Review Observations on Sony full frame vs micro 4/3. Hint: m4/3 still relevant

Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
153
Location
Ajax, Ontario
Real Name
Rob Faucher
Build quality, ergonomics, weather sealing, the bang for buck of pro glass, colors sooc, these are the strenghts of m43.

Sony has some awesome products, the FF sensor brings clear advantages in IQ but Sony has edges to smooth. In general Sony is making a better job on AF and all the tracking features, and seems to be listening the userbase. Product version by product version the improvement path is clear, while I cannot say the same in m43 space.
Agreed and it drives home the reason why so many people are concerned about the EM1X, who is it really for? One more thing I would add to the list of m4/3 benefits is class leading video in Panasonic's GH series. The GH5 is still holding its own against FF and from what I understand, most hardcore videographers pull manual focus. It seems to me the obsession about video AF and tracking is promulgated by youtube vloggers. Film makers know how to manually focus.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
153
Location
Ajax, Ontario
Real Name
Rob Faucher
I agree with your comments on the A7iii. I've owned an A7rii in the past but really didn't gel with it. It still felt like a product in the making. I played with a Z6 alot a couple of weeks ago and thought it would be an obvious choice over the A7iii, but handling them both I found they were actually quite close. Maybe the Sony a bit better in fact.

So, definite progress.
I tried out the Z6 as well and liked it. I have three issues though with Nikon's Z system. First is cost of entry, the second is a limited native lens selection and the third is outrageously expensive xqd memory cards. That said, if I was pro or hobbyist with a good stash of Nikon glass, the Z series would be a no brainer with their adapter.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
497
Location
MoCo, MD
The GH5 is still holding its own against FF and from what I understand, most hardcore videographers pull manual focus. It seems to me the obsession about video AF and tracking is promulgated by youtube vloggers. Film makers know how to manually focus.
If you're vlogging yourself and holding the camera at arm's length then manual focus works best since: 1. the focal distance doesn't change and 2. Auto focus might change focus away from your face to something in the background.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
153
Location
Ajax, Ontario
Real Name
Rob Faucher
If you're vlogging yourself and holding the camera at arm's length then manual focus works best since: 1. the focal distance doesn't change and 2. Auto focus might change focus away from your face to something in the background.
Indeed and that's probably why a lot of those youtubers hang their hats on systems that provide class leading face or eye tracking. I'm not a video guy, yet it seems to me if you are doing serious video work (ie: film or tv), you'll want decent manual focus. A lot of dedicated video lenses I've seen advertised are manual focus, with those external gear teeth and clickless t-stop rings.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,878
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I have three issues though with Nikon's Z system. First is cost of entry, the second is a limited native lens selection and the third is outrageously expensive xqd memory cards.
I can agree with you on the first two points. However, the third point continues to baffle me. I'm not certain where people are getting their information from. Below is a summary of UHS-II pricing vs XQD pricing from B&H's website.

At 32GB, the XQD card is $30 more than a UHS-II SD card. OK, I could see how some people may complain about that. But then again, they just spent $2,000 on a Z6 (or $3,400 on a Z7), and they're going to complain over $30? If that's the case and that's how nickle-and-dime they are, then it's likely FF wasn't their best choice financially.

At 64GB, the XQD card is $11 more than a UHS-II SD card. Eleven. Dollars.

At 120/128GB, the XQD card is ~$13-15 cheaper than a UHS-II SD card.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



I simply don't understand where this "XQD is so much more expensive than SD" comes from. When I had my E-M1 II's, I bought UHS-II cards because I want to get the maximum performance out of the camera. XQD allows for faster reading and writing speeds, and their cost is pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
153
Location
Ajax, Ontario
Real Name
Rob Faucher
I think it might be a CAD vs USA difference as well. The price of a 64MB XQD card at Henry's or Amazon.ca is around $200 and 120 GB is $329. I agree there is not much of a price difference between UHS-II and XQD, even in Canada. However, since I already have many SD cards, the cost is not trivial. For example, it would cost $660 CAD, to have 240GB in XQD storage on hand. I can easily buy 64GB 90 mb/s brand name SD cards on sale for under $30 CAD. I recently got another Sandisk 128 GB, 95 mb/s card on sale under $50. Granted, they are not UHS-II class speeds, but I don't need that. I've been using two 128GB SD cards on my G9 for 4K video and burst shooting without issues. I have enough SD cards on hand for three cameras, including the Sony. So, with the money saved on XQD cards, I can buy a nice prime lens for the Sony. The Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is starting to look good for astrophotography and it's cheaper than two 32MB XQD cards:)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,878
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I think it might be a CAD vs USA difference. The price of a 64MB XQD card at Henry's or Amazon.ca is around $200 and 120 GB is $329. I agree there is not much of a price difference between UHS-II and XQD, even in Canada. However, since I already have many SD cards, the cost is not trivial to have 256GB in XQD storage on hand. I can buy 64GB 90 mb/s brand name SD cards on sale for under $30 CAD. I recently got a Sandisk 120 GB, 95 mb/s card on sale under $50. Granted, they are not UHS-II class speeds, but I don't need that. With the money saved on XQD cards, I can buy a nice prime lens.
Yep, difference in currency can play in big role in pricing.

