Has everyone gone mad?

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,518
Beware: Wall of text ahead!

Recently there has been an increasing amount of discussion on the demise of micro four thirds and how it is inevitable, mostly because full frame is so much better. These discussions are about as old as the format and go back as far as I can remember being on this forum. However, what’s new is that there seem to be way more current micro four thirds shooters agreeing to this point of view. It seems to me, that the ongoing pressure of review channels and other full frame proponents has led to a change of opinion with many and I am utterly confused why certain sides of the argument for the system are ignored in favour of a single “we must have the very best image quality possible”. I am going to have an in depth look at the cameras/lenses I currently use and how I would replace them in different systems. I’m ignoring the FF systems of Canon/Nikon/Panasonic for the sake of simplicity. In terms of lens options they really offer no advantages over Sony and they are also not significantly cheaper or lighter. Soft factors like UI obviously are important for buying decisions but for the most part the decision for a specific sensor format has a much bigger influence. The only difference is APS-C, as Fuji is the only company that has a dedicated APS-C line up.

Even though equivalency has been discussed to death on this forum, it needs to be mentioned here. The following I hold to be true:

FOV: With the crop factor the FOV changes accordingly. Although we may talk about a 25mm lens in mu43 or a 50mm in FF we mean a 46.8° diagonal FOV. When we buy lenses the first thing we usually decide is the FOV we want. We articulate that in focal length millimetres but the FOV is what we mean. In this case a 300mm in FOV is the same as a 600mm in FF or 400mm in APS-C. A significant difference.

Aperture: The Aperture (f-value) tells us which exposure we are getting. It does not change with formats. If we need our shutter speed to be above a certain value (wildlife, sports) a faster aperture will provide that regardless of format.

Depth of Field (DoF): Depth of field changes with focal length and aperture. In micro four thirds we use shorter focal lengths for the same FoV. This impacts the DoF. A good rule of thumb is using “equivalent apertures”. This only affects DoF, not image quality. In different kinds of photography more or less DoF may be required, so the often thinner DoF of full frame sensors is a double edged sword.

Low light (high ISO) performance: Generally FF sensors are considered to be about 2 stops better while APS-C sensors are 1 stop better than mu43. This is not a strict rule though and the gap has been smaller or bigger depending on the tech available for different formats. Currently the very best FF sensors are slightly ahead of those two stops – slightly meaning (much) less than 1/3 stop. Despite what many people say about the progress of different formats the variance on this point has always been much lower than what people make out and advantages within a single format have been pretty slim in the last 5 years or even more.

Dynamic Range: Dynamic range tells us the variance of the brightest and darkest points in an image. It is measured in stops. The very best FF sensor currently has 14.8 EVs (the A7rVI). Many other FF cameras only have about 14 EVs. The Panasonic GH5 has 13EV and the Em1mkII 12.8. So the difference is about 1-2 stops depending on sensor tech. I have taken all values from DXO mark and they seem to have no newer cameras than the EM1mkII in mu43. Personally I have found that in scenes where the DOF is not enough for a single frame I need to bracket more than 1 stop (each way), but dynamic range seems to be one of the most significant advantages to IQ in larger sensor cameras.

Resolution: Resolution is not directly linked to sensor size, but Larger sensors generally allow for more pixels. While all modern mu43 cameras come with 20mp sensors (the GH5S being the single exception) and most APS-C cameras have around 24mp there is a significant difference within the FF format (all the way from 12-61mp). This is another area where FF significantly betters both mu43 and aps-c. High resolution modes take the edge of this advantage in some scenarios and most display scenarios don’t benefit from extremely high resolutions but if you want more pixels FF is the way to go.

How much better is FF image quality really:
As can be seen from the above, FF image quality is better in three aspects: Low light performance (ISO), Dynamic Range and Resolution. DoF control is a double edged sword. If you are constantly after more shallow DoF full frame definitely has the edge, but good blurred backgrounds come as much from wise background choices and in many subjects more DoF is actually required.

Low light performance can be overcome to a degree by faster lenses. It is likely more economical to buy a faster lens than a complete system swap as often you know exactly the scenarios where low light performance is important for you so a single fast lens may be all that’s needed.

Dynamic range (more often than not 1 stop difference) and Resolution (often double, sometimes the same) are more difficult to assess. Dynamic range can be a problem even on current FF cameras so more is always better. Once again this is a question of analysing if you actually run into problems with this often.

People generally seem to have problems with the concept of “good enough”. Many (most?) people are not printing at all, and when they are they rarely go larger than 40-60cm which is a size that is absolutely fine with a 20mp sensor. Similarly many photos don’t actually have a huge dynamic range, especially in the area of portraits.

The question of AF

AF system speed is not related to sensor size. As you choose a system you also choose the AF system so despite the only indirect effect on IQ the AF system is an important aspect of a buyer’s decision. Currently only Panasonic and Olympus still have cameras without Phase Detection AF pixels (of some variant). Olympus has included PDAF in it’s newest EM1 and EM5 iterations, while Panasonic still sticks with their contrast detect DFD system. AF is notoriously hard to test for multiple reasons. One is that people rarely make a difference between the tracking systems which tell the camera where to focus and the actual AF results at the chosen point. There are also difference in performance between AF-S and AF-C. The biggest advances in recent times have been made in tracking and AF-C. If you use a user chosen AF Point and manually hold it over the subject advances in tracking are worthless to you (looking at you landscape photographers). If you try to photograph moving subjects (sports, kids, animals) good tracking will make your photography easier. If you can keep the AF-spot on your subject yourself you only need good AF-C. Most cameras today have competent to excellent AF-C. Even Panasonics DFD system works fairly reliably. If you just shoot single shots and use AF-S you don’t need to care about your cameras AF system. It will be good enough! (Again looking at you landscape photographers).

It seems different people rank AF competency differently. On here it seems the ranking goes Sony>FF DSLRS>Canon Mirrorless >Nikon Mirrorless>Fuji>Olympus> Panasonic. On Wetpixel (a forum for underwater photographers) people seem to rate Olympus much higher and FF DSLRs still as the ultimate best. As I have no personal experience and testing is difficult it seems to me that only one thing is certain. Panasonic is always at the very bottom of the list. All of the other systems are probably good enough that people don’t constantly complain.

Video

Video is becoming more important or at least it seems so. Good quality (and I don’t mean image quality) videos are still a rarity on youtube, so I don’t quite get the hype and I still think that photos remain the more accessible medium. However, advances in video have been much more important than in photos in the last years so manufacturers market their video skills more and reviewers look at them more in depth.

Video AF:While Panasonics AF-C (without tracking) is competent the requirements for video AF are harder because the need of smooth focus transitions. Also tracking is much more important in Video.

Video IQ: Video IQ eliminates the question of resolution. 8K is not really a thing (yet) and 4k requires less Mp than everything on the market. Video IQ is therefore mostly a question of codecs and video crop factors. This is the reason that Panasonic has been leading in video IQ despite the smaller sensors, although low light IQ is becoming more important here and better AF systems now open up possibilities with larger sensors and smaller DoF.

Diversion: Underwater photography
I am for this analysis excluding my underwater photography gear. A system change in underwater cameras can easily cost multiple thousand euros as equipment drops in value drastically basically the instant it touches water the first time. Changing systems means not only buying a new housing but also completely new ports and possibly more powerful strobes. The cost of FF is multiplied in Underwater Photography because dome port size scales with sensor size. As wide angle lenses have to be stopped down for DoF (even the 8-18mm behind a 7” dome needs at least f8, better f11) any low light advantages for FF are eaten up, leaving only resolution and dynamic range as improvements. The other half of underwater photography is macro. Stopping down to f16 on mu43 for DoF is a thing that exists, diffraction be damned. Dynamic range is rarely a problem as everything is artificially lit leaving only resolution and a slightly higher diffraction cealing as benefits for FF. For the vast majority of people the tradeoffs (diving sites often require international travel, my mu43 kit weighs in at about 10kg total, imagine what FF weighs) are not worth the fuss. As such, mu43 is a very respected system in the UW-Photography world and possibly also the last place where people are actually interested when a new compact camera comes out.

