Sold my full frame - Now what?

[Akashi]

I am back at this forum after years of absence due to dwelling into canon DSLR realm. I finally gave up on that because I travel to much and need something lighter than any DSLR I have owned. I just for rid of my Canon 5D MKII (had several bodies) and want something lighter. The problem is that I want it all, AF tracking, excellent low light capabilities and stellar IQ AND a decent video. I am used to the IQ of DSLRs so I do not want to lower that aspect to much. I have had a EPL1 before (and a GF1) so I know what to expect even though I hope recent m 4/3 sensors are way better that EPL1 and GF1 was (and that better glass is available now).

Here are my options

1) Olympus OMD-D EM-5 (or 10 perhaps) with primes (the 12-40 2.8 did not get good reviews at photozone.de. There is a sale now where the price of OM-5 with kit lens is the same as OM-10 with the same lens. I am really worried that moving subjects is not possible - I definitely want something more than an expensive point-and-shoot.

2) Get a small DSLR body (the smallest Canon) to use with my existing lenses. Not a good option because the lenses are still big and heavy. Question, will this give me superior IQ and tracking capabilities?

3) Fuji XT-1. This looks so darn sweet and some reviewers recommend this for IQ over Olympus. But menu systems and usability (buttons etc) is a drawback. This is also the most expensive option and the lens selection is not so great.

I guess my main concern and question is rather simple. Coming from a DSLR, will I be satisfied with OM-D EM-5 (or 10) when it comes to IQ? Can I get a tele that remotely as good as my 100-400 L? Can I get normal glass as good as my canon EF-50 1.4?

Help...Any views are appreciated. Seriously, I need some sorting out on this one.

 

[usayit]

Coming from a DSLR, will I be satisfied with OM-D EM-5 (or 10) when it comes to IQ? Can I get a tele that remotely as good as my 100-400 L? Can I get normal glass as good as my canon EF-50 1.4?

"Satisfied" is really hard to quantify. Its all about perception and personal expectations. No one can tell you that you will be satisfied. This is part of the reason why people switch and switch and switch equipment; 1) they don't really know what they want 2) they won't know till they try.

I left Canon a few years ago with the following

5D
1dmarkIIn
24L, 50 f/1.5, 85mm f/1.8, 135 f/2L and 300 f/4L
24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 100-400L.

At that time, I switch over to the first generation bodies: E-PL1 and G1.

Yeh... those first generation plus the lenses 14mm, 20mm, and kit lens (cash in pocket) didn't measure up to my previous system. It was night and day.

BUT

Did it matter to me? No, I was shooting more and enjoying more. No system, no matter how much image quality it provides, is not good for you if it doesn't fit your lifestyle.

Was it good enough? For me.. yes. Because I placed a priority on size and packaging while still achieving the satisfying quality that is better than anything else of similar size.



The OMD EM5 is much better than the first generation bodies (so is the 5d Mark II). I still find AF is lacking compared to the 1dmarkII. If AF carries weight on the decision, why don't you get the latest and greatest OMD EM1? I hear its an improvement over the EM5. Not surprising since the latest iteration of a product rooted in technology is usually better. For me, I don't really need excellent AF anymore although I miss the 1dMarkII. When I do shoot my son's soccer game, the weakness of the EM5's continuous AF is obvious.

As for the 100-300 is definitely something that can be compared to the 100-400L. For one, it has a longer focal length (eq 600mm) and it is about 1/3rd the size and weight of the 100-400L. I'm pretty happy with it.

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

As for an equivalent to the 50mm f/1.4. The micro 4/3rds system has several options. The Pan-Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux, Olympus 25mm f/1.8, Pan 20mm f/1.7 pancake, and the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 (manual focus). The closest to your 50mm would be the Pan-Leica but I chose the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 instead because of its size. The performance between the two is very close:

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

Only you can quantify; as with any decision, you need to prioritize; IQ vs size/weight. If IQ takes priority, then ask yourself why not stick with the Canon.

