If I were to dabble in MF it certainly would not be for the long range stuff
Seems like an awful lot of talk about different systems lately
- Thread starter Brownie
- Start date
I plan on using Olympus M4/3 when it best suits my needs and using Sony FF at 42MP when it best suits my needs. I like having 2 kits, it gives me lots of options. I rarely shoot needing high ISO, instead I have fast primes, so the ISO advantage of the Sony is lost on me. The MP advantage of the Sony really depends on what you are shooting.
For portraits, in both kits I have small primes and there is not a lot of difference in weight or volume if I plan on using a Sony kit of 35-55-85 or 17-25(or 30)-42.5 with Oly/Pany. For Sony I can add the Batis 135mm f2.8 or for Olympus the 75mm and though the Batis 135 is a bit larger and heavier than the Oly, it is still very manageable. Higher MP are of no real help here, but the couple of stops better IBIS in the Olympus EM1.3 has proven useful. The excellent Eye AF in the Sony does not cover the full screen of the larger MP bodies, many 42 or 61MP portrait shooters of Sony gear have gone/added back the 24MP A7III for this reason, as it has full screen Eye AF like the EM1.3 has.
For sports/action/nature I use the Oly 7-14mm, 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8 Pro lenses plus 1.4TC and no other camera has a f2.8 kit with this much range in such a small package. For Sony I use the my Tamron 17-28 f2.8, 2 small 35 and 55mm S/Z Sonnar primes and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 GM (superb) lens plus 1.4TC. Not interested in a Sony 24-70 or 70-200 f2.8 as they are too large, heavy and expensive, nor do I see needing the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 zoom, as I would rather have the smaller primes for the mid range. Convenience goes to Olympus, but reach goes to Sony and the 2 AF-C systems are pretty close, just a slight advantage to the Sony A7RIII/A7III. I am debating on whether or not to add the new Oly 100-400, as with the 42MP Sony A7RIII, I can get a 18MP crop file that allows the Sony 100-400 with TC to go out to 840mm at f/8. Here the 42MP of the Sony has some advantages if you crop, plus I like the higher MP files better for natural landscapes with lots of detail.
For overseas travel it is the Olympus kit all the way. I can bring both the small primes and the 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8 Pro zooms, plus a Laowa 7.5mm f2 Ultra wide angle, that covers everything and fits into a Mindshift sling bag that weighs about 6kg. My wife and I spend a lot of time in Thailand (she's Thai) and the weather-sealing of my Olympus gear comes in very handy, as it can rain every day. Been using M4/3 for my Thailand trips since 2012 and am more than happy with the IQ results.
Edit: Typical 4 prime Portrait kit for each system below. As mentioned, not that big of a difference in size or weight. Nocticron 42.5 f1.2 on far left, Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 on far right are the most used for portraits on either system. Olympus 75mm f1.8 back left, Zeiss Batis 135mm f2.8 back right. Both Batis lenses have OIS, which is very helpful and work with the Sony IBIS. The Nociticron also has OIS, but does not work with Olympus bodies unfortunately. The middle lenses are a Sigma 30mm f1.4 left and Sonnar 55mm f1.8 at right, and each camera has a very small 35 (34 eq) lens mounted. The hoods are removed for front row lenses and yes, I have blacked out each camera's bright white name with a sharpie
For portraits, in both kits I have small primes and there is not a lot of difference in weight or volume if I plan on using a Sony kit of 35-55-85 or 17-25(or 30)-42.5 with Oly/Pany. For Sony I can add the Batis 135mm f2.8 or for Olympus the 75mm and though the Batis 135 is a bit larger and heavier than the Oly, it is still very manageable. Higher MP are of no real help here, but the couple of stops better IBIS in the Olympus EM1.3 has proven useful. The excellent Eye AF in the Sony does not cover the full screen of the larger MP bodies, many 42 or 61MP portrait shooters of Sony gear have gone/added back the 24MP A7III for this reason, as it has full screen Eye AF like the EM1.3 has.
For sports/action/nature I use the Oly 7-14mm, 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8 Pro lenses plus 1.4TC and no other camera has a f2.8 kit with this much range in such a small package. For Sony I use the my Tamron 17-28 f2.8, 2 small 35 and 55mm S/Z Sonnar primes and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 GM (superb) lens plus 1.4TC. Not interested in a Sony 24-70 or 70-200 f2.8 as they are too large, heavy and expensive, nor do I see needing the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 zoom, as I would rather have the smaller primes for the mid range. Convenience goes to Olympus, but reach goes to Sony and the 2 AF-C systems are pretty close, just a slight advantage to the Sony A7RIII/A7III. I am debating on whether or not to add the new Oly 100-400, as with the 42MP Sony A7RIII, I can get a 18MP crop file that allows the Sony 100-400 with TC to go out to 840mm at f/8. Here the 42MP of the Sony has some advantages if you crop, plus I like the higher MP files better for natural landscapes with lots of detail.