An actual comparison
All of these definite, but often marginal improvements come at a price. I am now going to compare four sets of equipment. I am not taking into account that many (most?) photographers in the market for a FF camera already own a camera. Depending on resale value of the items mentioned the loss of switching systems may well be one or two thousand euros. In the comparison I am going to equal out apertures with ISO performance. So if a lens has one stop larger aperture, but on a system with 1 stop worse ISO their performance in low light is equal. If the aperture is the same, but the sensor is 2 stops better the whole combination is also 2 stops better. I’m ignoring DoF as it’s an artistic decision. If shallow depth of field is important for you, you probably know what you need to do to get it.

I am currently using a GX8 with Panasonic 8-18mm, 35-100 f2.8 and 100-300mkII. I have some other lenses which I use often enough to not bother selling them, but this is my core kit.

I created roughly equivalent systems for Fuji X, Sony Crop and Sony FF. This proved quite difficult, as you will see. I replaced the mu43 body with an Olympus EM5mkIII as the GX8 is no longer sold and the Em5 is the closest equivalent (small, weather sealed, decent VF). All cameras had to have IBIS, which limited the fuji line-up in particular. Obviously the difference might look very different for prime shooters. However, I still believe that the majority of people use zoom lenses (probably most often just the kit zooms). I guess a similar comparison with a three prime kit or the classic double lens kit would be an interesting comparison too.

This is what I came up with:

Mu43: EM5mkIII, PL8-18mm f2.8-4, P35-100 f2.8mkII, P100-300 f4-5.6 mkII
Fuji: XT4, Fuji 10-24mm f4, 55-200mm f3.5-4.8, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
Sony Crop: A6600, 10-18mm f4, 70-200mm f4 (FF lens), 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
Sony FF: A7Riii, 16-35mm f4, 70-200mm f4, 200-600mm 5.6-6.3



Mu43FujiSony CropSony FF
Price3356€4920€5483€6598€
Weight1844g3033g2963g4115g
All prices are current prices found at a price comparison website​

So here we have the first myth buster. The mu43 system (all premium lenses except the super tele) is nearly 2000€ cheaper than fuji crop and about half of the Sony FF system in price. If super tele is important you could replace the 100-300 with a 300f4 or 200f2.8 for about 1000€ extra which would still be significantly cheaper than the other systems. It is also about 1kg lighter than the closest APS-C competitor and half the weight of the FF system.

You could save some money by using cheaper bodies but for Fuji there is a limited choice of bodies with IBIS. With Sony what you save on older bodies is made up with the fact that there are very few dedicated high quality crop lenses so you pay for FF lenses.

As I often shoot landscapes and one of my favourite subjects is waterfalls, I consider weather resistance to be a very important factor. All of my lenses for micro four thirds are weather sealed. For Fuji, if I wanted to add weather sealing I would have to upgrade both the wide angle and the medium tele lens, probably adding another 1000€ as well as significant size and weight increases that would certainly go far beyond what I would want to carry on a hike. For Sony Crop no there is no weather sealed wide angle zoom available at all. Sony FF is a complete system. It is weather sealed on all the chosen lenses.

Many people never or rarely use their camera in adverse conditions so it may not be important to everyone.

The mu43 system possibly has the worst AF, Sony the best. As this is hard to quantify you have to make your own decision based on your keeper rate. Personally mine is good enough and I certainly don’t own the best mu43 body available in terms of AF.

The case for Fuji?
So what do you get for your roughly 2k€ when you move to Fuji? Actually, very little. You lose WR. You gain one stop of light at the long end of the wide angle lens, but at the short end (important for Astro) it’s a wash. The medium tele is roughly equal, but you gain some reach. At the super tele end you gain 1 stop, but that can be had cheaper (and better) with a super tele prime in mu43. I couldn’t find any info on Fuji DR but I assume it’s in line with the other sensors so slightly better. You also gain 6mp.

