Anybody ever considered moving to Sony?

[zulfur666]

Just curious, I find myself sometimes debating moving to Sony either the A6000 or A7. (not the R)
Given the lens selection now with wide UWA 10-18 f/4 for the A6000 or even now the A7 with the new 16-35. My ultra zoom would be the 70-200 f/4 which is similar in size and weight as the new Olympus 40/150 f/2.8. The larger sensor would make up for the 1 stop loss 2.8 to f4 (at least so I think). The only thing I dislike about that Sony (its WHITE attention getter)
Cost is similar to the Olympus setup and weight is the same once you choose all the Olympus Pro lenses.
Thing that keeps me with Olympus at the moment is the amount of cameras (2xE-M1) 12-40 f/2.8, 9-18 UWA, 60mm macro, 35-100 f/2.8 (want to replace with 40-150 f/2.8)Underwater housing will take a HUGE loss if I switch.
Anybody ever debated the same? What kept you with mu43?

 

[usayit]

Size and packaging of not only the body but the lenses as well.

I have a A7R purchased specifically to enjoy adaptation of lenses to it. Its ideal because you get to enjoy adapted lenses as intended.. on a full frame. Native Sony lenses are FF and as such they need to have enough optics to cover a large image circle. The MFT system keeps me happy with its high value to performance, wide range of lenses, and most importantly small compact size.

I have two bodies (E-PL1), 9-18mm, 45mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2, with FL300R, and small table top tripod packed with extra AAA/Olympus batteries into an ONA bowery. Its both lighter and smaller than an M9 with M8 or A7R with similar lens sets adapted. No way would that fit in the Bowery. I also have another small bag (similar to the bowery but taller) that has an EM5, battery grip, FL600R, and both the 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm /f2.8 (or swapped for the 100-300). I think the same bag could only hold a Sony A7 with just the FE 24-70.

 

[zulfur666]

thanks. I just compared the Olympus "Pro" lenses aka the 12-40 and now the 40-150 to the equivalent of Sony's. Not sure how much the weather dust, splash freeze proof advertisement compares or makes a true world impact on the E-M1 vs the A7. EVF, the A6000 is worse in pixels count (not sure if I would notice), 1/4000 of a sec max shutter for A6000. Yes I showered my E-M1 with the 12-40 as well.... everything still works as expected (was a test for future waterfall shots). Not so sure if I could do that with the Sony A7??
Perhaps I just find myself ALWAYS in search for the "better latest image tool device" some call it GAS. :smile:

 

[dougjgreen]

I might - as soon as their lens lineup is as comprehensive as that of Micro 4/3. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[usayit]

Its all about setting priorities.

I also shot with some of the best Pentax had to offer back in the day. Then transitioned to "the best" of what Canon had to offer with all of the latest digital bodies (up to 1dmarkIIn + 5D) at the time coupled with all of their best lenses that suited my needs.

Life changed.... priorities changed.

I place a higher priority on making the system fit my life style rather than adjusting to fit the systems'. The next time I carry that kind of weight in camera equipment, I'd better be drawing a paycheck. I'm also at the point that I want to enjoy photography from the time I trip the shutter to the point I make a print. You can't do that with a system that dominates your day in terms of comfort. Can you imagine lugging around a huge ballistic nylon bag with a Sony A7 + 70-200 f/4 + 24-70 f/4 while simply hanging out with friends and family at the local hangout, restaurant, mall, or neighborhood bar? You'd look like an idiot especially when you decide to take it out for a quick shot. You certainly would "change / impact" the mood once you pointed that thing at people.

 

[MAubrey]

I shoot both an E-M5 and an A7.

I haven't figured out what I want my kit to look like. I'm pruning lenses to reach something optimal. However, the plan is to eventually have something like this:

Olympus E-M5:
7-14mm f/2.8 (currently, I have the 9-18mm)
25mm f/1.4
75mm f/1.8
40-150mm f/2.8
300mm f/4

Sony A7
24-70mm f/4
CV 35mm f/1.2
55mm f/1.8
short telephoto f/1.8-f/2.8???

