Em5iii upgrade ? Or maybe go with a7r2 and primes?

amit

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
193
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
DOF is much shallower with the Samyang primes w/ FF compared to Olympus... You can stop those lenses to f4-5.6 if you want more dof similar to Olympus, but you need the .95 primes for shallower dof with Olympus.... I have the Oly primes and gave 45mm away after I got Pana 42.5mm 1.7 OIS as I used them with gm5. Oly 25mm is sharp but the bokeh is OK. I tried Mitakon 25mm 0.95 too, not sharp on the sides wide open and bokeh again is OK... On A7R II, I would go for Samyang 35mm 1.8 and 45mm 1.8 instead of Sony versions. Samyang 35mm is a little smaller/cheaper and astigmatism might be better compared to Sony based on early shots. The lens is on preorder now, not many reviews. Samyang 45mm 1.8 has better/faster af then Sony 50mm 1.8. I have Samyang 45/75mm and like them. You need to stop them to f4/5.6 for corner sharpness as the lenses are optimized for size, not for sharpness wide open. When I compared Samyang 45mm with CV 50mm apo f2, the only difference is auto WB which was warmer with Samyang and of course a little wider view... 50mm apo is not fully corrected either eg in comparison to bigger CV 65/110mm lenses. Sony 55mm is a good lens also, more expensive and longer view... I am more 24-28/45-50/75-85mm user... Here is one shot with Samyang 75mm 1.8 wide open camera jpg:

View attachment 848153



I used the EM5 III / EM1 III briefly as I kept m43 gear with its current resale values. I agree with Steve on the size of the cameras... EM5 III with Pana 12-32 is close to P&S size but EM1 II is closer to Sony FF sizes... The IBIS and sensor is improved with newer Oly cameras compared to EM5/EM1 that I have, but the sensor improvement you will get with A7R II is much better esp for landscapes... Sony IBIS is not the best but good enough for most uses eg up to 0.5 sec. I tried Olympus EM5 III (similar to EM1 II IBIS) for longer handheld shots with IBIS, which is good but again up to 1-1.5sec with my Pana zooms as you need a tripod/base support for longer shots... You need to edit raws to get best colors/dynamic range with Sony and you need to edit raws with Olympus to get the best dynamic range... I get more noise with m43 sensors when I push for shadow edits... A7R II af is not the latest/fastest eg eye af is not auto as you need to assign a back button and push that which is fine with not moving subjects but might not be good with running kids (it's been a while I used the A7R II eye af)... I prefer to use A7R III for full time tracking eye af for stills that can keep up with our cat playing with a rope that my wife was swinging in the air (similar to A7 III but A7 III has wider af selection area esp better for portrait orientation eye af)... For video full time eye tracking you need the newer A7C/A7R IV... Sony has apps that you can upload to the A7R II, so landscape shooters kept their camera just for that as the newer Sony cameras do not have that option... Below is A7R II shot stabilized on a rock with a cheap Tamron 28-300mm zoom that I now replaced it with sharper Tamron 28-200mm as a travel lens (which is also a much cheaper than what I paid for Pana 12-35mm+35-100mm f2.8 combo):

View attachment 848157
Thank you.
What about colors?
Ive seen some pretty dull examples ...
I use capture one for edit and almost never need to play with the olympus colors ( tiny saturation edits)..
 

Serhan

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
597
Location
NYC
Yes, Capture One colors for Sony is good. That is usually recommended in FM Sony forum. I have it also, but usually I go back to old LR edit for easiness... LR works for me as Sony colors are more neutral and you can adjust to your choice.... You can download Sony raws from dpreview or any other online review sites and you can try yourself in Capture One....

Thank you.
What about colors?
Ive seen some pretty dull examples ...
I use capture one for edit and almost never need to play with the olympus colors ( tiny saturation edits)..
 

danelkins

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
865
Location
Norhtern Illinois
Many good points listed here, keep in mind we all have our likes and dislikes. Also, ALL cameras have their Pros and Cons which appeal to photographers in different ways. I have looked at and tested a variety of cameras from different companies and still find m43 to offer the Pros that I appreciate most and the Cons that I can more easily live with. Based on your post it looks like the EM5iii or EM1ii would offer you the changes you are most looking for. As others have mentioned there is certainly a difference between an a7Rii and OM-D in the user experience, so if you love the OM-D you probably will not enjoy Sony. If high iso shooting is your main need than FF will offer that benefit, as well as the AF performance and IS that m43 has done so well with for many years. Plus you can always rent a Sony for a week to get a feel for it. Best of luck
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,247
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
The whole FF thing is such a dichotomy. Yes, you'll get better IQ, but how much better?, and does it matter? You'll also get a camera with fewer features, worse IBIS, more weight and bulk, narrower choice of native lenses, higher price, bigger files, and probably a more challenging shooting experience.

