P&S superzoom to compliment OMD EM-1MKiii

[PeeBee]

My recommendation of a second m43 body was also based on my experience with premium compacts. I haven't had a superzoom, but I've run into the limitations of smaller sensors. In particular, dynamic range - blown cloud detail in skies etc. Also reduced performance in lower light - noise, screen / evf lag and poor af performance, made worse when the aperture closes down at longer focal lengths. Remember that camera spec is usually based on 'best case' operation, so be sure to thoroughly review and even test before purchasing if possible.

 

[RamblinR]

If you shoot JPG why don't you use your current camera with the 12-100 in Auto or P mode and set the 2xZoom to FN1 or the button of your choice. Your 12-100 now becomes a 24-200. I would expect the image quality to be on par with any of the super zooms. You will also retain your f4 shooting speed and I expect a superzoom would be very slow when fully extended.
Best thing ... it won't cost anything.

 

[Ig7]

PeeBee, thats why I posted the question here instead of just relying on reviews. Wanted an opinion of photographers who tried both systems.
RamblinR, I will try that. Never used the build in zoom

 

[demiro]

If you shoot JPG why don't you use your current camera with the 12-100 in Auto or P mode and set the 2xZoom to FN1 or the button of your choice. Your 12-100 now becomes a 24-200. I would expect the image quality to be on par with any of the super zooms. You will also retain your f4 shooting speed and I expect a superzoom would be very slow when fully extended.
Best thing ... it won't cost anything.

I think this is a good suggestion and something to try, but I can't imagine the IQ being as good when talking about long end of the range. OP needs 600mm. Sony RX10-3, for example, delivers that with a 1" sensor at f/4. The 12-100 digitally zooms to 200 then you're cropping 100% to even approximate 400mm. I'm sure someone, not named me, can do the math in their head that explains which one is better.

 

[demiro]

My recommendation of a second m43 body was also based on my experience with premium compacts. I haven't had a superzoom, but I've run into the limitations of smaller sensors. In particular, dynamic range - blown cloud detail in skies etc. Also reduced performance in lower light - noise, screen / evf lag and poor af performance, made worse when the aperture closes down at longer focal lengths. Remember that camera spec is usually based on 'best case' operation, so be sure to thoroughly review and even test before purchasing if possible.

No doubt there are technical limitations with smaller sensors, but check out DP Review for pretty amazing examples of wildlife and BIF that people are sharing with standard superzooms, never mind the premium options with 1" sensors.

 

[John M Flores]

My recommendation of a second m43 body was also based on my experience with premium compacts. I haven't had a superzoom, but I've run into the limitations of smaller sensors. In particular, dynamic range - blown cloud detail in skies etc. Also reduced performance in lower light - noise, screen / evf lag and poor af performance, made worse when the aperture closes down at longer focal lengths. Remember that camera spec is usually based on 'best case' operation, so be sure to thoroughly review and even test before purchasing if possible.

Another vote for a second body, preferably an identical one or at least with an identical battery and similar controls. If the package is too heavy, a monopod will help.

 

[PeeBee]

No doubt there are technical limitations with smaller sensors, but check out DP Review for pretty amazing examples of wildlife and BIF that people are sharing with standard superzooms, never mind the premium options with 1" sensors.

I've had good results from my TG-5, RX100 and DJI Spark when working within the limitations of their smaller sensors, but I've also had a lot of disappointment when pushing beyond them. As long as the OP has realistic expectations, hopefully they can avoid such disappointment.

I've had a look through some superzoom galleries and they're pretty much what I was expecting. The RX100 IV is the most impressive. IQ isn't on par with m43 though so at £1700 I struggle to see the value proposition, unless like the OP, you really need a lighter package.

 

[Macroramphosis]

The RX100 IV is the most impressive. IQ isn't on par with m43 though so at £1700 I struggle to see the value proposition, unless like the OP, you really need a lighter package.

This is one of the reasons I suggested a Canon SX50 - for a relatively small sum (about $150) the OP could try out his ideas before perhaps going all in with the $1000 budget, notwithstanding the fact that the SX50 could actually fulfil the role he wants from his P&S.

 

[melanieylang]

This year I sold my P100-300: missed it, decided to try a TZ80...loathed it, gave it to my partner; bought an FZ300 after reading a zillion reviews and comparisons...loved the handling, but couldn't accept the image quality; bought a P100-300 mkII...it's okay, don't love it, but maybe that's my lack of patience.

In short, the FZ300 was the best all round solution on paper, and handled brilliantly - it was quick, light and convenient. The RX10 mkIV seems to be king of the bridge cameras, but I decided it made more sense to stick with m43 in the end.

Anyway, I had fun buying, trying, selling. Good luck with your outcome

 

[Ig7]

Thank you, it is sooo hard. I think the bottom line is we are so spoiled by the quality of the images that its hard to settle.
I might just pick up 75-300 again. Its the only one of the zooms i tried that was not too heavy for me to handle hand held. Being a female with small hands does not help when tripod or monopod are not an option.

 

[RamblinR]

Try the 2x zoom with your current 12-100 (which gives you a 2x effect zoom of 400) Shoot both JPG and Raw and then you can see the difference. The Raw file will not be cropped. If you are happy with the quality by keeping in mind what you are going to do with the shots eg print an 8x10, make a photobook of a trip or just for the web. If you are after a super zoom look at the 75-300 or Panasonic 100-300. This would give you a zoom of 1200mm Also gives you the choice to press a button on your camera to get the 2xcrop or just use the lens at it's original focal length. Play with lenses you currently have and see if this works for you. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the results.

 

[Ig7]

I will definitely try that

 

[PeeBee]

This is one of the reasons I suggested a Canon SX50 - for a relatively small sum (about $150) the OP could try out his ideas before perhaps going all in with the $1000 budget, notwithstanding the fact that the SX50 could actually fulfil the role he wants from his P&S.

Yep, that makes a lot more sense to me, especially as the OP wants a camera for others to use. I think I'd be tempted to:

1. Buy a used superzoom for others to use and to satisfy my own curiosity (I'm very protective of my gear and don't like trusting others with it).

2. Try the built in TC option with existing EM1.3 and 12-100,

3. Compare the results of 1 and 2, and pursue whichever direction works best.

 

[KeithT]

I have both the Canon SX50hs and the Stylus 1s
With the Stylus 1s I added the adapter CLA-13 and the 1.7x tele B-300) cost was US$208 or GBP160 all in.

I just prefer the Stylus as a P&S 28-300mm f2.8 or 510mm f2.8 with the tele converter.
Canon is much longer but bulkier 24-1200mm f3.4-6.5

Stylus has the same tilting screen as my EM1.1 and menus are pretty similar, Canon screen is articulating like your EM1.3

I think Stylus better built (Canon feels more consumer plasticky) but its a personal thing in the end.

 

[Ig7]

Thank you for the comparison.
I did a quick test with built in TC and surprisingly got a decent result that can definitely be improved in pp.
I am still planning to go to a local store with my own memory card to take a few test shots and compare