BUT, there were some countries that were including a free XQD card in with the purchase of a Z camera.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
153
Location
Ajax, Ontario
Real Name
Rob Faucher
Yep, difference in currency can play in big role in pricing.

BUT, there were some countries that were including a free XQD card in with the purchase of a Z camera.
If those countries included a 64MB XQD card with the Z6 or Z7, I could see that tilting some buyer's decisions towards Nikon over Sony. The kit lens offered with the Z6 or Z6 is allegedly higher quality than Sony's.
 

tonyturley

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
912
I have a G80 + PL 12-60, and an A7II to use with some legacy lenses. I've had the G80 longer, and it feels more familiar to me,although the cameras are similar in size and shape. Still tweaking my work flow with the A7II.
 

ddekadt

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
361
Location
Central California
Real Name
Daniel
I can agree with you on the first two points. However, the third point continues to baffle me. I'm not certain where people are getting their information from. Below is a summary of UHS-II pricing vs XQD pricing from B&H's website.

At 32GB, the XQD card is $30 more than a UHS-II SD card. OK, I could see how some people may complain about that. But then again, they just spent $2,000 on a Z6 (or $3,400 on a Z7), and they're going to complain over $30? If that's the case and that's how nickle-and-dime they are, then it's likely FF wasn't their best choice financially.

At 64GB, the XQD card is $11 more than a UHS-II SD card. Eleven. Dollars.

At 120/128GB, the XQD card is ~$13-15 cheaper than a UHS-II SD card.

View attachment 717726


I simply don't understand where this "XQD is so much more expensive than SD" comes from. When I had my E-M1 II's, I bought UHS-II cards because I want to get the maximum performance out of the camera. XQD allows for faster reading and writing speeds, and their cost is pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things.
I'm genuinely curious as I only have an E-M1.i, but are the A7s or the newer E-M1s (or other cameras) locked into UHS-II cards? Because that's what's annoying, surely? With the Z series you are locked into XQD cards which are, let's be clear, expensive in absolute terms. (Edit: Some googling suggests that the other cameras are fine with UHS-I cards, so I can keep using my crappy 32gb 95mb/s cards that cost me $14.)

And tbh I find the idea that people who don't spring for the most expensive SD card available are "nickle-and-dime" truly perplexing. Being budget conscious about your hobby is responsible and a good thing, even more so when you're spending FF-type money.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,878
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I'm genuinely curious as I only have an E-M1.i, but are the A7s or the newer E-M1s (or other cameras) locked into UHS-II cards? Because that's what's annoying, surely? With the Z series you are locked into XQD cards which are, let's be clear, expensive in absolute terms. (Edit: Some googling suggests that the other cameras are fine with UHS-I cards, so I can keep using my crappy 32gb 95mb/s cards that cost me $14.)

And tbh I find the idea that people who don't spring for the most expensive SD card available are "nickle-and-dime" truly perplexing. Being budget conscious about your hobby is responsible and a good thing, even more so when you're spending FF-type money.
People who are "budget conscious" don't buy FF, they buy a crop sensor system of some sort because it's more affordable. FF has never been "budget conscious".

When I had two E-M1 II's, I had two 64GB UHS-II cards in slot 1. When shooting at 10fps for 3, 4, or 5 seconds, I want to clear the buffer as fast as possible, because you don't have full function of the camera while it's writing to the card. It's even worse if you use the 60fps S-AF mode for taking a number of shots quickly (i.e. stacking/merging in post).

What's the point of buying a high speed camera if you don't take advantage of the speed? It's a bit like buying a Porsche, and then putting all-season tires on it. Sure, it'll work fine, but you're not getting the full performance out of the vehicle.
 

MAubrey

Photographer
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,469
Location
Bellingham, WA
Real Name
Mike Aubrey
I'm genuinely curious as I only have an E-M1.i, but are the A7s or the newer E-M1s (or other cameras) locked into UHS-II cards? Because that's what's annoying, surely? With the Z series you are locked into XQD cards which are, let's be clear, expensive in absolute terms. (Edit: Some googling suggests that the other cameras are fine with UHS-I cards, so I can keep using my crappy 32gb 95mb/s cards that cost me $14.)

And tbh I find the idea that people who don't spring for the most expensive SD card available are "nickle-and-dime" truly perplexing. Being budget conscious about your hobby is responsible and a good thing, even more so when you're spending FF-type money.
SD cards are backward compatible. UHS-II slots will take UHS-I and regular SD's perfectly fine.