For overseas travel it is the Olympus kit all the way. I can bring both the small primes and the 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8 Pro zooms, plus a Laowa 7.5mm f2 Ultra wide angle, that covers everything and fits into a Mindshift sling bag that weighs about 6kg. My wife and I spend a lot of time in Thailand (she's Thai) and the weather-sealing of my Olympus gear comes in very handy, as it can rain every day. Been using M4/3 for my Thailand trips since 2012 and am more than happy with the IQ results.
Edit: Typical 4 prime Portrait kit for each system below. As mentioned, not that big of a difference in size or weight. Nocticron 42.5 f1.2 on far left, Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 on far right are the most used for portraits on either system. Olympus 75mm f1.8 back left, Zeiss Batis 135mm f2.8 back right. Both Batis lenses have OIS, which is very helpful and work with the Sony IBIS. The Nociticron also has OIS, but does not work with Olympus bodies unfortunately. The middle lenses are a Sigma 30mm f1.4 left and Sonnar 55mm f1.8 at right, and each camera has a very small 35 (34 eq) lens mounted. The hoods are removed for front row lenses and yes, I have blacked out each camera's bright white name with a sharpie
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Last edited:
Lots of interesting participation in here. Some good answers and angles I hadn't thought of.
Seahawk
Mu-43 Top Veteran
I'll stick with MFT, my G90 does everything I need. I accept that FF is where the development is heading and the new mirrorless cameras are probably very good and smaller and lighter but the lenses are not and they are very expensive. As the weight of the average kit is in the lenses, not the bodies, what is there to gain by moving to FF?
Mike Wingate
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Sticking with mine. Nice to look at the competition, but I thik I made good choices when I bought into m43. I remember when people were always changing their hi-fi when a new colour came out, changing styli, cables and leads, tuning speakers. Advantages were minimal, cost was considerable back then.
This is interesting. I am in both camps, if I weren't invested in m43 and I was just buying now, I would likely buy an A7C. While not perfect it ticks the boxes.
I am invested so I just bought an E-M1mk3 (coming from the mk2). I suspect a lot of folks can't see the point in the mk3 if they have a mk2, but the Mk3 has some important updates. USB-C charging is really useful, the AF is noticeably better, and HHR is great - much more useful than tripod HR.
If you look at the A7C and the EM1Mk3 objectively the Mk3 is the better body, and the m43 lens catalogue is fantastic, but there is no way the reviewers will highlight that. The only advantage the A7C has is it is "full frame"... (beyond the Oly is dead argument of course).
I am invested so I just bought an E-M1mk3 (coming from the mk2). I suspect a lot of folks can't see the point in the mk3 if they have a mk2, but the Mk3 has some important updates. USB-C charging is really useful, the AF is noticeably better, and HHR is great - much more useful than tripod HR.
If you look at the A7C and the EM1Mk3 objectively the Mk3 is the better body, and the m43 lens catalogue is fantastic, but there is no way the reviewers will highlight that. The only advantage the A7C has is it is "full frame"... (beyond the Oly is dead argument of course).
I can see the point in the mk2 to mk3 upgrade, I'm just waiting for the price to drop on the mk3 (or a 1.2 or 100-400 incentive!!), very happy with my mk2 still after several years use..
Mike Wingate
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
So fed up with everyone buying into Leica’s, I shall only be reading Zeiss ZX1 reviews from now on.
Mike Wingate
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Corroding Kodak sensors in M9’s. A new body is only the cost of a high end road bike. A lens about the cost of another. Depreciation is only £1 per day. You can justify anything these days.
demiro
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
I'm with you Randy. I always cringe a bit when I read "investment" or "new lens for my collection".
I'm pretty sure we are a varied bunch when it comes to levels and wealth and how we prioritize buying photo gear vs the rest of our financial responsibilities and choices, hobbies, etc. That drives the answers in threads like this. But it does seem clear that between the expansion off FF mirrorless and Oly's troubles a good many folks are leaning toward the port side of the ship at the moment. I don't think she's capsizing any time soon, and even if she does the water looks relatively shallow, calm and warm, with nary a shark to be seen, and the beach is in sight.
What started as curiosity with the bargain priced E-PL1 sale, has turned into a 2nd. system that I enjoy. The sale of the company doesn't bother me. My main system ,Pentax, is working on it's 3rd owner and still in business.
I'm not sure what the big problem is with the word. Any suggestions what word to use then?
Pretty sure everyone understands that 99% of time they won't make a profit when buying camera gear.
