Small carry-around kit

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
120
better how?
Noise is lower, high iSO performance better, dynamic range, and I like the colour and results all over more. Focus and all more consistent - for me, and I'm used to the handling and operations. Noise and iso performance the most noticeable. But it's full frame so a lot more kit to carry; both have their place. OM-D results darn good for the size.

(Personal opinion only)
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,630
well I sold my FF Nikon body after getting m43 Lumix - no noise differences I can find, DR deficit is about 1 stop but I just use exposure stacking

I did keep some old Nikkor lenses with "magic" rendering and a couple of micro lenses
 

Macroramphosis

Jack of Spades and an unfeasibly large wheelbarrow
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
1,927
Location
Charente Maritime, western France
Real Name
Roddy
I'm sure a FF Nikon is more impressive. People see you using it and assume you're a real photographer.
I went to photograph a house for a friend last week. The owners expressed some surprise at the size of my GX8 and the 12-32, a combination that worked fine on a tripod for what I wanted that day. The brief was just for some photos for internet use, so it was not a long nor difficult shoot.

But it did make me think that the next time I visit a house for the same reason I might just arrive with my ancient Canon D60 hanging from my neck on a very loud Canon strap, and leave the GX8 in a bag until I start taking pictures :)
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
275
I went to photograph a house for a friend last week. The owners expressed some surprise at the size of my GX8 and the 12-32, a combination that worked fine on a tripod for what I wanted that day. The brief was just for some photos for internet use, so it was not a long nor difficult shoot.

But it did make me think that the next time I visit a house for the same reason I might just arrive with my ancient Canon D60 hanging from my neck on a very loud Canon strap, and leave the GX8 in a bag until I start taking pictures :)
That's funny :) I'm convinced that's part of the appeal of "full frame" -- bigger must mean you're a pro, right? :) Although I suppose an E-M1 with the 40-150mm Pro would qualify - that's big and heavy.

The other thing that really gets me... Back in the day, 35mm was the OK standard, while "real" "professionals" used medium format. Now with 35mm "full frame" you can happily raise your nose up a bit over those lesser "crop sensors." -- la plus ça change, c'est la même chose... (the more things change, the more they stay the same).
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
120
But it did make me think that the next time I visit a house for the same reason I might just arrive with my ancient Canon D60 hanging from my neck on a very loud Canon strap, and leave the GX8 in a bag until I start taking pictures :)
In all seriousness, sometimes the opposite approach - old, quirky, smaller equipment - can be an advantage. Less intimidating, or however you want to phrase. I get more interest in the camera with an OM-D; people like the look.
Now with 35mm "full frame" you can happily raise your nose up a bit over those lesser "crop sensors."
I have no pretensions about being a pro, but I do notice difference in image quality and performance - depending on circumstances. No "nose up" involved - just what works for me, for some purposes (M43 much of the time anyway, so not like I have anything against crop sensor). And that's by no means a criticism of anyone else's choice. Not lesser, just different.
I know this is an M43 forum - and a far more pleasant and friendly forum than most internet photography forums (which have far too many opinionated and argumentative pixelbators) - but there's also sometimes defensiveness about M43 here.
I'm glad I have the luxury of using both full-frame and the Olympus gear.
 

The Grumpy Snapper

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
556
Actually, a lot of pros used large format, skipping medium format.

I dragged a 5×4 around the countryside for some time before discovering that my agent was duping my 35mm Kodachromes up to 5×4. The 5×4 was sold a short time later.

I dumped my FF body earlier this year as it wasn't earning its keep.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
275
I have no pretensions about being a pro, but I do notice difference in image quality and performance - depending on circumstances. No "nose up" involved - just what works for me, for some purposes (M43 much of the time anyway, so not like I have anything against crop sensor). And that's by no means a criticism of anyone else's choice. Not lesser, just different.
I know this is an M43 forum - and a far more pleasant and friendly forum than most internet photography forums (which have far too many opinionated and argumentative pixelbators) - but there's also sometimes defensiveness about M43 here.
I'm glad I have the luxury of using both full-frame and the Olympus gear.

I definitely don't have delusions either - photography is a hobby, for sure. Mostly, I do just consider the "debate" funny. Physics are physics. There will be physical differences between what a full frame can do compared to M43. No doubt. Just funny how status symbols can change. My "full frame" cameras right now are my film cameras, my most recent my Dad gave me along with a bunch of Pentax lenses at Christmas. I also have an APS-C (Canon 70D) that's an awesome camera. Never invested in the platform, so I have just the kit lenses on it, but quite capable. Just not light.

But, more in point with this thread - I bought the M43 to be light, started with just primes, then bought Pro, and now I'm back to not light. I bet my E-M1.2 with the 12-40mm is within spitting distance of the 70D with it's equivalent lens. It's just not weather-sealed, not f/2.8 for the whole range, and not as good of glass :)

I don't have anything against people who have invested in FF. I know for my photography, there's nothing there that would make me want to invest in glass at the moment. I might invest in a FF Pentax body if I can get one reasonably inexpensively to shoot with my Dad's old lenses but that's probably about it. If M43 were somehow to become impractical (I can't imagine off hand what that would be), I'd probably stay APS-C still because of weight.

Actually, a lot of pros used large format, skipping medium format.

I dragged a 5×4 around the countryside for some time before discovering that my agent was duping my 35mm Kodachromes up to 5×4. The 5×4 was sold a short time later.

