Shootout GAS attack: Oly EM1mkii vs Sony A7iii

Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
67
Love the comparisons you're generating. Take this comment with a big grain of salt, but one other thing to consider is that if this is intended for social media, you don't need f/4 on the FF because at such small viewing sizes, you can't judge sharpness or what's in focus very accurately. IMO, "apparent" dof is significantly increased at small viewing sizes. This gives some advantage back to the larger sensor because it has more fudge room.
Thanks, I see what you're saying, but while the subject may appear "in focus" the "look" of the image will be different. Of course, this can be more desirable depending on what you are going for.
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
608
So it's a good question about perceptual dr differences at smaller viewing sizes. Some things, like blown highlights are just glaringly obvious regardless of the resolution, but I don't know the limits of that perceptual sliding scale.

As for the "look", the modern infatuation for blurry backgrounds favors FF, especially at small viewing sizes where the circles of confusion approach the pixel/dot size. Of course, if you want more dof, we know who wins, or at least equalizes the playing field..
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
67
This is true, although Tamron's full-frame FE mount zooms get good reviews, are moderately sized and are much lighter than you'd think. But I understand your point.

In my case, my A7 III kit targets under 100mm. My u43 kit was built gradually over a decade, so it's much more complete.

But given your financial situation and how much the Sony UI bothers you, I think you already know in your heart what your decision will be. And that's fine.
This is what I'm leaning towards. I have the Tamron on order and if it impresses me, then I will go that route and jettison some MFT gear to compensate. I'll probably pick up a wide prime for it as well and keep the long MFT lenses. Today, I did some "real shooting" and the autofocus when not near the minimum focus distance worked really well on the Sony. Definitely more keepers with any moving subjects.

I also did some shooting with my Canon FD lenses (50mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 135mm 3.5) on the Sony today and wow, those things are pretty good if you can live with a little fringing and don't shoot backlit subjects. I think I paid like $20 for the 135.

I found the Sony 85mm/1.8 to be extremely sharp and detailed when I tried it out. Much sharper than the Olympus 45mm /1.8 and as good if not better than the premium m43 glass like Olympus 75mm1.8. Which is very impressive because it’s not a very expensive lens in the Sony lineup.
I also didn’t care for the cats eye bokeh.

the color depth of the Sony files is much better IMO , colors are rich and more pleasant than the m43 . The color science itself is not a favorite but it’s good and easy to tweak.
I have a chart that I shoot all my gear on just to check that I have a good copy and to identify best apertures. I will compare it later with the 75 1.8 and the 45 1.8/1.2. Based on limited usage, it seems a little soft wide open but very good at F4, not sure yet where it gets good. I do like the size and price (relatively) and the AF was much better today in realistic the shooting situations.
 

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
834
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
Thanks for the comparison :thumbup:

Would be interesting to see a similar comparision with E-M1X and HHHR mode...
 

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
834
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
Compromise at ISO 2000. I used the same adapted Canon FD lens on both @F8. Was a little tricky to get the same repoduction size since the crop sensor and all, but here is my best attempt. Pretty comparable, but Sony shows more detail and contrast for sure. However, if you shoot at the minimum focus distance on the MFT sensor, you get more detail due to the crop--sooo. Basically, I doubt I would switch if I shot a lot of macro because the crop factor and DOF is a real advantage not to mention the superior IBIS that outweighs the DR/Low light advantage of FF.

View attachment 791272
How dose it look in a equivalent shooting situation, if you would bump up the ISO to 8000 and stop down to f16 for the Sony or drop down to ISO 500 and f4 for the Oly
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
67
@Crazy150
Thanks for taking the time to do the comparisons.
It is good to see the differences from a forum user rather than just the online reviewers.
Thanks. I know there is nothing really "new" here, but I was going to do this testing myself so I figured I would share with the MFT community. I know the "advancement" or the hype-train of FF mirrorless is temping many of us.
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
608
One advantage with FF is the increased ability to control dof with a readily available and relatively inexpensive f/4 zoom instead of a bag of primes. I just wish they were another 20% lighter. Enjoy your experiment!
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
256
Location
Finland
Great to see these comparisons, like you said many of us surely have compared different systems, so the subject is in demand. Thanks from me too.

There was a mention of Tamron, and I have looked at that praised budget zoom earlier. I found out that lenstip.com has made a review of it in recent months. I'm in the impression that one should not compare different system lpm-values in these reviews? But I would think one could compare their "decency level", looking at when it goes to that level in each of them? Or how is it, I'm a beginner?

I have read that diffraction starts earlier in M43, is it so? These two lenses in the links cost about the same new.

So regarding that question, why does the Tamron start to be at the decency level in the edge of the frame (with 24MP APS-C sensor I think, even worse with higher MP) at f/11 (M43 f/5.6) while Olympus at f/11 (FF f/22?) I have read some statements there like: "Diffraction start to affect the resolution too much at f/X..."

https://www.lenstip.com/564.4-Lens_review-Tamron_28-75_mm_f_2.8_Di_III_RXD_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
608
The short answer is that diffraction tends to show up at equivalent dof (aperture value). FF tends to start exhibiting diffraction beyond f/11 and m43 beyond f/5.6. It's also typically minor in impact unless you're a pixel peeper/large enlargement person.
 