The case for Sony crop?
This is looking very similar to the fuji system. At the wide end you lose WR and you gain some light at the long end of the wide angle lens. Medium Telephoto is equal, and you gain some reach at the long end but lose some at the short end. This would make my approach of having a fairly long super wide and a medium tele but skip the standard zoom more difficult. You would once again gain a stop of light at the super tele end. The Sony sensor offers 4 extra mp compared to mu43.

The case for Sony FF?
The FF sensor offers some more tangible benefits compared to the crop alternatives. You double your mp count and gain more than a stop of dynamic range. The entire system is weather sealed. You also gain one stop of light at the widest and two at the long end of the wide angle lens. You gain one stop of light across the whole range of the medium telephoto. The super telephoto gains two stops at the more important long end. However, you do pay more than 3000€ extra and have to carry a whopping 4kg of gear on a hike with some wildlife opportunities. Chances are you won’t carry that 200-600 unless you’re 100% sure your trip is about wildlife, so your chances at unexpected encounters will drop drastically.



Conclusion
With the current future in mu43 being unsure I looked to Fuji first to provide me with a smaller system. FF is just too large (and as it turns out too expensive). But with the current line-up of lenses and cameras I would gain very very little for a significant price difference. I would also have to carry more weight and lose weather sealing. If camera sensors improve at the current rate the difference between current mu43 and future fuji crop would only be significant in about 10 years if even that. Sticking with current gen mu43 (I can still upgrade to a G9, although I find it too large) and investing in a faster super tele would yield much better value for money. Generally an upgrade to APS-C seems very undesirable while FF at least offers some clear advantages in IQ.

The original question – has everyone gone mad?
If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would have been roughly the same. Maybe the difference between FF and mu43 sensors in dynamic range would have been exactly the same. That FF sensors are roughly 2 stops better at high ISO is no news. So why is it that suddenly people think that you absolutely need those 2 stops when a few years ago that difference was the sensible cost of having smaller and cheaper gear (and it is cheaper if you look past introduction body prices, which are always inflated to milk early adopters). Nothing has changed except the perception that suddenly mu43 is not good enough anymore.

The phone argument
I have seen plenty of people arguing that phones are getting better and that that is the reason why mu43 is not cutting it anymore. This, in my view is a completely stupid argument. If you think that your phone is good enough that you don’t need an interchangeable lens camera you’re not going to buy FF either. Phone cameras are about convenience and FF cameras are just not convenient at all. People upgrade from their phones because they want better IQ and they don’t get that from better sensors, but from better and more importantly more varied lenses. I am a teacher and use my own pictures as a screen saver on my laptop. Children often comment about wildlife pictures asking how I got so close. Using a super telephoto lens is not something they know from their phones and while have gotten good wide angle now, super telephoto is not something that’s coming to phones anytime soon. Things that are far away are out of reach of phone cameras and that will stay the same until they find a new way to bend the laws of physics. I’m old enough to not say it’s impossible, but it’s not going to be here within the next 10 or even 20 years. Also, don’t you dare doing any pixel peeping on your phone camera pictures, if you already complain about pixel peeing level details on mu43.

TL-DR:

Yes, everyone’s gone mad. Nothing has changed, but somehow mu43 is suddenly not good enough anymore.
 

andy darbyshire

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
12
Sadly the whole photographic hobby is obsessed with sensor and pixel numbers, really pointless for the vast majority of users. as they are usually only viewed on a computer monitor. The real difference may appear if the user prints the image A3 or larger. In the days of film the debate was over emulsion types and was equally pointless. I have over the last 60 years used everything type of camera from medium format. 645, and 35mm. I did my own colour printing up to 16x12inch and obtained a distinction from the RPFS in the UK. now I am perfectly happy with my olympus gear. I hope M43 survives as it is a good lightweight system.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,221
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
TL-DR Yes ...

However, there are many double blind experiments with prints up to 60x24 inches. Experienced printers and photographers could not tell the difference between FF, APSC and FTs/mFTs prints.

There is an awful lot of BS spruiked on the internet ...