 

[cptobvious]

I came to MFT from the 5D/6D. I would say MFT is excellent for its size but obviously there is a loss in IQ going to a sensor about 1/4 the area of FF. I notice noise and smudging at 100% even at base ISO (perhaps too many pixels crammed in there), whereas the 6D was super clean and sharp at 100% up to moderate ISOs. It can be mitigated by downsizing, but if you print large it may be an issue. I had the EF 50mm f/1.4 and thought it wasn't that great - I think the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 is sharper and has better bokeh. I'd compare the bokeh on the Panasonic to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 without the onion rings, but obviously the Sigma could blow out backgrounds much better.

To me, the Fuji X system looks to be the best balance in terms of IQ, but it costs more than I'm willing to spend (X-T1, 23 and 56 lenses would cost more than my current system). All and all, I'm satisfied with my current setup as a hobbyist because the size/weight for traveling is unbeatable.

 

[John M Flores]

M43 IQ is good. I've got pro photog friends that have gone from Canon FF to M43 and are very pleased - even on large prints like 20x24. AF for moving subjects seems to be the last hurdle. Reports of the GH4 are promising though, but the body is bigger. Not as big as a 5D, but not small.

Another option is something like a Pentax K-3. It's about the size of the GH4 and is great for action. Pentax has a lineup of APS-C optimized primes and zooms that are significantly smaller than FF lenses - 21mm F3.2 pancake, 35mm F2.8 Macro, 40mm F2.8 pancake, 43mm F1.8 pancake, 70mm F2.4 pancake, 100mm, 16-50mm F2.8, 50-135mm F2.8, 60-250mm F4, etc...

GH4 is the rig for video though, so you've gotta choose priorities.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

It really depends on what you find acceptable.

If you want great video performance in mirrorless, then look at the Panasonic GH4, it does great stills too and has decent tracking.

I know for me, the AF-C or tracking AF in any mirrorless camera is not up to the standard that I require for my shooting style. Beyond that, the Olympus OMD EM5 does everything else I require, better than the Fuji options I've owned and tested.
An even better option for me was getting the Nikon Df. I don;t shoot video, but the Df covers every other scenario that I require form the camera. great response, superior high ISO/low light shooting, quick AF, superb tracking(not as good as my D700, but unless you are going to buy a D3s/D4 nothing else really is). The Df is with me 99% of the time with either a 24/2.8 or 50/1.8 on it.

Giving more thought to your requirements - I'd say that your top 2 options are going to be either the Olympus OMD EM1 or the Panasonic GH4. Olympus does decent video, but excels in stills and tracking focus, the Panny excels in video and probably equals still shooting performance of the EM1. I do prefer the ergonomics of the Olympus bodies. The Fuji is not strong in video at all and is pretty close to worthless, IMHO compared to the m43 offerings.

IQ wise, I have no qualms shooting my EM5 up through ISO 3200. Any more than that and I am not as happy with it. That being said, the fast primes, even wide open are super sharp. I shoot my 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 there most of the time. The 17/1.8 at 1.8 gives a similar DOF of f/4 on full frame(and that full frame lens being a 35mm focal length)....the other benefit - you can shoot wide open, use the IBIS and keep the ISO down. What I would need to shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 on APS-C or FF, I can shoot at ISO 400 or 800 on the EM5 because of the great wide open lens performance.

That probably did not give you any help...perhaps even made the decision that much more difficult.

What I would(and have done) if I were you would be to sit down with a piece of paper and chart out the specs of all the cameras you are considering and look at the options you require. Then weed out the cameras that don't fit. Once you've narrowed it down to 2, go to a camera store and handle them, make sure they feel right and operate in a way that makes sense to you - purchase accordingly.