Commentary:
At this point, I'm really only interested in the Micro Four Thirds for the ultra-wide end and the telephoto end. That's where you get the most bang for your buck in terms size & weight advantages. Normal lenses aren't significantly larger or smaller (compare the 25mm f/1.4 to the 55mm f/1.8). I'll keep the 25mm just in case, but I'll be selling my 45mm f/1.8 rather soon. Any way, the goal is to play to both system's strengths. For the Sony, that's definitely the normal-ish range. And for the Olympus, that's definitely the ultra-wide and telephoto extremes. The key to working two systems like this is to avoid overlap. This way, if I take two bodies out, I'll always have the normal range covered (either with the 24-70mm or the 55mm) and I'll always have either a telephoto or an ultrawide). I expect that if I have the 55mm on the A7, then it'll be the 7-14mm on the E-M5. And if I have the 24-70 on the A7, then it will be either the 75mm or 40-150mm on the E-M5.

Beyond that I'll continue to shoot the A7 with all sorts of classic legacy glass, too. Like usayit, it's great to use such lenses as they were designed. And the Metabones Speedbooster also makes that quite pleasant for μ43 as well.

Edit: as for weather-sealing...Olympus has a high reputation for it that Sony hasn't achieved yet. If I had an E-M1, I'd be more confident in its protection than I would with the A7.

 

[zulfur666]

thanks guys. here is how I compared my kit:

Olympus OM-D E-M1 $1,399.00 497 g
Lens 12-40 f/2.8 $999.00 382 g
Lens 9-18 $700.00 155 g
Rokinon 7.5mm Fisheye $249.00 197 g
Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 $1,499.00 880 g
Olympus 60mm Macro $434.00 185 g
Total $5,280.00 2296 g

Sony Full frame US$ gramm
Sony A7 1498 416 g
Sony 16-35 F4 Zeiss 1348 518 g
Sony 24-70 F4 Zeiss 1198 430 g
Sony 70-200 F4 Zeiss 1498 840 g

Total $5,542.00 2.20 kg

 

[usayit]

* A7 kit is missing a fisheye and a macro... won't you miss those?
* Also plan on carrying twice as many batteries; one of the disadvantages of the system.
* The EM1 weight is with Battery and memory card while the A7 is without Battery. Don't know if that makes a big difference.

Personally, the Olympus kit listed contains much of what I would ~avoid~ in MFT options because of packaging and weight. I also avoid carrying two cameras that don't share lenses nor batteries. It equates to more stuff to carry. I generally carry two of very similar cameras if I do decide to carry two to avoid mental task switching between.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

I buy camera gear based on what problem it solves for me. In all honesty, a Sony kit introduced more compromises for me and my way of shooting. If m43 cameras had as good a focus tracking as my Nikon's, I could see me switching over to them exclusively, as of right now, I see very little innovation in the newest Nikon offerings.

AF-S focusing, the Olympus cameras can hold their own or surpass my DSLR kit right now.

I give m43 another 2-3 years and I think they will have the tracking issue to an acceptable level for most unpredictable movement shooting.

 

[MAubrey]

* A7 kit is missing a fisheye and a macro... won't you miss those?
* Also plan on carrying twice as many batteries; one of the disadvantages of the system.
* The EM1 weight is with Battery and memory card while the A7 is without Battery. Don't know if that makes a big difference.

These are important points.

Personally, the Olympus kit listed contains much of what I would ~avoid~ in MFT options because of packaging and weight. I also avoid carrying two cameras that don't share lenses nor batteries. It equates to more stuff to carry. I generally carry two of very similar cameras if I do decide to carry two to avoid mental task switching between.

Other than the 40-150mm f/2.8 what else would you avoid because of packaging & weight? The rest of all pretty small and light. Batteries are a real issue, but I've done just fine, so far. They're not big and I basically always keep them in my bag like I would spare memory cards.

Lenses can be planned for quite easily without difficulty and without carrying extra. I can't say switching has ever really been a mental task for me. Normally, I only carry two bodies if I'm wanting to minimize changing lenses and in such cases, as long as planned well, the fact that they don't go on the other camera isn't really an issue.

I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm just saying that something are very personal to the individual photographer. I would simply encourage the OP to figure out what does or does not work and stick with it.

 

[fortwodriver]

If your m43 gear isn't working for you, then by all means, reach out and try other things - if you can afford to wholesale swap out to a new system and feel that will help, you might as well. Get a camera that works well for you and go places to take photos.

I switched to m43 to scale down the size of my camera gear and also I found the RAW files from the Olympus cameras to have more latitude than my Canon files.

Switching to Sony isn't useful for me. I'd rather put the money towards going somewhere (exotic or otherwise) to use my camera equipment.
I've handled the A7 series extensively and it still doesn't give me the same sure-feel that my Olympus gear does (or my Canon/Nikon gear did). So unless I win the lottery and end up with more money than I know what to do with, I'll likely be staying with m43 for a long time.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

For the price of going mirrorless FF, I'd rather just go DSLR FF and take advantage of the plethora of cheap lenses and camera bodies. I'm currently shooting M43 and Nikon FX and I feel I get the best of both worlds. M43 for the small and high quality camera system and Nikon FX for the no-holds barred performance at the expense of weight.

 

[lightmonkey]

sorta thinking about A7 (but not A7r and probably not A7s)

but i also think about how poor Sony ergonomics is. and how i'd miss IBIS. and how poor their lens choices are. so makes me very cautious

if i had to switch camp Fuji would get first consideration. but not until XT1's successor.

 

[0dBm]

No, I'm too busy with my present setup to bother.

 

[MizOre]

Can't get Panasonic or Olympus micro 4/3rds gear in Nicaragua without importing it, which means not getting a new camera body unless I want to do the song and dance with UPS or FedEx, Customs Warehouse pickup, and all that (lithium batteries can't be sent by USPS mail from my usual dealers, so that's a hassle). I can buy Sony batteries in Managua and a A3000 with lens in any Radio Shack in the country. The Managua Sony Center sells lenses and filters, too.

When I bought the A6000 in the US, the store only had Olympus cameras, so I wasn't tempted by the GX7 that I'd like to replace the GF1.

I own a Panasonic 100-300mm telephoto zoom and that's what keeps me wanting to stay in with the m43rds system. Otherwise, the two Sony e-mounts have better color balance (I suspect a later model m43rds would have better color balance, too) and the A6000 has the same kind of snap to focus that I remember from a NIkon D300. A6000 was circa $600 new body only. The only available Oly body was twice that, if I'm remembering correctly.

The A6000 is only a bit larger than the GF1.

 

[usayit]

Other than the 40-150mm f/2.8 what else would you avoid because of packaging & weight?

Its mostly that and the weight/size difference of the EM1. If I looked at what's packed near the door this is what is current MFT wise:

Bag: Golla Carol
12-35mm f/2.8 - 305g
35-100mm f/2.8 - 360g
EM5 - 430g
Total: 1095g

Bag: Ona Bowery
E-PL1 - 296g
12mm f/2 - 130g
25mm f/1.8 - 136g
45mm /f1.8 - 116g
14-42mm EZ - 91g
Total: 796g

Notice the bags are very small (they look like your typical "city bag") and the weight.

Lenses can be planned for quite easily without difficulty and without carrying extra. I can't say switching has ever really been a mental task for me. Normally, I only carry two bodies if I'm wanting to minimize changing lenses and in such cases, as long as planned well, the fact that they don't go on the other camera isn't really an issue.

I learned a long time ago that generally you shoot two bodies to compliment or stick the same. In my case, two different bodies with different chargers, accessories, and batteries simply doesn't work for me unless there is a compelling reason to deal with it. In my recent past, only two instances qualify: 1dmarkIIn for moving subjects w/ Canon 5D classic with its lesser AF and metering system but better sensor. The second was when I carried a 67 Pentax and a Leica M6. MF versus 135 negative.

Other than those rare cases, It adds more bulk and complexity in how you pack.. how you shoot. All complexity that distracts from photography; you end up focusing on the equipment rather than the shoot. You also end up carrying quite a bit more weight intended. It gets progressively worse if you have two different systems; one fails the lenses are useless too. If you prefer dedicated TTL flashes, then you carry two or pick and choose. The list goes on and on.... Heck, I don't even carry lens caps (front nor rear). They get in the way.

Most importantly, it breaks the fluidity of the shoot. When I shoot M8 and M9, there is almost no break in thought between the two; they operate almost identical. No mental task switching. The dials rotate the same. The buttons are the same. Same with two E-PL1s. Even as subtle as a battery change; i'm reach in the dedicated compartment grab and load. No futzing around feeling if its the correct battery or not. I know this isn't a Leica forum but for a very short time, I shot with a M6 TTL and M3. For those that are not familiar, the shutter dial rotates in opposite directions. OMG even as something as subtle as that was highly annoying.

I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm just saying that something are very personal to the individual photographer. I would simply encourage the OP to figure out what does or does not work and stick with it.