I print up to 17x22 inches on my Epson R3880, using 16 bit, wide gamut printing on fine art paper. These are more than good enough for me, even before glazing, using a 4x loupe.

Some of these are made from images taken with my 5 MPx
E-1, with its 7-8 stops of DR ...
 
Last edited:

Moula

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
158
E-M5-III paired with 12-45/4 or with announced future 8-25/4 is IMHO stellar lightweight landscape kit. And can be easily expanded either with current 40-150/2.8 or with future f/4 PRO tele zoom (40-150/4? 50-200/4? we'll see). Or with some f/1.2 prime for special purposes. Even E-M5-III + 12-100/4 may be highly attractive for someone. Light weight, weather sealed, more than acceptable IQ...
 

amit

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
190
I think it is all true but you missed something in your chart. Most of us who consider the change , look for different lens types.
A regular zoom , a fast prime and maybe wide and short tele.
em5iii+ 8-18mm +12-40 f2.8+25mm f1.4 = 1361g and 3532usd
Sony a7iii+tamron 17-28 +28-75 f2.8 +Samyang 45mm =1782g and 4180 usd

You can replace one of the zooms with a prime or choose em1ii instead and the results will move to the Sony direction. And dont forget the a7c that cost 200$ less and 200g less.
You can also look at a simple set of one prime \one regular zoom and the results are really close ,also . the Olympus future is unclear ,it feels like selling the Sony gear will be easier 5 years from now.
The strong side of the oly is second hand prices(used em1ii for about 600usd is crazy ).
 
Last edited:

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
3,128
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
I don't have £1000s to waste on changing systems.

In the unlikely event I need more DR, I'll bracket.

In the even more unlikely event I'm hired to shoot a concert at night, I'll borrow a FF kit.

It takes just one visit to an airshow to look around and see photographers struggling to hand-hold 600m f4 lenses in order to flush away all thoughts of a system change.

[EDIT] Did I mention that the Canon 600mm f4 is 13 grand?- mind you, they do throw in a free lens hood [/EDIT]
 
Last edited:

Delb0y

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
136
Interesting post - and I read it all :)

I agree, and I'm happy to stay with m43, simply because the G80 does everything I need at a good price and is lovely to carry around. Should I ever discover it's not meeting my needs then I'll have to look around. But I suspect it will always be a lot more capable than the person operating it!

I think that if m43 was to cease "officially" altogether tomorrow I would continue to shoot it. It would be many years before all the m43 cameras in the world have stopped functioning and we can't buy replacements. I tend to buy used, about three years behind the curve anyway, and as I don't think I'm ever going to be shooting billboards or even posters it works for me :)

In fact, maybe if Panasonic and Olympus announced that they were stopping production of all m43 units, then maybe I could pick up a cheap G9 as everyone else abandons the format !
 

Markb

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
537
Location
Kent, UK
Real Name
Mark
I think the big question is not "is it the very best?" but "is it good enough for my needs?". MFT gets a big yes for me.

I had the beginnings of a Fuji system and realised very quickly that it was far too expensive to expand. Fuji lens are often of the exotic variety without suitable cheaper alternatives. You can do MFT the pricey way ar the cheap way.

"Full frame" mirrorless (Sony that is) also falls into this trap with mediocre lenses for the masses and expensive exotica for the rest. The same goes for Sony APS-C.

When I look at what my humble little 12-32 and 35-100 produce I realise where I'm best off.
 

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,518
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Look at this :

https://camerasize.com/compact/#858.580,770.352,ha,t

A7c +50mm f1.8 is 685g and 1998$
Gx9 +25mm f1.4 is 650g and 1200-1300$ with em5iii its 1500$ , and a7c is just launched , black friday is coming , for 300$ discount , who knows?
This is an argument I see constantly, but I don't think it has much merit. Most people don't shoot a single prime. The majority doesn't even shoot multiple primes. I agree that if you currently shoot Panasonic 12mm f1.4, 25mm f1.4 and f42.5 1.2 you're probably better off switching to FF. As the faster aperture lenses disproportionally become more expensive getting slightly slower FF alternatives may even be cheaper.