I dumped my FF body earlier this year as it wasn't earning its keep.
I can only imagine :) My Dad was a pro in the late 70s before we moved to Washington State, and I studied photography in school under a pro in the mid 80s, so I mostly remember the discussions. I imagine you needed no additional exercise with a 5x4 :)
 

JensM

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,030
Location
Oslo(ish), Norway
Real Name
As screename
The other thing that really gets me... Back in the day, 35mm was the OK standard, while "real" "professionals" used medium format. Now with 35mm "full frame" you can happily raise your nose up a bit over those lesser "crop sensors." -- la plus ça change, c'est la même chose... (the more things change, the more they stay the same).
Indeed, I have a photography book from the early to mid 50s, and it holds this little pearl of wizdom:

"The 35 mm cameraes that are now coming in, makes for good tourist cameraes, due to their light weight. For the entusiastic photographer, I advice you to stick to the proper formats, no less than 6X6" - my translation, probably not word for word, but the gist of it is the same.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,864
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Indeed, I have a photography book from the early to mid 50s, and it holds this little pearl of wizdom:

"The 35 mm cameraes that are now coming in, makes for good tourist cameraes, due to their light weight. For the entusiastic photographer, I advice you to stick to the proper formats, no less than 6X6" - my translation, probably not word for word, but the gist of it is the same.
Yes. And I have a Rolleiflex 2.8F kit.

My E-510 is better, let alone my E-PM2!
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
120
But, more in point with this thread - I bought the M43 to be light, started with just primes, then bought Pro, and now I'm back to not light. I bet my E-M1.2 with the 12-40mm is within spitting distance of the 70D with it's equivalent lens. It's just not weather-sealed, not f/2.8 for the whole range, and not as good of glass :)

Yep, the size of the kit creeps up. But I got my M43 kit as my sort-of carry around (again, because I never liked all the compact/alli-in-ones I've ever tried), and I think it's great for that.

The 12-40 is good enough and compact enough - even if objectively not small or light - that I don't think of it as the equivalent of the kit lenses - not at all.

But the 'carry-around kit' difference is that the comparable primes and the kit lens (I actually like the almost-pancake EZ version, thought I wouldn't) are all tiny, and decent telephotos are much smaller than their FF equivalents.

So even though it does add up, I'd say the scale factor still holds on a like-for-like basis. For me, a small 'clutch camera bag' - originally probably for an aps-c dslr with kit lens and barely fit at that - holds an M43 assortment I'm perfectly happy to carry around. My larger-camera equivalent bag is an actual camera bag, of size and heft, and usually still regret not having room for more.

I have some glass for full-frame that is just great, but gets far too little use because it's not just large and heavy, it's unwieldy. I'll have to thin that herd and face up to facts.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,806
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
But, more in point with this thread - I bought the M43 to be light, started with just primes, then bought Pro, and now I'm back to not light. I bet my E-M1.2 with the 12-40mm is within spitting distance of the 70D with it's equivalent lens. It's just not weather-sealed, not f/2.8 for the whole range, and not as good of glass :)
I think there really is a difference, even comparing the E-M1.2 or .3 vs say a Canon 60D/70D/80D (I have a 60 and 80) mounted with a lens equivalent to the 12-40. I have a Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 and it is considerably larger than even a pretty hefty lens like the 12-40 (larger than say other equiv m43 lens like a P12-35 2.8 or PL12-60 2.8-4), and the Canon isn't nearly as fast a lens (although it does have considerably more reach). The 15-85 lens matches very closely to the equivalent focal range of the PL12-60 2.8-4 and the 12-60 is considerably smaller and lighter.

Plus, the camera bodies are also a lot larger than even a G9. But it's mainly the lenses that are just so big, even with an APS-C body. A Canon SL2 or 3 is about the same size and weight, but the specs are a lot worse (buffering, etc).
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,469
I reckon that quite a few m43 users like me have a light and a workhorse camera/lens set-up. For light and compact travelling the GX80 is hard to beat. It has many features that I have in my larger camera and that I might need. Plus it has an inbuilt flash, and can take the Olympus FM-LM3 if I want bounce flash. Saying that, I nodded the inbuilt flash so that it can do bounce flash after seeing a video of it on Youtube. The 12-32mm compact zoom is small and versatile enough. I do however tend to take the P14-140mm with me just in case I need to go longer on the zoom range. But I have taken the P14mm with me as well if night time shots might be on the cards. I find that it is quite usable down to 1/20s at f2.5 and 1250 ISO before movement blur of people walking past, or image noise start to be an issue.
 

Steveee

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
428
Location
Sheffield, England
Real Name
Steve

PeteS

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
77
Location
Tallahassee, FL
Real Name
Pete Staehling
I have a Leki trekking pole (4-section carbon) with camera fitting that also fits the bill. It extends much higher than a trekking pole for use as a monopod, but is one of the sturdiest trekking poles I’ve used.

https://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/pd/leki-fs-carbon-4-section-monopod-trekking-pole_380098
It looks like the Leki is 20 cm taller than my Mountainsmith and also proportionally heavier, but I find the Mountainsmith just tall enough for me even without a head on it. A taller than average person may find it a bit short.
 

Bristolero

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
786
Location
Alaska/New Zealand
Well.... After the 300 Pro/Em1ii combo, anything feels like a small carry-around kit! At present, my lightweight is my old Mk1i with an equally aged 45 f1.8. The Mk1 and I have lots of miles under our belts together, and it fits my hand better than the more recent models. And I don't notice much difference in photo quality. The original mu4/3 draw was a compact travel kit--first the PL3, than the 5. I put Franiec grips on both, a help with lenses like the 75-300. The power of these little marvels impressed me but I found that, for me, an EVF was a needed addition. I still occasionally let the PL 5 out of the stall, but after shooting the Mk1/2, the shooting experience is jerky. Put a VF4 on top, and the PL5 gets a whole lot bigger. So mostly back to the Mk1, and perhaps a 20 f1.7 for my kind of featherweight.
Please will someone make a diminutive, weather-sealed lens--seems like a lot of us folks would buy one.
 
Last edited:
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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom