1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

In a pickle ... what to do

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Holger, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Holger

    Holger New to Mu-43

    Mar 7, 2018
    I have been shooting Nikon gear for the past 20 years and mainly shooting my D800. About 3 years ago I acquired a Panasonic FZ1000 and I started primarily travelling with just the FZ despite the trade offs.

    I like the idea of a bridge camera and the camera performed reasonable well (not quite as FF with expensive glass) but ok’sh. However I recently played around with the RX10 MK3 as well as the Olympus and the Olympus E1.2 was quite a nice solid camera.

    I am off to Japan in a months time and I will be shooting a lot of low light places such as temples etc. Something the FZ doesn’t excel well at. I am now in a pickle of taking my beast (D800) and all the glass with me or buy a new camera.

    The RX10.3 is a great camera but quite heavy and limitations with low light are still present as it uses a 1” sensor. The lens is very sharp.

    Buying a G9 (not yet handled one) with the 12-60mm and be done with it, use the FZ if I need more reach in good light

    Or buy the E1.2.

    Cost wise they are all at the same league from what I can see.

    The new Sony A7III is nice as well but lenses are starting to get heavy again.

    Anyone got any suggestions to what I should do for my trip to Japan. It is raining and cherry blossom season so weather sealed camera would be a plus which the FZ isn’t.

    Not seen any comparison between a RX10.3 and one of the top of the range MFT cameras. Shame nobody compared the new Song against the G9 yet.

    What’s the verdict....
  2. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    E-m5ii with the 12-100 and fast normal of your preference -15,17,25,30.

    That should get you a weathersealed all purpose kit and an option for low light. All of it wiuld be around the same price as a E-M1ii, smaller than the DSLR kit and get better results than the RX or FZ cameras.

    To save a little if you don't need 100mm, then go for the 12-40
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 3
  3. retiredfromlife

    retiredfromlife Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2016
    Sydney, Australia
    I would stick with what you have for this trip as you by now know the in and outs of the system.
    When you return is the best time to look into swapping systems and have more time to look into and possibly try before you buy.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. WT21

    WT21 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    You should buy my 12-60 that I have for sale :D 
    • Like Like x 1
  5. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    One note, Panasonic lenses zoom in the same direction as Nikon. Olympus zoom in the same direction as Canon.

    Either a Panasonic or Olympus body would work. But I would lean toward Panasonic if you intend to shoot the FZ1000 as well. It would be kind of like shooting your D800 and a D7100. Similar enough controls and menus to know what you're doing most of the time.

    As for what camera? Two options, small and good for travel, the GX85 or GX9. A little larger and SLR like, the G85. The G85, I believe, even uses the same batteries as your FZ1000.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Christop82

    Christop82 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 10, 2016
    I don't think your going to gain much in the low light area over your rx10. Unless you purchase a set of 1.8 primes .
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    I agree, that a Panasonic might be a good choice as well. Especially since OP has familiarity with them. In that case they could do G85 with the kit lens, a 35-100 2.8 plus one of the fast normal primes. It would still be weather sealed with the zooms and still be around the same price as the E-M1ii and cheaper if going the used route.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2013
    How important to you are the low light photos? I would think the D800 would be the best option for any low light work. Otherwise I would prefer a good M43 kit. When I went to Hawaii I was very happy with my G7 and 14-140. I also took along the PL25 for low light shots, but used it very little. Most of my photos were outside during the daytime though. For you, especially since you are already familiar with Panasonic, I’d recommend the G85 and P14-140. You can add one of a variety of primes for low light work.
  9. ooheadsoo

    ooheadsoo Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 13, 2018
    For my last trip to Japan (April 2017), I took my d750 with 24-120 f/4 and tamron 35 f/1.8 vc. The low light is good enough that I printed a 16x24 canvas of a hand held iso6400 shot...and I didn't even realize that it was iso6400 (I printed it quite a while after I processed the shot and didn't pixel peep before sending it off to be printed. I had taken other shots in the series on tripod and had forgotten that this one wasn't.) This option lets you use your existing glass, and the body is admittedly smaller and lighter than your d800.

