes a LONG time to clear - like a minute or more. Very easy to hit the buffer limit on my XT3, but with UHS-II cards, it clears in about 8 seconds or I can keep shooting at a limp speed.
I shot in misty overcast rain today, crappy sky, with the Fuji 150-600, mostly shots at 600mm f/8, shutter 1/250, ISO anywhere from 2500-12,800. Stunning and sharp images. It is all about how close you can get (despite 900+mm small birds need to be, I don't know, 10-20 feet away ideally, the closer the better). After that, it is about quality/intensity of the light or just having some direct light on the subject. It was overcast, but even at high ISO, I had enough intensity to pull out PLENTY of detail. In-camera JPEGs will look excellent, a carefully processed and "enhanced" LR session will be awesome. Though my setup is definitely easy to manage, it is pretty big, and having that little 100-400 would be sweet.
Glad it’s helpful! The Fuji lens basically fits the description of the rf200-800 for me in the sense that I found it too big to carry around all the time. Granted, the Fuji lens is a much more comfortable lens to carry weight wise. I was and still am a big fan of that lens if someone is looking for a good Fuji option.
The g9ii buffer is overblown. Yes, it does take forever to write the buffer to the card. But it also has a way, way bigger buffer than most cameras. If you hold down the shutter nonstop, it’s going to buffer out. But I’m about 10,000 shots into it so far and haven’t hit the buffer yet. I usually shoot 20fps raw and rattle off 5-10 frames every time I shoot. If I’m shooting action, I’ll do longer bursts but still take little breaks. Hasn’t caused me any problems yet. If I were specifically shooting action, I’d probably prefer the smaller jpg file sizes and shoot that instead of if I were having an issue.
@@heymikeriley I get it - the Fuji is 100% a two-handed lens, even if it is relatively light and well balanced. With kids, you will not be shooting it one-handed. Mine is either in my hand, on a black-rapid strap, or in a backpack depending on what I'm doing. I've looking at cotton carriers or that peak design clip thing, but not pulled the trigger.
If I knew I was going to nail the shot, I would shoot JPEG more often myself since it deepens the buffer and shortens workflow. But frankly it is impossible to know in advance if I'll be 100% happy with the exposure/noise reduction/sharpness/color/film sim/white balance that I've selected. That said, if I nail a shot in very good/high quality light, I am more than happy to just apply a film sim to the in-camera RAW with whatever tweaks and spit out a file, because the Fuji colors are often stunning. The main problem I have is with the resulting file size - a typical Large/Fine Fuji file is actually pretty darn big. So my option is to throw away megapixels (but what if I want a large print?). In C1 or LR I get excellent quality full resolution (after any crop anyway) JPEGs roughly 1/3rd or 1/4th the file size. Not to mention, I can STRAIGHTEN the image! Imagine that Fuji - a straight image! Can you hear me? I want to straighten in-camera! I also want compression algorithms built-in to manage file size/quality trade-off. You can't tell me they cannot do that - these beasts can already spit out "lossless" RAWs after all, at a million FPS.
How many gears and lenses have you buy in a small bunch of years 😅 ?
I can't image to pass a lot of time to try so many gears...
But I'm pleased for you if you like to do it ❤.
For the moment I'm happy with my XF 100-400mm on the X-T5.
May be in some years I'll go to Canon for the wildlife 😊
An insane amount lol. But when you’re used to buying and selling, it’s pretty easy. Usually when I decide to switch systems, I have all of my gear sold within a week.
Actually, the Sony 20-70mm f/4 is a very close concept to the PL 10-25mm f/1.7 (20-50mm f/3.4). Smaller, lighter, and cheaper too!
Definitely lots of similarities, but the Lumix has one big advantage. When you buy it, you don’t have to shoot a Sony 👀
Sony has FF 20-70mm f4 which is almost as fast and more versatile, but it is optically inferior to the Panaleica 10-25
Ya that’s interesting for sure, but 1.7 is a big deal. I’ve already been doing Astro with it, lots of indoor video etc. while they may have a similar dof, the 1.7 is really nice for shooting in low light for sure.