Definition of investment
(Entry 1 of 2)
: the outlay of money usually for income or profit : capital outlay also : the sum invested or the property purchased
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/investment
[ C ]
an amount of money that you invest in something:
-an investment of sth "The plan requires an estimated investment of €80 to €120 million."
-"A business tries to get the best return on its investment."
-"He made an initial investment of $2,000."
-"the maximum/minimum investment"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/investment
Danny_SWE
Mu-43 All-Pro
Agree.
I really like it (and my E-M5's). But who knows what happens in five years or so?
There is no better system for me though, like it small and compact (and need that also!) so I would be really sad if the system slowly dies.
ps. That investment-bullshit. People have also said to me "good glass is an investment". Well, not likely. The mount is doomed to change/die. There always comes better glass IF the same mount lives on. I "invested" in 4/3-glass, and look how that went
I've put a total freeze on new camera gear for the near future. I'm also not taking a lot of shots because I'm largely stuck at home. Happy with my Oly and current set of lenses though I could stand to pare that down a tad.
ac12
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Nope, no plans to leave m4/3.
I came from APS-C, Nikon D7200, to reduce the weight of my carry kit. This is primarily due to me being injured and getting older, and the APS-C/FF gear getting just too heavy to lug around.
I am looking at the ultrawide zoom, just because I don't have one.
I came from APS-C, Nikon D7200, to reduce the weight of my carry kit. This is primarily due to me being injured and getting older, and the APS-C/FF gear getting just too heavy to lug around.
I am looking at the ultrawide zoom, just because I don't have one.
I think most folk are missing the real definition - I believe the correct view on this is "emotionally" invested. None of this stuff is an investment, it is an instant financial loss the minute you buy it.
It's funny about the glass. I've done some scanning this year of old slides from the 80's and 90's, and it is fairly obvious to my untrained eye that almost every m4/3 lens we have today totally out-resolves my ancient Nikon glass from those days. My old N70-300 cannot hold a candle to the P45-175 I bought recently for IQ. Likewise the Canon 28-105 (the made in Japan version) is almost as useless. Glass does indeed move on, though I think current models like the PL50-200 and the Oly300 will last longer than I will.
There's a lot of talk these days about different sensor sizes, but not so much about different systems.
I got into the Olympus m4/3 system only 10 months ago with E-M1 mk2. I was previously using a 1/1.8" sensor camera, so a 6 times increase in sensor size. 6 times. But main thing that drew me was the 12-100mm F4 and the promised 6.5 stops of sync IS. I think with an 8-25mm F4 and a 100mm macro, I will have all that I need for many years to come.
Obsessing about new gear is bad enough, but the obsession about sensor size these days is just strange to me. I do obsess over sensor aspect ratio, I think that has more of an impact on my photography than size. Like, the Fuji X system looks cool but rarely crop to 3:2 so that disqualified it as an option for me.
I got into the Olympus m4/3 system only 10 months ago with E-M1 mk2. I was previously using a 1/1.8" sensor camera, so a 6 times increase in sensor size. 6 times. But main thing that drew me was the 12-100mm F4 and the promised 6.5 stops of sync IS. I think with an 8-25mm F4 and a 100mm macro, I will have all that I need for many years to come.
Obsessing about new gear is bad enough, but the obsession about sensor size these days is just strange to me. I do obsess over sensor aspect ratio, I think that has more of an impact on my photography than size. Like, the Fuji X system looks cool but rarely crop to 3:2 so that disqualified it as an option for me.
demiro
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
You could say "I bought a camera" rather than "I invested in a camera". Or "acquired", "procured", "purchased". "Invest" has a meaning, as you've pointed out. Not a huge deal, so say what you prefer, I was just agreeing with Randy. Not sure why you'd use the wrong word though.
The "lens collection" thing is different. Makes it seem like someone wants a cabinet full of glass covering every available FL, the way someone else may collect figurines or something. I think that one is just a pet peeve of mine though. I'll stipulate that Webster will say that the word is more than appropriate.
Yeah, I might say: "I invested (my money) in M43 system". It has a different meaning to me than: "I bought M43 system". Investing in this case emphasizes I not only bought it, but chose it long-term over others. One could say that I'm invested in M43 system.You could say "I bought a camera" rather than "I invested in a camera". Or "acquired", "procured", "purchased". "Invest" has a meaning, as you've pointed out. Not a huge deal, so say what you prefer, I was just agreeing with Randy. Not sure why you'd use the wrong word though.
The "lens collection" thing is different. Makes it seem like someone wants a cabinet full of glass covering every available FL, the way someone else may collect figurines or something. I think that one is just a pet peeve of mine though. I'll stipulate that Webster will say that the word is more than appropriate.
Most people should realize that the term is not used as in "trying to make a profit", when talking about camera gear.
So I'll still hear out more suggestions for terms to use for it. My native language is not English.
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/twemojiCopyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