    This was before I ventured into m43. If I could do it again now...I'm still torn if I would choose m43 for something as special to me as a trip to Japan. What I would really want from m43 is a 20mp body that had the advanced high res mode from the e-m1.2 but in an e-m5 body and price. In other words, probably the e-m5 mk3, but that's not going to be available to you in time. My concern with the g9 and e-m1.2 is that after you add a 12-60, 12-100, or even a 12-40, it's just not that much smaller than the d750+24-120, which produces printable (canvas) results at iso6400. If you do plan on shooting action, though, then by all means, maybe one of these is the way to go. Last year, we made it to a horseback archery ceremony/festival in Asakusa where I know m43 and one of these flagships would have been amazing. Even so, that was just a couple hours out of a long trip.

    In terms of low light, m43 hasn't appeared to have made any significant strides since the intro of the sony 16mp sensor, so you really need to use a prime for any serious low light work or use a tripod, and even then, you will definitely see more noise than you are used to, coming from full frame. My hands aren't the most steady, though, so ymmv. Others have incredible results with IBIS. You already know that you will be shooting a lot indoors and at night, not to mention rainy days. I don't envy your decision.

    But I do envy your trip!
  10. Mike Wingate

    Mike Wingate Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 21, 2017
    Mike Wingate
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    I am pleasantly surprised with my GX80 and P14-140mm f3.5-5.6 taking indoor shots.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. Holger

    Holger New to Mu-43

    Mar 7, 2018
    Thanks so much for all your comments. Very interesting about the lens zoom direction. Never thought of that but it would probably drive me mad always zooming in the wrong direction.

    I have some premium glass already for my FF from my event and wedding shooting days.
    Ooheadsoo you nailed my situation quite well. Another option might be a D500 as I also have a lot of primes and premium lenses from my D90 days.

    I think the RX10 IV won’t give me anything extra over the FZ for sure. Interesting about the G85 and using the same battery.

    Maybe I just need to go to the gym and train up my lower back and take my D800 and 24-70 2.8, ultra wide and my 70-200 2.8 glass. That’s some serious weight however. Not sure if I manage to get that up the hills.

    I am soooo looking forward to Korea and Japan and considering the price we have talked out so far I don’t think a smaller new body would be noticeable ;) .

    I need to go to a shop today and. Play with a G85 and see what my little hands telling me.

    Thanks again and sorry if I went a bit OT.

    Great forum BTW. Much nicer than some of the DPReview posts I have been reading lately.
  12. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2013
    I wouldn’t want to travel on vacation with a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. I have no doubt those lenses and your D800 could produce great results, but the size and weight would be pretty burdensome. That’s why I moved to M43 in the first place. The G85 and 12-35 and 35-100 2.8 zooms would be so much smaller and lighter. You could add a small prime if you wanted faster and still be way way smaller and lighter. That is what I think I would do if you are concerned about that quality and speed of the 14-140.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. turbodieselvw

    turbodieselvw Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 29, 2010
    Whether you choose to get a new camera or to use your D800 just remember to enjoy your time out there and don't forget to try the different foods. You can always make a return trip if you think you want to get a shot that you missed; that's what I did with Cambodia, the Galapagos Islands and Kenya.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Jock Elliott

    Jock Elliott Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 13, 2015
    Troy, NY
    Jock Elliott
    I would take the Panny FZ300. Constant f/2.8 to 600mm (e).

    Cheers, Jock
  15. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    While I agree with you that the D750 is a fantastic low-light camera, saying that a m43 kit wouldn't be much smaller than a FF kit is a bit misleading.

    If we take a look at a 2-lens, 1-body kit, this is what we would be looking at. For the Nikon, I would use the 24-120 and the 16-35. Both offer VR, a valuable piece of technology given that Nikon doesn't have IBIS. Both lenses are moderately fast at f/4, which combined with the in-lens VR and high ISO performance, make for a good option. The total weight of that kit would be 2,230g, or 4.92 lb.

    If we were to compare similar focal length lenses from m43, we would be looking at the PL 12-60 and PL 8-18, which give us a 24-120 & 16-36 focal length respectively. They're f/2.8-4 lenses, so moderately faster than the Nikon lenses at the wide end, but they quickly lose their aperture. Still, and extra bit of light with m43 is advantageous. If we look at the weight of this kit, it is 1,209g, or 2.67 lb.