I just don't think that this is a common usecase. Most people either mix primes with zooms or go full zoom (my 20mm 1.7 only gets used occasionally). Never mind the idea of the same person who shoots primes accepting a body without double control wheels ;)

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Obviously there are valid points to using FF. If you want the absolute best image quality it is the way to go. If I were a professional wedding photographer I would probably go with a 70-200 f2.8. There really is nothing like it. If I thought that FF was completely pointless I would also have to assume that everyone shooting one is a complete idiot - a very depressing thought.

All I'm saying is that I find the hype hugely unjustified, the cost too high and the benefits too marginal.
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
3,067
Location
northeast US
@Hypilein I think you make some great points, but the one I view very differently than you do is fairly significant.

If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would have been roughly the same.

I don't doubt that's true within the parameters of how you assessed this, but five years ago the camera world was very different. Lack of Sony lens offerings, their own and 3rd party, stopped many people short who were maybe considering FF mirrorless. That has changed. And Nikon and Canon are now all-in on FF mirrorless.

I'm not suggesting that those points make it logical to switch systems, but they do explain why there is more and more buzz about full frame. Ultimately it comes down to what's right for each of us given our needs, preferences and wallets. When you consider the number of threads started in our small community alone over the years asking which lens or body to buy next completely devoid of any information about needs it's easy to understand that mounting pressure about full frame. Lots of folks can and will be swayed by it. The jump from full frame is better [slightly, depending] to full frame is the the best and you have to have it is a not surprisingly short one given the echo chamber we live in.

Trying to point out the true technical differences between the formats is a good thing to do, but I really think the key is for people to understand and accept what they need for how they shoot. Without that understanding the new shiny stuff will always get lots of attention. That took me quite a while, so I don't disparage the easily swayed among us.
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,537
I just sold my Gx8 to get another G9. 6K video (10 minute limit, Vlog, and highres I & II) are the key reasons I went with the G9. Video including stills for the KB effect are now more interesting, but stills for artsy stuff is still important. I am going to pick up the 7-14 this year and perhaps the 50-200mm. Panasonic is now with their new camera (which is a professional tool in reality, by the time you have it spec'd out I think you have spent close to 4K to get the most use out of that camera) showing that they are committed to M43 format. I have no desire for the size of a FF systems with the size of 2.8 and faster lenses, especially long lens over 300mm. As the photography market has changed to where the 1900's Kodak Box camera for the masses is now a cell phone, writers have focused on projecting what will happen in the market (Olympus missed the value point of video) and so did most of the writers. M43 has certain benefits in hybrid cameras that you don't find in FF for video as well as stills. A tiny f1.7 lens in M43 does not have the same DOF as a 1.7 lens in ff but it has the same light transmission and thus with AI now being added to programs like Resolve/VegasPRO/Priemier and of course still programs like PhotoShop DOF control is but a click away.

I will wait a year for the Gh6 as two G9's are all I need right now for stills/video but seeing the 6K output from the G9 (which is BTW killer both for stills and video) I see no reason to go FF for many small documentary/film/still users who require professional level output. I do wish that Panasonic made a 12-100 f4 with dual IS, that would be the perfect match for my PL100-400.

Some percentage of Olympus users will eventually move to Panasonic unless the new firm really does continue the OM business - just too small a market segment I think. So M43, especially the lenses, will probably find a home at Panasonic. Hybrid cameras and AI I think are the future and Panasonic will be one brand that makes it in the imaging industry shakeout that is now underway. M43 doesn't have to beat the FF's manufacturers they are going to kill one another in pricing I think until only a couple survive.
 
Last edited:

mike3996

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
359
Location
Finland
Yes, everyone’s gone mad. Nothing has changed, but somehow mu43 is suddenly not good enough anymore.
I don't know what year you started working on this text but these days -- for certain professionals -- with the demise of Olympus it does mean that "mu43" may not be good enough.
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,537
I don't know what year you started working on this text but these days -- for certain professionals -- with the demise of Olympus it does mean that "mu43" may not be good enough.
The market has spoken and Olympus did not full the needs of enough folks, Pany with the video focus did. The number of folks who can't be served by the current Panasonic cameras in the Olympus user group will be made even smaller with the release of the Gh6 IMHO.
 

amit

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
190
@Hypilein I think you make some great points, but the one I view very differently than you do is fairly significant.

If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would have been roughly the same.

I don't doubt that's true within the parameters of how you assessed this, but five years ago the camera world was very different. Lack of Sony lens offerings, their own and 3rd party, stopped many people short who were maybe considering FF mirrorless. That has changed. And Nikon and Canon are now all-in on FF mirrorless.

I'm not suggesting that those points make it logical to switch systems, but they do explain why there is more and more buzz about full frame. Ultimately it comes down to what's right for each of us given our needs, preferences and wallets. When you consider the number of threads started in our small community alone over the years asking which lens or body to buy next completely devoid of any information about needs it's easy to understand that mounting pressure about full frame. Lots of folks can and will be swayed by it. The jump from full frame is better [slightly, depending] to full frame is the the best and you have to have it is a not surprisingly short one given the echo chamber we live in.

Trying to point out the true technical differences between the formats is a good thing to do, but I really think the key is for people to understand and accept what they need for how they shoot. Without that understanding the new shiny stuff will always get lots of attention. That took me quite a while, so I don't disparage the easily swayed among us.
For what I do , family,travel and landscapes - I can live with 12-40mm and 1-2 primes.
And I have to upgrade my em10 to get better caf anyway.
So I keep having these thoughts.
And tamron zooms are not that big.
Also , for the same dof and shutter the sony double the iso ,but the bigger sensor should give 2 stops better dr and noise so in worst case the iq is equal. -correct me if Im wrong , Im not sure :)

I really like olympus and sad about it . I dont think I would have consider jumping ship if not this JIP thing, who knows if we will see another oly bodies? And panasonic means learn a new system as well.
 

exakta

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
729
If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would have been roughly the same.
My exact case in 2015. Price, availability of lenses, IBIS, size.

I went in planning to buy Fuji X-E1 ($999 with kit zoom) and walked out with an E-M10 ($499 with kit zoom) instead. There was a Sony rep there in the store showing off the brand new A7 and A7R. I asked him the price and asked about the rather huge 55mm lens (compared to the 50mm on my OM-1). The price alone was enough to know it wasn't for me.

Disclaimer: I have probably written this same story 1,000,000 times in various threads since I;ve been posting here. :sorry:
 

Petrochemist

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,285
Location
N Essex, UK
Real Name
Mike
I don't buy the latest generation hardware.
A few years ago FF with IBIS was prohibitory expensive & MFT worked well for me.
Now the A7ii has dropped in price to the point I can justify (to myself) owning one. There are also clip in filters that replace the hot mirror on my full spectrum converted model.
So I have one FF body that manages what I need 2 MFT bodies to do.
Most of my lenses are legacy models which are the same size whichever body I use them on. Yes the MFT can get away with a 100mm when FF needs 200mm but with the range of lenses I carry that's fairly irrelevant. Being able to get a 24mm FOV without resorting to expensive modern glass is the counter to the weight argument, indeed a 14mm rectilinear FOV wasn't too expensive, but did need a modern lens.

Adding FF to my MFT options cost a lot less than any of your options (even with the IR conversion)
There were times when MFT was a better option (such as music gigs) & hopefully such venues will open again soon. It also proves better when the lens being adapted doesn't cover much more than 110 film.

Have I gone mad? No, I've been this way for years :)
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2014
Messages
78
What has me intrigued is something like the Sony a7r series. Tamron Zooms couple Samyang primes and I have a kit that goes from 17mm to 300mm f2.8 if you consider the cropping capabilities of the a7r series. Sony a7riii + Tamron 17-28 + 70-180 is pretty close to range and compactness of the em1ii 7-14 and 40-150. Price is probably not terribly off either. Throw in the couple Samyang compact primes and the Sony kit becomes very intriguing. I believe size advantage of the m43 is diminishing especially with high mp count of FF and crop mode.
 
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