Here is a blog that I wrote up a while back. I compared my Nikon Df w/ Tamrom 70-300mm f/4-5.6 against my Olympus OMD EM5 with Olympus 40-150mm f/4.5-6. While not equivalent focal lengths, I was going for more of an equivalent field of view - more the "reach" aspect in the comparision. In vanilla shooting situations, 99% of hte population could not tell the difference between the Nikon and the Olympus.

http://bestlightphoto.blogspot.com/2014/04/tamron-70-3004-56-vc-vs-olympus-40-1504.html

 

[cmpatti]

Several thoughts:

1. Regarding autofocus, this link http://petapixel.com/2014/05/25/run...s-cameras-autofocus-up-against-the-nikon-d4s/ will get you to the Camera Store's recent "mirrorless autofocus shootout" which gives a pretty good indication of the state of autofocus on today's mirrorless cameras and lenses. (The test included the EM1, rather than EM5, but to my knowledge their autofocus abilities are similar. Those who have used both cameras can comment on that.) You can decide for yourself whether mirrorless autofocus is adequate for you. I find autofocus on the EM5 to be blisteringly fast with my lenses.

2. Regarding lenses, from all available evidence, mFT has available to it some of the best lenses for photography available anywhere. You specifically mentioned normal primes and mid-range zooms, and here mFT is particularly well endowed. You have a choice of the Leica/Panasonic 25mm, the Olympus 25mm or the Panasonic 20mm among sub f/2.0 autofocus lenses, all of which are excellent. A match for your Canon 50mm if you believe SLRgear's testing. As to normal zooms, the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 is reputed to be excellent (I haven't used it but many here can comment), and, notwithstanding Photozone, the Olympus 12-40 is the best all-around lens I've ever used in 25 years of photography. Read some of the other reviews (e.g., Ming Thein, SLRgear) and see what you think.

3. Regarding mFT vs. Fuji, the claim that Fuji has superior IQ is highly controversial. If you really want to get into the minutiae of that, search threads in the mFT section of the Digital Photography Review forums, where the respective arguments have been endlessly (and often unpleasantly) debated. My own conclusion is that each system has some IQ strengths and weaknesses, but that IQ differences overall are minimal and shouldn't be the basis for choosing one system over the other.

4. Regarding mFT vs FF, the question whether IQ differences matter depends a lot on your use of the camera and eventual output. There are actually some situations in which mFT has a noise advantage over FF, and some argue that these tend to be the situations in which noise matters the most. Modern FF sensors have the possibility of a resolution advantage over the 16mp sensors in current mFT cameras, but that advantage is irrelevant in my opinion unless you are making quite large prints. Up to 17x22, which is the largest size I regularly print, mFT provides all the resolution I can see in the final print. In fact, I've found that my EM5 plus Olympus 12-40mm is easily able to produce extremely sharp, detailed, noiseless 17x22 images at all focal lengths from f/2.8 to about f/8 up to about ISO 800. Outside of those parameters some compromises begin to be visible at 17x22, but you can push those boundaries quite a bit before the compromises are, at least in my opinion, objectionable for most images.


Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 mobile app

 

[val]

Sounds like the Fuji is the one for you since IMO it's closer to what you are use to.

the lenses are awesome, the usability is just fine, I've had no troubles using Fujifilm gear, yeah the AF is a touch slower but that's it.

If I didn't do video I would of probably gone to Fuji.

I think Olympus are absolutely awesome and all and there have been quite a few FF converts to m43 but I dunno, my gut reckons for you that Fuji would be the way to go.

You can't go wrong either way but that is my two cents.

 

[arprok13]

As mentioned earlier if the tx-1 is your fuji option then the EM1 has to by your Olympus option.

What about the Sony a6000? (...did I just commit a taboo?)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[nstelemark]

I think the best bet would be the Oly E-M1 and 50-200 f2.8/3.5. You won't be unhappy with the output and the AF is very good with the latest firmware update for the E-M1. Add the Oly 24 f1.8 or the PL 25 f1.4 and you would cover your bases.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

What about the Sony a6000? (...did I just commit a taboo?)