@@heymikeriley It's fast on a small image circle for Micro Four-thirds. the light-gathering ability is still equivalent to a f/3.4 full-frame.
@@Horrrrrrrrst sure, but exposure is exposure. Regardless of the sensor size, if your aperture is 1.7, you can offset your other exposure triangle components. This lens in particular is giving up depth of field for sure, but I’m able to shoot higher shutter speeds inside my house at low light vs the full frame lenses I’ve had.
People should know there is no good reason the bodies to be priced differently other than brand name. MFT camera costs exactly the same as FF camera. Canon and Sony asking $6K+ for their bodies is just a way to rip off shooters who are working for companies or have too much cash at hand. I shoot both Canon and recently Pani, and i find the Pani way better value for money, easier to handle, and with more features than Canon gear.
Yea, Sony/Nikon/Canon prices were a big factor in going to Lumix, even on the full frame side. The bodies and lenses are just wildly overpriced.
I have been shooting with Lumix G9II and 100-400 and I could not get many sharp shots with it. I recalibrated it (it was slightly misfocused) and this helped somewhat, but the lens was still too soft for my liking. I don't know if I want to try another unit or if I should go for 200mm/f2.8. In terms of everything else, I agree with everything you said in this video and am the same type of shooter, which is why I got this kit (and the camera itself is great, barring the fact it's almost twice as heavy as my old m4/3 camera), but what do you think about using the prime instead? I haven't shot primes in my life yet, but I hear this is an exceptionally sharp lens, but I don't know if the lack of versatility could be offset by the sharpness (sidenote: I'm not satisfied with jpegs at all and I always edit my raws, even if the photos are not exceptional). If you had to shoot with just one of those lenses, which one would you pick?
I’m going to do some jpg vs raw testing soon, haven’t played around much with the Lumix jpgs but considering I’m typically running noise reduction on any m43 file anyways, the jpgs I’m seeing at first glance are really appealing.
Honestly my first day with the 100-400ii was a mess and nothing was sharp. I took a breath and realized that I was shooting way too far away, cropping hard and the light was atrocious. No camera or lens I’ve owned would have been sharp there. I think it’s important to realize that a m43 sensor is already cropping for you. So if you are shooting at 100-400 for 800 equivalent, if you have to do major cropping then you’re just too far away. If you’re close, the lens should be very, very sharp. If it’s not, check your shutter settings etc and make sure you’re not doing something wrong. Shoot a teddy bear on a tripod and remove lens shake etc. if that’s not sharp, then you may indeed have a faulty copy. The 200 2.8 is definitely way sharper, I’ll be doing a comparison soon on them. I definitely prefer the images out of that lens, but only if I’m close enough to not crop significantly. The image quality is stunning, but 400mm isn’t long enough for a lot of stuff I shoot. So far I’ve only had success with birds at my feeder that tolerate me being very close. If I had a gun to my head, I’d probably take the zoom for the flexibility but I love that they’re both reasonably price and I typically bring both with me. I had dreams of shooting loons with the 200 and I started the early morning with that lens on but the birds just weren’t getting close enough and I was glad I had the other option with me.
@@heymikeriley I don't like jpegs from the camera because they are unnaturally soft (on "standard"), they make human faces look washed out and bird feathers look like one big lump
yes, I spent a whole week with the lens wondering what I'm doing wrong because it was terrible. I then recalibrated it and it was better to the point that the next time I went out I immediately noticed the difference and was like "woah so that's how it's supposed to be!"
unfortunately though it was still a far cry from what I had hoped for, and as you said it must be the distance. I was happy with photos that were taken with a bird on a tree right above me (even in darker conditions), but I was terribly unhappy with whatever I'd get from shooting water birds or birds on much taller trees at 400mm. The only photos at 400mm I couldn't find fault with were those shot of still subjects (e.g. frogs) at 50ISO at high-res (lol).
I didn't test it with a teddy bear - good call - but I did test with a cereal box and letters and it was very soft at anything but f6.3 - at some focal distances f7
so I returned it but now I'm wondering if it was just a bad copy or my high expectations or a combination of both, and whether 200mm/f2.8 is the solution I had hoped for or not. you're saying it's too short even when you use teleconverter? isn't it still better quality at 280 + crop vs 400 without the crop?