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
834
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
Might be wrong but i think diffraction basically starts at the same aperture value regardless of sensor format, but with higher resolution we start to see the diffraction softening earlier than with lower resolution.
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
608
I don't know this stuff well, but diffraction is always there. It's just a matter of when it becomes strong enough to be perceived despite the other optical properties of the lens. Higher resolution does appear to resolve diffraction at a larger aperture. For m43 level resolution, however, it appears that f/5.6 (f/11) is a somewhat useful rule of thumb.

I'd like to add that diffraction is somewhat overrated, especially at lower resolutions - stop down if you have a reason for it...
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
492
Location
Covina, California
I'd like to add that diffraction is somewhat overrated, especially at lower resolutions - stop down if you have a reason for it...
Agreed, many times I need to stop down when doing product photography in the studio to get the most possible in focus. Often going into F11-14 territory and using Olympus Pro lenses, I'm still getting a sharper image than many non pro lenses, at lower F stop values. What diffraction?
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
3,947
Location
Sydney, Australia
I don't know this stuff well, but diffraction is always there. It's just a matter of when it becomes strong enough to be perceived despite the other optical properties of the lens. Higher resolution does appear to resolve diffraction at a larger aperture. For m43 level resolution, however, it appears that f/5.6 (f/11) is a somewhat useful rule of thumb.

I'd like to add that diffraction is somewhat overrated, especially at lower resolutions - stop down if you have a reason for it...
This is why some Mu-43 macro shooters use F8 or F11
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
256
Location
Finland
I'm not sure if people understood what I was wondering in total. The Olympus 12-40mm Pro hits the decency level at edges much later, and seems a lot sharper there. The Olympus will be 20 lpm above the decency level in the edges at f/5.6, while Tamron (with APS-C) is at the decency level in the edges with f/11 which gives similar result for depth of field. This is weird considering the diffraction statement with m43 vs FF. (Oly is at the decency level at f/11 like I said earlier.)

So must we just conclude that with m43 glass usually being smaller, they can make it much better quality with both being about the same price? The Tamron is a good lens I think, but those edges are not very good?

And I usually shoot macro at f11/-f/13. That is the decency level with the Olympus 60mm lens. I find it good enough and important to have for live very small insects. I have even shot butterflies with it at minimum focus distance (maybe even with Raynox-250, not totally sure) and then you really need the f/13 too even if they are bigger creatures. Unless one is happy with only their eye being in focus although sharper.

https://www.lenstip.com/356.4-Lens_...al_60_mm_f_2.8_ED_Macro_Image_resolution.html
 
Last edited:

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
608
Lenstip test shows the 12-40 getting progressively worse at the edges upon stopping down starting at wide open, except for at 40mm, where it's sharpest at f/4. Not sure what you're getting at here about diffraction or "decency".
 

RS86

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
256
Location
Finland
Lenstip test shows the 12-40 getting progressively worse at the edges upon stopping down starting at wide open, except for at 40mm, where it's sharpest at f/4. Not sure what you're getting at here about diffraction or "decency".
They mention "decency level" for every review in the upper part of the page. It's somewhere between 38-44 lpm mostly. This is the level they deem it is still acceptable sharpness and below that it is not. This is my impression of it. I have found this true with my Olympus 60mm, and don't like to go f/16 because it is too soft.

Yes, the 12-40mm is the sharpest when wide and at f/2.8, which is great. It has been optimized for landscapes I think.

Tamron also gets progressively worse, only not sharpest wide open. This is the case with most lenses. Are you suggesting it is a bad thing that Olympus lens is sharpest wide open? Usually it's a good thing when you don't have to stop lenses down to get sharp results.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
67
I found the Sony 85mm/1.8 to be extremely sharp and detailed when I tried it out. Much sharper than the Olympus 45mm /1.8 and as good if not better than the premium m43 glass like Olympus 75mm1.8. Which is very impressive because it’s not a very expensive lens in the Sony lineup.
I also didn’t care for the cats eye bokeh.

the color depth of the Sony files is much better IMO , colors are rich and more pleasant than the m43 . The color science itself is not a favorite but it’s good and easy to tweak.
I shot my chart today and confirmed what Lenstip.com's test showed. The sony performs pretty poorly away from the center. Doesn't get super sharp in the center until F5.6. It is pretty comparable to the 45 1.8 Oly lens--maybe a hair sharper in the center wide open, but the fall off is toward the edge is quick and about 1/3 of the frame from center it's not great at all. Also, there is a little color fringing, but not very noticeable. In practice, shooting my kid and dog running around the lens looks sharp enough, the FF image is a bit cleaner and the lens is "punchier" so it looks great at normal viewing resolution. I also compared it to the Oly 12-40 @40mm&2.8 and the OLY is superior. Against the 12-100 Oly @44mm&F4 they were similar across the frame. The 75mm1.8 is sharper but has some fringing.

If anyone is interested in any particular comparison let me know.
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
608
I'm not really suggesting anything, merely trying to understand you observations. Tamron seems to fall out of their somewhat arbitrary "decency" threshold around f/11-16, and the 12-40 does as well? I guess you're saying the 12-40 is so sharp that it can shoot with double the dof and still be "decent"? That's quite interesting, though I don't know how directly comparable the "decency" threshold is from review to review, and I also don't know that diffraction itself tells us anything interesting. It's often said that the smaller image circle is easier/less expensive for building/manufacturing lenses, and perhaps we're seeing some payoff here. The major trade off, in creative terms, is in the dof control.
 
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