I would say no, you are just trying to give the OP the best possible options to his question. No more taboo than considering a Fuji.

 

[emorgan451]

1) Olympus OMD-D EM-5 (or 10 perhaps) with primes (the 12-40 2.8 did not get good reviews at photozone.de.

By reading the review, they just didn't like the vignetting mostly at the short end wide open and the price was a little high when you buy new. It was the sharpest zoom they tested (at least for m43) and they liked the build and optical quality. I really don't read the review as bad, especially if you snag a refurb for $639. I find it to be a fantastic lens from 12 to about 30, and still very good beyond that, just not up the 45 1.8 that I have to compare the long end with. The 12-40 got lots of glowing reviews, two that come to mind are Ming Thein's and Steve Huff's, and DXO puts it as "pro-worthy".

All of this is said to get you to not dismiss it as a high quality option, unless you prefer primes. Ask around the forum about the 12-40 performance.

-Eli

 

[orfeo]

Best option imho:
GH4: 1700$ 450g
12-35mm 1000$ 305g
35-100mm 1500$ 360g
42.5mm F1.2 1600$ 420g
15mm f1.7 700$ 180g
25mm F1.4 600$ 200g
7-14mm f4 1000$ 300g
45mm f2.8 macro 900$ 225g

Pana kit : it's 2.44 Kg for 8100$


But your Canon 5D mark III (you had mark II) + 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 alone cost :
5D:3500$ 860g
85mm f1.2: 2000$ 971g
50mm f1.2: 1620$ 545g

Canon Kit : it's 2.4 Kg for 7120$

done...

With the Lumix Kit you got a tele macro, two Pro zooms, a pro UWA, a fast wide angle lens in BONUS! (with the option to film shaming DSLR 4K video, and keeping part of the kit at home so you travel light)
Pretty good deal hugh!

 

[Ned]

1) Olympus OMD-D EM-5 (or 10 perhaps) with primes (the 12-40 2.8 did not get good reviews at photozone.de. There is a sale now where the price of OM-5 with kit lens is the same as OM-10 with the same lens. I am really worried that moving subjects is not possible - I definitely want something more than an expensive point-and-shoot.

Why not the Olympus OM-D E-M1 or Panasonic GH4? You said you want it all so why not get the best? Either of these bodies are cheaper than a full-frame DSLR (or at least the ones that would hit my scope of interest).

2) Get a small DSLR body (the smallest Canon) to use with my existing lenses. Not a good option because the lenses are still big and heavy. Question, will this give me superior IQ and tracking capabilities?

No, there is a much larger gap in the performance level of entry-level and pro-grade DSLRs, unlike the m4/3 world where each body is capable of the best in performance and technology available at that time but mostly differ only in form factor and design. DSLRs in contrast rely on mechanical parts rather than electrical. Only the pro-grade cameras are built with the quality parts, like using a real crystal pentaprism instead of a cheap pentamirror system (which gives you a dark tunnel vision in your finder as opposed to the large bright view of a pentaprism finder)... and that entire system is based around that reflex mirror, isn't it? The AF system on lower-end DSLRs always lacks in comparison with the pro-grade, though I don't really know why that is from a technical standpoint. Besides specific models of course, like for instance some higher-end bodies provide more power to the lenses for operating the faster in-lens focus motors in some higher grade lenses, like Canon's USM (ring type, not micro motor), Nikon's SWM, or Olympus's SWD.

Of course there is also a big difference in IQ out of the body since you are going from Full-Frame to APS-C... but before we discuss too much on that, remember that IQ is mostly a factor of your glass and lighting, with the body being the last consideration out of the three. If you already have good glass for your Canon system then this should not be an issue... however, it also won't offer you any sort of advantage over a m4/3 system -IF- you purchase equivalently good glass for your new system. Bodies are just accessories. Your system is as good (or bad) as what you invest into it, no matter what brand or format.

3) Fuji XT-1. This looks so darn sweet and some reviewers recommend this for IQ over Olympus. But menu systems and usability (buttons etc) is a drawback. This is also the most expensive option and the lens selection is not so great.

Nice system... what there is of it. xD Nice bodies and nice lenses, but still a very limited selection. Your system is so much more than a body. It takes an entire toolkit to get the job done right, and that requires a full system. Fuji doesn't have that yet, though when they do I'm sure it'll be great! But you also mentioned AF as being an important factor in your decision, in which case you want to steer well away from Fuji (though personally I don't rely on auto-anything so it doesn't matter much to me - I'm just addressing what you say is important to you).

 

[markdaunt]

If you want decent video then the GH4 is by far your best option at the mo.

 

[Itchybiscuit]

I don't know about anyone else but I'm learning a whole lot from just reading this thread.

You guys are a treasure.

 

[bye]

I am back at this forum after years of absence due to dwelling into canon DSLR realm. I finally gave up on that because I travel to much and need something lighter than any DSLR I have owned. I just for rid of my Canon 5D MKII (had several bodies) and want something lighter. The problem is that I want it all, AF tracking, excellent low light capabilities and stellar IQ AND a decent video. I am used to the IQ of DSLRs so I do not want to lower that aspect to much. I have had a EPL1 before (and a GF1) so I know what to expect even though I hope recent m 4/3 sensors are way better that EPL1 and GF1 was (and that better glass is available now).

Here are my options

1) Olympus OMD-D EM-5 (or 10 perhaps) with primes (the 12-40 2.8 did not get good reviews at photozone.de. There is a sale now where the price of OM-5 with kit lens is the same as OM-10 with the same lens. I am really worried that moving subjects is not possible - I definitely want something more than an expensive point-and-shoot.

2) Get a small DSLR body (the smallest Canon) to use with my existing lenses. Not a good option because the lenses are still big and heavy. Question, will this give me superior IQ and tracking capabilities?

3) Fuji XT-1. This looks so darn sweet and some reviewers recommend this for IQ over Olympus. But menu systems and usability (buttons etc) is a drawback. This is also the most expensive option and the lens selection is not so great.

I guess my main concern and question is rather simple. Coming from a DSLR, will I be satisfied with OM-D EM-5 (or 10) when it comes to IQ? Can I get a tele that remotely as good as my 100-400 L? Can I get normal glass as good as my canon EF-50 1.4?

Help...Any views are appreciated. Seriously, I need some sorting out on this one.

For fast contrast detection, currently the Olympus E-M10 body is the fastest with the new Truepic 7 processor and is also the most stable in regards to continous AF if you can not afford the E-M1. All the Olympus bodies and that includes the Fuji as well have tracking issues with unpredictable subject matter. The GH4, after playing it awhile, is better in this regard and very close to my Nikon D4 in terms of AF tracking and continous performance. So if that's a criteria, then the GH4 would be on top of my list in terms of AF performance. The XT-1 lags behind the GH4.

In terms of IQ, we can only talk about noise and color rendition and this is very manufacturer specific, but a RAW program which peaked my interest is Iridient Digital which has the Fuji X-trans sensor film pack. Which means, you can take any RAW file from any camera and make it look almost like it came out of a Fuji X-trans camera. So really, buying a camera because it's got great IQ is no longer an issue once you have software like this. Besides, DXO Optics Pro 9 (the RAW converter I use) make excellent workable files after conversion with great IQ, clarity and with less noise if I activate PRIME. So again, there is no drawback in using micro four thirds.

The only issue you are facing is the longer tele. Currently, the longer telephotos are in no comparison against the Nikkor 200-400 or the Canon 100-400L; not even the Panasonic 100-300 which while a great lens is NOT as sharp as the Nikkor or the Canon. Thankfully, Olympus is very close to releasing both the 40-150 f/2.8 and the 300 f/2.8 to address its weak lineup of tele lenses.