With the tc and a crop it’s probably close, prime is probably sharper but losing the zoom again. But yea distance is key. If you’re shooting a bird that’s close, the prime and a crop will look good, and the zoom should look good. I’ll try to do a comparison on them this weekend. I need to shoot them side by side to get similar comparisons but will give it a go!
@@heymikeriley thank you very much! Is there any way to determine a "usable" distance? as in, how far away you can be with either lens to get a decent shot? maybe this could be tested on a teddy, as you said?
Try to shoot at 400mm F8 with the subject not too far, you will be surprised.
Lumix 100-400mm is semi-decent in terms of sharpness. Olympus 100-400mm is noticeable sharper across the zoom range while being only marginally bigger. The problem is that it doesn't Sync with Lumix IBIS. Not a problem for stills though. Also: If you consider Lumix 100-400mm and Canon 200-800mm to have the same focal length you clearly mean EQUIVALENT focal length. If so, you also need to factor in crop factor to the apeture. Equivalent apeture of the Lumix is f8-12.6. Much slower.
Incorrect! The aperature is always the same no matter how big the sensor is.
@@richardfink7666yes but the fov is absolutely comparable to f8-13.
@@Jay-sr8ge That`s true but that can also be an advantage!
The fov really doesn’t matter. That’s what I was getting at. Whether you’re shooting f9 or f6.3 with f13 dof equivalence, or f11 on the rf800. They’re all slow lenses. If you want smooth backgrounds with any of them, you have to compose a smooth background. If you do, f13 doesn’t matter. If you don’t, f9 won’t save ya.
@@heymikeriley Mike what you mean is that, indeed, f/4-f/5.6 is "faster" than Canon f/6.3-f/9 (by about 1.3 stops). In terms of EXPOSURE - all else equal, the Panasonic can run FASTER shutters than the Canon at a given ISO (reducing the ISO advantage of FF in that sense by an equal 1.3 stops). In terms of "equivalence", both lenses have a similar FOV and similar DOF. That is to say, they produce similar images. People confuse the fact that compression, and not just aperture, is what is "smashing" the background. Smaller sensors give up compression to match a given FOV, while larger sensors (like medium format), will have MORE compression for a given FOV. The benefit of MFT is, as you know, that lenses can generally be smaller. The wider aperture compensates for losing some compression.
To make sure we don't hurt the feelings of those who spent more money, and carry more weight, we should say that, at the of the day, larger sensors and necessarily larger glass usually produces higher quality photos because surface area = more total light. But IMO that is more relevant to those that print large images, or those needing maximum quality out of a variety of crops that might be taken out of an image. I'm guessing 99% of people on the internet don't print. If they did, they'd know that iPhones make perfectly acceptable 4x6 images. But as you go larger, the benefits of the bigger sensors are more and more obvious.
Dont shoot m4/3 but like small and lite, I have 25k in Sony gear and the cameras i shoot the most are the rx100 and 10, both have 1 inch sensors, if you know what you are doing small sensors have their place. I would have tried m4/3 but I was leary about the autofocus compared to Sony, now it seems Panasonic has been stepping up their game, good for them the more the merrier ✌✌🌞🌞
Yea honestly I was in the same boat. I desperately wanted to shoot sigma mirrorless lenses but wasn’t gelling with the price of the Sony bodies that I liked so I looked at an s5ii but was worried about the autofocus. My research suggested it wouldn’t be up to the standard of the full frame flagships I’ve been used to. But someone suggested the g9ii and the af gives me no issues at all with their new system. And then after I bought it, the s5ii fit a big firmware update and apparently is way better lol. I love that the Lumix bodies are all the same battery and form factor regardless of ff or m43. I do hope to try one of the ff options out for some wider things. Stuff like the laowa probe lens etc that don’t have m43 comparable. But for long lens stuff, I’m very happy on m43.
@@heymikeriley Good luck my friend. It's all about the images. How you get there really shouldn't matter