    That 1,021g / 2.25lb weight difference may be a big deal, depending on what other items the OP will be carrying around with him, how long he'll be out walking during the days, etc.

    The D750 is a great camera, especially for low-light. But that performance comes at a price, which is the size and weight of the kit. Whether its worth it to the OP or not is a decision they'll have to make.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. jli

    jli Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 28, 2017
    I''ll be in Japan next month as well and very much looking forward to it! I hope you're looking forward to it as well and I hope that these 'gear decisions' before a dream trip don't stress you out too much! I'm bringing my fuji x100F and g85 w/ oly 40-150 2.8. The m43 kit may be left at the hotel on some days depending on our itinerary for the day. For me, the Fuji with an APS-C sensor and f2 is good enough for my low light needs.

    I like the above suggestion about adding a panny 12-35 2.8 and 35-100 2.8 if you indeed want to invest more for this trip - though maybe the PL 12-60 2.8-4 might be a one-lens solution for you since the 12mm @ f2.8 might be 'good enough' for the temple shots you're envisioning. I suspect we shoot very differently and are looking to capture different things, but I hope this helps.
  17. turbodieselvw

    turbodieselvw Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 29, 2010
    For whatever it's worth, I'll be heading to India in May and Namibia in June and this will be my kit; 2 EM1 MkII, Oly 7-14 Pro, 12-100 Pro, and Panny 100-400. I'm leaving all my other lenses at home and have decided not to take my D500 kit. I guess I may miss some shots but I can live with that.
  18. Jeffcs

    Jeffcs Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 20, 2017
    Toms River NJ
    Jeffrey Swank
    Your so close to your trip I’d stick with what you know
    I’m in the process of becoming a Nikon to primarily Olympus user when you get home start doing your homework find what feels good to you. I find that my OMDem1mk2 with pro Olympus lenses is without a doubt quality rivals that of Nikon with one exception low light
  19. ooheadsoo

    ooheadsoo Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 13, 2018
    Yes, going full frame isn't without its compromises. For me, I opted for my 20mm 2.8 af-d instead of an ultrawide zoom in a previous year. I don't think I bothered bringing it last year and settled for the 24-120. At the end of the day, it's a given that you will save 1-2.5 lbs with m43, but you'll be carrying it on a strap or on your back, rather than in your arms and hands most of the time. It'll be up to the Holger whether the better low light is worth that weight.

    I'm not necessarily saying that it is, either, or I wouldn't have started getting into m43.

    I don't think I can get on board with vacationing with FF 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 zooms, though! This is a vacation, not a paid event, right?
  20. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    Thanks you save me some time and typing. And I have all of these mentioned:
    • Nikon D800 & D750
    • Nikon 16-35 & 24-120 & 70-200 f/4
    • Tamron 24-70 & 70-200 f/2.8
    I got into m4/3 because my wife and I were going on vacation. No not major vacation but still. And it wasn't a photo vacation (like to the Galapagos or something). The smallest thing I had was a D700 and old Nikon 28-105. I started with an E-PM1 and 14-42 kit lens, smaller and lighter than the 28-105 alone.

    I think it did OK: Vacation 2012 - BlueberryPhoto

    If you want to stay Nikon and get smaller than get a D7500 and 16-80 f/2.8-4.0. Add a faster prime and your FZ1000 for reach and call it a day. No the high ISO is not as good as FX, but still a little better than m4/3 and your outlay is much less. This is something I struggle with when I think about something like the new PL50-200 f/2.8-4.0 or PL100-400. A G9 and one of those would be much smaller, but a D7500 and one of the zooms to 500/600mm would be cheaper.

    If you want to complement your FX kit go smaller and look at the GX85/9 or G85 with either the P7-14 & P14-140 + a couple of f/1.7 primes. You could go for the PL8-18 and PL12-60 as well but you're talking 2x the $$ unless you think you can skip the primes (they're nice but I would still probably want the 15 and 42.5 f/1.7s).

    I would only look at the G9 / E-M1 mkII if you're thinking of replacing your Nikon kit. I had considered it and tried it a few years back (yes I know the options are better now). But what it came down to for me was that I HAVE a rolling bag of FX gear that just works with great flashes.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.