The only thing that Fuji X system has going is that, the image circle of some of its prime lenses have an image circle that can cover a full frame sensor! Which means that the Fuji road map may include a full frame mirrorless camera like the Sony A7 series. This makes investing in a Fuji X system a much safer bet. With Olympus, you are stuck with a small crop sensor, but if the Fuji makes the full frame a reality can offer APS for portability and mobility and FF for the ultimate resolution and IQ in terms of 2 stops added DR and reduced noise at high ISO.

But I have faith Olympus will counter with something this coming fall at Photokina.

 

[drd1135]

You have to have slightly different standards with a Photozone review. They are pretty honest and stringent in their judgments compared to many review sites.

 

[Akashi]

Wow, thank you all for the responses. Many thoughtful and helpful advice here. I believe I will ditch the Fuji due to the relative high cost - and the panasonics do not appeal to me design wise. Looks DO matter, huh!

"Satisfied" is really hard to quantify. Its all about perception and personal expectations. No one can tell you that you will be satisfied. This is part of the reason why people switch and switch and switch equipment; 1) they don't really know what they want 2) they won't know till they try.

This is me. That´s why I keep changing. Sometime I wonder if my hobby is really changing gear

I will consider and investigate the OM-D1 also, but I feel it is on the expensive side. I want to spend the extra money on quality glass. The pictures in the first response (usayit) was quite helpful and I would be happy with that kind of IQ. The 100-300 seemed nice, strange because I thought it to be soft (it IS the Panasonic 100-300, right?). A friend of mine tried it and took it back a couple of years ago.

It seems M4/3 has quite a few good primes available. I actually inherited an old OM10 camera and it comes with a 50 1.8 and a Super Cosina 80-200 (4.5-5.6). I guess they are crap on a digital system?

Priorities are difficult, but I decided not to emphasise video, I have a camcorder for that use anyway. I also realise that focus tracking is not something a M4/3 system can deliver - sad but true. When I think long and hard about it (after all these inputs!) I find that in reality I want A TRAVEL camera - not a sport setup. That´s why I am getting rid of my big DSLR. If it is at home, it does not matter if it has a great focus tracking system, right? The occasional wildlife motif will present itself on my travels, but be that as it may, portability and IQ is more important. See, that helps a lot already! It seems pretty much down to choosing which olympus and lens combination to get. I like the OMD-EM10 wifi (phone remote control) and time laps function to be interesting. IQ seems on par with OMD EM5. I´ll look for the best deal between those two and start with a couple of primes.

IQ wise, I have no qualms shooting my EM5 up through ISO 3200

If this holds true for me as well, I´d be happy with that. The Nikon Df looks very cool, but man the price...!

This is horrendously difficult.

 

[Akashi]

Nice system... what there is of it. xD Nice bodies and nice lenses, but still a very limited selection. Your system is so much more than a body. It takes an entire toolkit to get the job done right, and that requires a full system. Fuji doesn't have that yet, though when they do I'm sure it'll be great! But you also mentioned AF as being an important factor in your decision, in which case you want to steer well away from Fuji (though personally I don't rely on auto-anything so it doesn't matter much to me - I'm just addressing what you say is important to you).

Good point! I am not buying into Fuji.

 

[Akashi]

Another option is something like a Pentax K-3. It's about the size of the GH4 and is great for action. Pentax has a lineup of APS-C optimized primes and zooms that are significantly smaller than FF lenses - 21mm F3.2 pancake, 35mm F2.8 Macro, 40mm F2.8 pancake, 43mm F1.8 pancake, 70mm F2.4 pancake, 100mm, 16-50mm F2.8, 50-135mm F2.8, 60-250mm F4, etc...

GH4 is the rig for video though, so you've gotta choose priorities.

This is a headache.. More to chose from.