Beyond that, card prices are always going down year over year, so the expense only really matters if you absolutely need cutting edge.
 

ddekadt

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
361
Location
Central California
Real Name
Daniel
People who are "budget conscious" don't buy FF, they buy a crop sensor system of some sort because it's more affordable. FF has never been "budget conscious".

When I had two E-M1 II's, I had two 64GB UHS-II cards in slot 1. When shooting at 10fps for 3, 4, or 5 seconds, I want to clear the buffer as fast as possible, because you don't have full function of the camera while it's writing to the card. It's even worse if you use the 60fps S-AF mode for taking a number of shots quickly (i.e. stacking/merging in post).

What's the point of buying a high speed camera if you don't take advantage of the speed? It's a bit like buying a Porsche, and then putting all-season tires on it. Sure, it'll work fine, but you're not getting the full performance out of the vehicle.
Honestly this is one of the most bizarre comments I've seen on here. Everyone should be budget conscious, regardless of whether they have MFT, APS-C, FF, or MF. But sure, do whatever works for you financially.

And not all photographers make use of high speed. In fact, I daresay most A7, Z6, or EOS-R photographers explicitly did not buy their cameras for speed.

SD cards are backward compatible. UHS-II slots will take UHS-I and regular SD's perfectly fine.

Beyond that, card prices are always going down year over year, so the expense only really matters if you absolutely need cutting edge.
Ah, okay! But my understanding is that the Z's aren't backward compatible?
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,878
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Honestly this is one of the most bizarre comments I've seen on here. Everyone should be budget conscious, regardless of whether they have MFT, APS-C, FF, or MF. But sure, do whatever works for you financially.

And not all photographers make use of high speed. In fact, I daresay most A7, Z6, or EOS-R photographers explicitly did not buy their cameras for speed.
I agree that everyone has to work with a budget, regardless of the format. What I was attempting to convey is that people working with a FF system typically have more flexibility in their budgets, because the cameras and lenses are more expensive than what you see when working with an APS-C, m43, or 1" system.

If you buy a $300 camera used, a $100 SD card is expensive, as it's a large portion of the cost of the camera. If you buy a $3,400 camera, a $200 XQD or SD card is a significantly lower portion of the cost of the camera.

I can't speak for A7 or EOS-R owners. However, what I can say is that the Z6 has no buffer when shooting at 5.5 fps because the XQD clears the images faster than the camera writes them to the buffer. When shooting at 9fps, the Z6 fills the buffer at something like 40 RAW files, but it clears the buffer unbelievably quickly.

If you're only taking 1 or 2 shots at a time, then using a UHS-I SD card is perfectly fine. It's once you start getting in to moving more data off the sensor where faster write speeds become more important.

Ah, okay! But my understanding is that the Z's aren't backward compatible?
Backwards compatible to what? XQD is a first generation technology. When Nikon updates the Z cameras to be CFexpress compatible, they'll still work with XQD (even though I don't see a need for CFexpress on the current Z cameras).
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
3,955
Location
Killarney, OzTrailEYa
Real Name
pellicle
What I'd like to see is side by side images of the same subject in low light with both models using the same ISO and aperture on both so we could all see just how much or little an FF camera is.
How low?

Hi

One of these was taken (both on a tripod) with my GF1+P20 and the other with my A7+Sam35f2.8

View attachment 717620

View attachment 717621

Both wide open, both developed with ACR using the same settings. Even if I could load the 4000pixel wide images PPing won't really tell them apart any better nor noise either cos they're both ISO 100 ... of course the file names give them away but if that's the only way to tell then ... ;-)
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
375
Location
Covina, California
Something like poor indoor low light, so both cameras require the ISO's to be pushed high and we can see the difference in noise.
I did this with my G9 and an X-T20 I had recently. I just have to put them up and side by side to compare, lack of time has prevented me so far.

EDIT: also thanks for the two above pics, I'm not a subscribing member so I can't see exif data and can't tell which is which. Background blur is similar so I can't really tell.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,006
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I think this thread should be retitled: Sony vs Panasonic

Most of the pros of the G9 will apply to the upcoming Panasonic S1 cameras. Sony doesn't have great ergonomical or well-built cameras compared to the competition regardless of the sensor format. For example the original A7 felt like a toy compared the E-M1 mk.I and both were release around the same time. You can shoot with an E-M1 right now and it still holds up as a fairly modern/functional camera. The original A7 though feels downright antiquated.

If Olympus poured their resources into making an FF body, I have no doubt they'd have one of the best handling FF mirrorless cameras.
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
3,955
Location
Killarney, OzTrailEYa
Real Name
pellicle
Hi

EDIT: also thanks for the two above pics, I'm not a subscribing member so I can't see exif data and can't tell which is which. Background blur is similar so I can't really tell.
I deliberately stripped EXIF out so that noone would have a simple way to see. But I gave later instructoins that if you right click th image and open in new tab you can see the file names
 
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