Yup... its very personal. My preferences have formed over many years of trying different things out. I know what works for me and modern technology will most likely not change it. Which is why I also started in this thread by saying

I place a higher priority on making the system fit my life style rather than adjusting to fit the systems'.

Also remember, the OP was asking our personal preferences specifically:

Anybody ever debated the same? What kept you with mu43?

So personal opinions/preferences as to why we still shoot mu43 in light of emerging alternate options (Sony A7, NEX, Fuji etc) is the topic of this thread.

 

[MAubrey]

y case, two different bodies with different chargers, accessories, and batteries simply doesn't work for me unless there is a compelling reason to deal with it. In my recent past, only two instances qualify: 1dmarkIIn for moving subjects w/ Canon 5D classic with its lesser AF and metering system but better sensor. The second was when I carried a 67 Pentax and a Leica M6. MF versus 135 negative.

Other than those rare cases, It adds more bulk and complexity in how you pack.. how you shoot. All complexity that distracts from photography; you end up focusing on the equipment rather than the shoot. You also end up carrying quite a bit more weight intended. It gets progressively worse if you have two different systems; one fails the lenses are useless too. If you prefer dedicated TTL flashes, then you carry two or pick and choose. The list goes on and on.... Heck, I don't even carry lens caps (front nor rear). They get in the way.

Most importantly, it breaks the fluidity of the shoot. When I shoot M8 and M9, there is almost no break in thought between the two; they operate almost identical. No mental task switching. The dials rotate the same. The buttons are the same. Same with two E-PL1s. Even as subtle as a battery change; i'm reach in the dedicated compartment grab and load. No futzing around feeling if its the correct battery or not. I know this isn't a Leica forum but for a very short time, I shot with a M6 TTL and M3. For those that are not familiar, the shutter dial rotates in opposite directions. OMG even as something as subtle as that was highly annoying.

Thanks for this. Very helpful understanding where you're coming from. It sounds, too, like you're shooting professionally. I would expect that if I did that even remotely regularly, rather than the occasional one-off gig, continuity between multiple bodies would matter a bit more.

 

[Jermonic]

I bought the A6000 recently. A solid and IQ-yielding piece of photokit for sure. The 16-50 was a snappy zoomer, even with the electronic zooming motor. But the IQ was really disappointing, and I couldn't be bothered with the other current lensofferings Sony has to offer in my favorite focal range (35-40mm FF EQ): The Sony E 20 mm 2.8 and SIGMA 30mm f/2,8 DN Art.

There was no serious contender for my Pana 12-32 (especially not at wide, where the 12-32 delivers). Also, I don't trust Sony as to which direction they're actually going to take E-mount VS FE-mount VS A-mount.

I sent the A6000 back, also sold my old G3, and instead bought a cheap used E-PL5 and a VF-2. Now I have the newest gen MFT sensor, and it cost me a net of $210.

 

[Promit]

I've been trying to move to E-mount for two years now. I'm actually not very happy with the performance of the m4/3 sensor or the look of that sensor size. But every time I look at the landscape, I feel that Sony hasn't dropped the chips in quite the right places yet. I thought the A7s would do it, but the lack of internal 4k and the 'meh' lenses still hold me back. Price is a challenge too. On the crop side, an m4/3 cam with 2.8 zoom outperforms anything Sony has to offer.

So I simply continue to wait. And now Samsung appears to be getting serious, which I'm intensely curious about. They have some amazing lenses from the look of it, but the bodies haven't quite hit the mark yet.

 

[hankbaskett]

I have an EM-1 and an A7r, so sort of?

It just depends on what you're shooting / what your priorities are. There's not really a huge size or weight penalty for the A7r with wide angle / normal / short telephoto. Compare the size of the A7 and the 35mm or 55mm compared to the EM1 and the 17.5 or 25mm lenses. I mean, there can be a big size difference, but you have small options (look at leica, Sony Zeiss FE, contax, OM glass). Mid to long telephoto full frame starts getting pretty gigantic, making those small on a 35mm camera isn't happening. Lack of IBIS is a drag, but again, it doesn't matter too much until you start getting into the 75mm+ range.

Using old 35mm glass is the best part, you can get still get some awesome deals on some classic lenses.

The other big plus for the Sonys is that the ISO performance, dynamic range and detail you can pull out of those sensor is ridiculous. But you have to ask yourself if are you shooting anything that requires that amount of sensor performance...