It's FF vs MFT it should be better I would think ? So did you get the A7 or A7IIAs the title states I have sold my camera and lens today to a good friend. I have very mixed emotions about it. I have been and am still very much an Olympus fan. The undeniable truth though is that ever since I bought a Sony A7 my EM1 has hardly been used.
Now the the A7MII with it's 5 axis image stabilization is out well that made me pull the trigger and go to Sony. That for me will mean that all of my Grandfathers old Zuiko Glass will get used even more.
I tried hard to justify keeping both systems. I took both cameras out with equivalent focal length lenses to compare image quality, noise etc and the Sony for me won. I will miss the EM1 though. I still have a ton of great m4/3 glass around that my wife now has exclusive use of. I may have to pick up an EM10 or EP5 if prices really drop just so I can use some of the lenses. Either that or take my wife's GX7 when she is not looking.
Keep up the good work in here. Keep an eye out as I may have some lenses for sale in a bit as well.
The latest model has less pixels A7s around 12MP I believe.Times are changing....enjoy your A7.
I'm going to wait for the next revision of the A7s to pray for a tad more megapixels. I really dont need 36mp camera. A7mk2 looks very appealing to me at the moment but I've decided to suck it up and stick with my full size dslr for serious paid events and my M43 for good light shooting.
I will now only purchase gear that has similar iso performance to a canon 6d or 5dmk3. A7s is it ........for my secondary casual gear! No rush for more gear at the moment though.....
Respectfully, I disagree with a lot of that. The files out of my A7r / FE 55/1.8 combo are significantly cleaner, more detailed and much more malleable in post than my E-M1 files are. That's ignoring the rendering of the 55, which I love. The high ISO is better (I reckon about two stops at least at any given print size) though IBIS makes the E-M1 the better camera for low light in a great many situations.Hi Guys ..
Interesting things on this thread and couple of blanket statements . We automatically assume that A7 shoots cleaner files than EM5 or EM1 without showing enough evidence . I have Sony A7 with 55.18 and Olympus EM5 with 12-40 along with few more MFT lenses . I loved the idea of FF and one of the sharpest primes on the planet ( 4th best prime lens Sony 55 1.8 ) and believe me , it failed to deliver . I always go for EM5 . There is not much difference in files even on pixel peeping , Sony flash system is in infancy , lens selection is very scanty and video is no where near what even EM5 offers. I would be very reluctant to suggest someone to jump on Sony camp even with A7II . The battery life sucks and once u add battery grip , flash , and big lenses - U end up having more weight than say Canon 6D or Nikon D750 . Sony A line looks very good on paper but fails to deliver and is essentially full of compromises . I wouldn't dump my MFT for slight DOF or one stop ISO advantage.
I agree but only for those who are planning on buying the Sony lenses. On m4/3s my 135mm lenses give me shallow DOF. On FF, the same 135mm not only gives me even shallower DOF, but gives me a more reasonable working distance. All from the same lens. Buying Sony's lenses though? No thanks!This is an interesting topic since moving to a larger sensor is against the current trend. On a separate note, a YouTube video citing Northrop's Optimal Image Quality is kind of a weak argument for shooting cleaner files between sensor formats. I personally think the switch to an A7II from an E-M1 makes a lot of sense if you want thinner DOF. The size is comparable but the lenses are still larger and heavier on the Sony FE mount.
These lenses are what get me. I'm not confused, because obviously they are very versatile, but to me, if were to shoot with an F4 zoom, I would prefer the much smaller 12-35 on m4/3s. The F4 zoom will give you full frame benefits, more shallow DOF, etc., but heck, at that point why not just go for an f2.8? Bigger and more costly, I know. I don't know, I guess I do see the point, but just not for me. If I'm going to be working with any tradeoffs, I'm going to want the lens/camera to do at least one thing the best, such as be very small, be ultra sharp, be cheap, or have shallow DOF. F4 zooms on FF are good at all but best at none. But, I know others feel differentlyIs it a mature product? Not yet. But it is a very interesting and capable product. And the lens lineup is surprisingly decent considering the relatively recent introduction - a compact prime (FE 35/2.8), a stunning normal (FE 55/1.8), affordable kit lens (28-70), set of high quality F4 stabilized zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200)