What I mean by my last point is this. I shoot mainly landscapes where FF should make the biggest difference, but...

- I have a Z7 and an EM1.2. To get maximum IQ on the Z7, I shoot at ISO 64 if at all possible. Of course, ISO 200 on a Z7 is better than ISO 200 on an EM1.2, but since FF and a 45Mp sensor is all about best IQ, it's silly to shoot anything but base ISO (64).

- To get the same DOF (and optical performance), I need to shoot the Z7 at two stops down from m43 (so f8 or f11 rather than f4 or f5.6).

- That means I'm now at a shutter speed that's 4 stops down on the Z7 compared to the EM1.2.

- The IBIS on the Z7 is quite a long way behind the EM1.2, so I find myself struggling to get consistently sharp shots at 1/15s at wide/normal focal lengths - speeds that would be a walk in the park on the Olympus.

- So that means a tripod is needed more, but when hiking, a tripod is a PITA. So, the shooting experience is more challenging/ limiting.

So, whilst I absolutely love the output from the Z7, I prefer shooting with my Olympus, and for much of what I do, the improved IQ of the Nikon doesn't really count for much. But when pixel peeking on a big monitor, it's a joy to the eyes!
 
Last edited:

amit

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
193
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #29
The whole FF thing is such a dichotomy. Yes, you'll get better IQ, but how much better?, and does it matter? You'll also get a camera with fewer features, worse IBIS, more weight and bulk, narrower choice of native lenses, higher price, bigger files, and probably a more challenging shooting experience.

What I mean by my last point is this. I shoot mainly landscapes where FF should make the biggest difference, but...

- I have a Z7 and an EM1.2. To get maximum IQ on the Z7, I shoot at ISO 64 if at all possible. Of course, ISO 200 on a Z7 is better than ISO 200 on an EM1.2, but since FF and a 45Mp sensor is all about best IQ, it's silly to shoot anything but base ISO (64).

- To get the same DOF (and optical performance), I need to shoot the Z7 at two stops down from m43 (so f8 or f11 rather than f4 or f5.6).

- That means I'm now at a shutter speed that's 4 stops down on the Z7 compared to the EM1.2.

- The IBIS on the Z7 is quite a long way behind the EM1.2, so I find myself struggling to get consistently sharp shots at 1/15s at wide/normal focal lengths - speeds that would be a walk in the park on the Olympus.

- So that means a tripod is needed more, but when hiking, a tripod is a PITA. So, the shooting experience is more challenging/ limiting.

So, whilst I absolutely love the output from the Z7, I prefer shooting with my Olympus, and for much of what I do, the improved IQ of the Nikon doesn't really count for much. But when pixel peeking on a big monitor, it's a joy to the eyes!
I will never use a tripod ,Id better stay with my em10 :) .
No really, most of my photos are with my wife&kids , no one will wait for me to set a tripod .
The thumb rule state 1/fl is fine , so for 30mm , 1/30 is ok, 1/15 is a struggle ? So the ibis of the z7 worth only 1 stop?
And why 200iso on the z7 will be different from 200 with the em1?

The thing is , when comparing Em1ii vs sony a7rii ,tamron zooms vs oly pro zooms ,size is really close. and some ff primes are not too big ,price is close if you choose the right kit ...
Its tempting.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,947
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I will never use a tripod ,Id better stay with my em10 :) .
No really, most of my photos are with my wife&kids , no one will wait for me to set a tripod .
The thumb rule state 1/fl is fine , so for 30mm , 1/30 is ok, 1/15 is a struggle ? So the ibis of the z7 worth only 1 stop?
And why 200iso on the z7 will be different from 200 with the em1?

The thing is , when comparing Em1ii vs sony a7rii ,tamron zooms vs oly pro zooms ,size is really close. and some ff primes are not too big ,price is close if you choose the right kit ...
Its tempting.
The old rule of thumb of 1/fl was based on a 35mm film camera.
For m4/3, you have to adjust for the m4/3 crop factor of 2x.
So for m4/3, I adjust the rule of thumb to 1/(fl x2). So for your 30mm, it would be 1/60 sec.
Then adjust for what IBIS can do, your own body limits, and the shooting conditions.
On uneven ground, in the wind where I could feel my body being moved by the wind, even with IBIS, I was shooting with my 75-300 at 1/1000 sec.​

ISO 200 on the 47MP Z7 vs. 20MP of the EM1-mk2/mk3 is about resolution.
Even if the sensor quality was the same, on the Z7, you have 27MP more resolution to be able to crop into, or make a HUGE print.

A FF variable aperture non-pro lenses vs. the m4/3 Olympus pro lens, is an apples to oranges comparison.
The long lenses are where the FF vs. m4/3 comparison fails, and shows the difference.
If you go with a FF variable aperture non-pro lenses, you do reduce the size and weight of the FF lens. But you can do the same with m4/3.
A FF F-mount 70-300 AF-P (680g) vs the Olympus 40-150R (190g). Virtually identical image magnification, and the 40-150R is a MUCH smaller and lighter lens. And you still need the FTZ adapter, for the F-mount lens.​
Even the shorter Z-mount 50-250 at 405g is more than 2x the weight of the 40-150R.​
The Tamron 70-210/4 at 860g, 4.5x heavier than the 40-150R. And it has a shorter long end, and needs the FTZ adapter.​
In fact you can do that with a pro m4/3 lens.
The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is a pro lens, but much smaller and less than half the weight of the Olympus 40-150/2.8.​
The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 at 360g, is about a quarter of the weight of the Z mount Nikon 70-200/2.8, and 45g lighter than the Z 50-250.​
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,247
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
IBIS/IS isn't really much use for shooting things that move though - such as people. In that case, you need either the light, or high ISO. If I were into people shooting, without flash, I'd be using FF for sure, or at least I would have an f1.2 lens on my m43 camera. The Z6 performs crazy well at high ISO.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,947
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
IMHO, if I were to go for a FF camera, it would be to take advantage of the FF advantages.
  • D750 or Z6 for night time low light sports.
  • D850 or Z7 for high resolution.
So these would be point solutions.

Example a m4/3 + Z7 combo would be similar to the film days combo of a 35mm + 6x6 or 4x5.
The m4/3 or 35mm as the daily camera, the Z7 or 6x6 or 4x5 for high resolution.
Each has it's strong point.

Right now I shoot both m4/3 and APS-C.
m4/3 for my daily camera, APS-C Nikon D7200 for field sports (because of the Nikon 70-200/4 lens).
I had considered upgrading from the D7200 to the D750, but decided to stay with the D7200.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,947
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
IBIS/IS isn't really much use for shooting things that move though - such as people. In that case, you need either the light, or high ISO. If I were into people shooting, without flash, I'd be using FF for sure, or at least I would have an f1.2 lens on my m43 camera. The Z6 performs crazy well at high ISO.
This is one of those, it depends situations.
Yes, I agree, IBIS does NOTHING to stabilize the motion of the subject. You simply need a faster shutter speed.
However, IBIS does assist me tremendously in being able to hold the AF point on the subject, stationary or moving. This is more apparent when using a tele, where your body motion is more apparent.
I had not realized the value of this second point, until I used a stabilized lens, when shooting sports. For me, when shooting sports, IBIS/VR is more important for holding the AF on the subject, than being able to shoot at a lower shutter speed. With a non-stabilized setup, the subject is bouncing around in the viewfinder, and it is harder to keep the AF point on the subject.​
 
Last edited:

Lupin 3rd

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
690
Location
MoCo, MD
Since you already have the lenses, the cheapest thing would be to get the E-M1 ii. Its auto focus (and buffer) is leaps and bounds above the E-M10, and you can get good used ones.

If you want to scratch the novelty itch, then the Fuji X-T3 and 16-80/4 are a very nice combo.

I’ve been tempted by the Sony A7Rii for landscapes, since there’s times that High-Res mode doesn’t work.

Things I don’t like about the Sony are
  • Build quality;
  • Since SD card slot;
  • Poor weather resistance;
  • Poor battery life.

All of these issues have been addressed by the mk iii cameras, but the used price doubles.
 

amit

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
193
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #35
The old rule of thumb of 1/fl was based on a 35mm film camera.
For m4/3, you have to adjust for the m4/3 crop factor of 2x.
So for m4/3, I adjust the rule of thumb to 1/(fl x2). So for your 30mm, it would be 1/60 sec.
Then adjust for what IBIS can do, your own body limits, and the shooting conditions.
On uneven ground, in the wind where I could feel my body being moved by the wind, even with IBIS, I was shooting with my 75-300 at 1/1000 sec.​

ISO 200 on the 47MP Z7 vs. 20MP of the EM1-mk2/mk3 is about resolution.
Even if the sensor quality was the same, on the Z7, you have 27MP more resolution to be able to crop into, or make a HUGE print.

A FF variable aperture non-pro lenses vs. the m4/3 Olympus pro lens, is an apples to oranges comparison.
The long lenses are where the FF vs. m4/3 comparison fails, and shows the difference.
If you go with a FF variable aperture non-pro lenses, you do reduce the size and weight of the FF lens. But you can do the same with m4/3.
A FF F-mount 70-300 AF-P (680g) vs the Olympus 40-150R (190g). Virtually identical image magnification, and the 40-150R is a MUCH smaller and lighter lens. And you still need the FTZ adapter, for the F-mount lens.​
Even the shorter Z-mount 50-250 at 405g is more than 2x the weight of the 40-150R.​
The Tamron 70-210/4 at 860g, 4.5x heavier than the 40-150R. And it has a shorter long end, and needs the FTZ adapter.​
In fact you can do that with a pro m4/3 lens.
The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is a pro lens, but much smaller and less than half the weight of the Olympus 40-150/2.8.​
The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 at 360g, is about a quarter of the weight of the Z mount Nikon 70-200/2.8, and 45g lighter than the Z 50-250.​
I was speaking about his z7 , 30mm - 1/30 , so 1/15 is one stop from there.

Tele lenses -I dont use them much , and I can always keep my em10 with 40-150r,its cheap and fantastic .
But you can compare the tamron 70-180 f2.8 to oly 40-150pro , and 42mp makes up for the range by cropping in.

I think about getting a sony with small primes , f1.8 . And maybe use the tamron zooms, wide and normal.
But if that means tripod thats not gonna work, Im spoiled :)
 

memzinla

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I've also been thinking about FF, and I've tried some cameras and I ALWAYS end up going back to Olympus. Right now I'm tempted by the Panasonic S5. LOL!

I mostly take pictures of static things, so I love IBIS. Allows me to keep ISO low.
 

amit

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
193
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #37
The whole FF thing is such a dichotomy. Yes, you'll get better IQ, but how much better?, and does it matter? You'll also get a camera with fewer features, worse IBIS, more weight and bulk, narrower choice of native lenses, higher price, bigger files, and probably a more challenging shooting experience.

What I mean by my last point is this. I shoot mainly landscapes where FF should make the biggest difference, but...

- I have a Z7 and an EM1.2. To get maximum IQ on the Z7, I shoot at ISO 64 if at all possible. Of course, ISO 200 on a Z7 is better than ISO 200 on an EM1.2, but since FF and a 45Mp sensor is all about best IQ, it's silly to shoot anything but base ISO (64).

- To get the same DOF (and optical performance), I need to shoot the Z7 at two stops down from m43 (so f8 or f11 rather than f4 or f5.6).

- That means I'm now at a shutter speed that's 4 stops down on the Z7 compared to the EM1.2.

- The IBIS on the Z7 is quite a long way behind the EM1.2, so I find myself struggling to get consistently sharp shots at 1/15s at wide/normal focal lengths - speeds that would be a walk in the park on the Olympus.

- So that means a tripod is needed more, but when hiking, a tripod is a PITA. So, the shooting experience is more challenging/ limiting.

So, whilst I absolutely love the output from the Z7, I prefer shooting with my Olympus, and for much of what I do, the improved IQ of the Nikon doesn't really count for much. But when pixel peeking on a big monitor, it's a joy to the eyes!
So with ff you get better iq but you pay in dof , in landscape photography without tripod, you can push the iso up to 800 and get a similar iq as with the em1ii at iso200 , am I right?
So basiclly in terms of iq, its a win-win situation .

Im not sure what I should choose, and the recent deals doesnt help :)
Em1iii is 600usd cheaper than a7iii, and has liveND and HHHR, 10sec handheld exposures .

But also sinking ship ,who knows if any upgrades will be available in the future.
And with the sony I can get thin dof with small primes for family photos. The tamron 2.8 zooms are also compact...

Hard times :)
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,247
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
So with ff you get better iq but you pay in dof , in landscape photography without tripod, you can push the iso up to 800 and get a similar iq as with the em1ii at iso200 , am I right?
So basiclly in terms of iq, its a win-win situation .

Im not sure what I should choose, and the recent deals doesnt help :)
Em1iii is 600usd cheaper than a7iii, and has liveND and HHHR, 10sec handheld exposures .

But also sinking ship ,who knows if any upgrades will be available in the future.
And with the sony I can get thin dof with small primes for family photos. The tamron 2.8 zooms are also compact...

Hard times :)
Well, we all need to make our own choices. Personally, I've now had two bashes at swapping from Olympus to mirrorless FF (first with the A7R2 and then the Nikon Z7). Neither gave me the same satisfaction and fun as m43 and both came with more downsides that I thought worth paying for the better IQ. Of course, YMMV !
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom