advice on camera combo

[JustAPhotographer]

Currently I am shooting with a Sony A77 system.  Love the camera, but too heavy.  So I am changing to a mirrorless.

I like micro 4/3s because of weight, but I like the APS-C mirrorless for the larger sensor (I do large prints.)

The Fuji is my best choice (well actually that's the Sony A7II, but now we're back to weight), but they don't have a long lens.  So I'm considering combining Fuji and Olympus like this:

For street, landscapes, portrait, general the X-T1, XF 56mm f/1.2 R, XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS.

For wildlife, sports, macro work the OM-D E-M5 Mark II, 300mm f/4 PRO, MC-14 1.4x Teleconverter, ED 60mm f/2.8 Macro.

This is lighter than what I have now.  But does this sound like a good combination?  I know that it isn't ideal to have 2 different systems so is there something else that I haven't considered.

Thank you.

[luxborealis]

If you're happy with the IQ of the Olympus, why wouldn't you throw a high quality wide zoom on the OM-D E-M5 Mark II and work with one system? Olympus lenses are excellent.

But if you are printing large, a 24mp APS may be the way to go. It will likely add a full "stop" to DR and adds 1.75" to your print width (@300ppi) or almost 1.5" @360ppi. The problem, I suppose, would be getting a high enough quality wide zoom that is also light enough to meet your primary objective.

[spidermike]

I agree luzborealis. The E-M5 Mk1 is excellent enough and with slight improvements promised the MkII would be very attractive. If you do not do a lot of heavy cropping and print A3 and below I think you will be hard pushed to tell the difference between the Fuji and the Olympus, though the character of the lenses may be seductive.
And when using my E-M5 or CX7 on the street I get far less attention than when I am using my DSLR kit (and he Fuji is half way between them). One recurring critcism of the Fuji has been the hit-and-miss focussing especially in low light and although the X-T1 seems to have improved that there are still come comments about it. The Oly focussing by contrast nails it every time even in low light. And the in-body image stabilisation on the Oly is amazing.

If you will end up with the E-M5ii anyway for wildlife/sports why not get that first with a kit lens and see how you go? Then decide if you still want the Fuji - you may be pleasantly surprised.

[JustAPhotographer]

Agree with you both.  My first choice was OMD E1 with a line up of their PRO lenses, all of which have gotten excellent reviews.  And I've read the Fuji reviews as well which say the XT-1 with the prime lenses I chose are about the best you can get as far as IQ, some preferring it over the Olympus.  I don't heavily crop but do print A2 even A0 occasionally ergo the 'combined' solution I came up with.

The incremental approach is something I didn't really consider: Olympus first (which I prefer anyway because of the weight and size where, as you said, less obvious than the near DSLR size of the Fuji) with their 12mm which is supposed to be excellent and see how it goes.  Maybe, too (you just got me thinking) do some AO and A2 prints from the Olympus see how they look, rent/borrow a Fuji with the 10-24mm and do the same.

Food for thought, thanks.

[spidermike]

The one thing to be aware of is that you will have to adapt a different workflow for each camera. And shoot differently - I find with the E-M5 highlights (such as pinpoints of light off foliage) can get 'crunchy' if pushed too far compared to my APS-C 7D, but the shadow recovery on the E0M5 is so good I know can dial it down a bit and still get good lowlight details.
Did you see the CameraStore video on YouTube where they compared the focus tracking of APS-C, FF and MFTs?  Limited maybe, but certainly interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU
I stilldon;t quiet trust my E-M5 with wildlife yet, but the 100-300 is good rather than excellent and the PRO lenses are a major temptation for me (40-150+tc or 300f4?).

[JustAPhotographer]

You're quite right about workflow.  Admittedly having 2 very different cameras isn't ideal.  I'm leaning towards my first choice which is Olympus simply because of the weight and great line up of lenses too by the way (I'd love to keep my Sony system I have now, photos from it are wonderful.)

Something interesting I ran into on the way home tonight.  I stopped by a fine arts gallery that was showing some photos.  Big, A0 or so.  Nice photos.  Subdued colors.  Landscapes.  People in a landscape.  Boat on a beach.  Really nice.  But I noticed something.  They weren't sharp.  When I got even closer I could see, for instance, that the area immediately around the person standing on a beach was pixilated.  And as I looked more, none seem sharp.  Now this could have been purposeful, you know, an artistic touch.  But it didn't seem so.  No one there to ask, I'm going back tomorrow and talk to someone about it.

But got me to thinking that maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on larger sensor, sharp photo, that sort of thing.  Maybe large prints that aren't 'tack' sharp are okay, especially if backed up by good artistry.

Nice link by the way, thanks!  And yea, if I go with Olympus I'll get the TC1.4 and PRO 300mm for wildlife ... hope the photos are good enough, but the reach will be great for wildlife.

[SZRitter]

Well, the conventional wisdom is that larger prints don't have to be as sharp as smaller ones due to viewing distance. Look through the numerous threads in the digital printing forum for much more discussion on this.

That said, one other thing to think about is aspect ratio. Coming from a long history of 35mm and APS-C, the 4:3 aspect ratio took some getting used to. And some things look really good in it. Yet other times, I long for that 3:2 (or even wider would be nice) aspect ratio. Just something to dwell on.

[JustAPhotographer]

Hadn't considered the aspect ratio ... it would be different of course ... without having shot any 4:3 aspect ratio I don't know how different it would be and how it would change my photography.  Something to consider.

Yea, I kept that in mind about viewing distance.  I'm not a pixel peeper as it were.  But these photos I was looking at even from about a meter away still could see odd look around the man on the beach for instance.  It wasn't bad, just different, so tomorrow I'm going to see if there's someone to talk to.  I have a friend who does light painting.  Now his photos are tack sharp, even close up.  But that may be due to the nature of what he's shooting.

[spidermike]

A lot of the calculations for depth of field and IQ for prints make assumptions on viewing distance and although there is no standard, if i recall correctly it is generally assumed to be twice the diagonal measurement for standard 3:2 format. Big prints are not meant to be looked at closely  but it is impressive if they are still sharp from close up. As ever 'image quality' is a very personal viewpoint and some people are more demanding and for the shots you saw in the gallery there are so many variables - how heavily was it cropped, how heavy has the post processing been, workflow from shot to print....

There are loads of studio photographers and street photographars changing over to MFTs not because it is 'the best quality out there' (if that was the crierion they would all be using medium format) but because MFT is not only more convenient but is good enough for what they do and if it is good enough for large magazine spreads then any poor image quality output from my shots using those same cameras is down to me not the gear.

The E-M1 and the E-M5ii both have in-camera cropping so you can record a 3:2 image if you want it, but of course you are turning a 16MP 4:3 sensor to a 12MP 3:2 sensor. But I was surprised how 'natural' a 4:3 image really looks and I don't really notice it any more. I frame for the shot and leave it at that and crop later if I need to.

[JustAPhotographer]

Your point about image quality is well made. And that's why I'm not saying these photos in this gallery are bad because they're not sharp, because, after all, this person's photos are being shown, mine aren't, so who am I to be saying anything!

And I've read too about studio/street photographers switching over to MFTs.  Honestly you can't beat the weight and not being so obvious lugging around a big DSLR like my A77.  And now finally with MFT, i.e., Olympus, putting out some great lenses (re: PRO) you're not giving up so much to switch.  I use to shoot with an 8x10 which from a quality viewpoint is hard to beat, but if the composition is crap, which unfortunately a lot of mine were, no one's gong to look at them despite their 'quality.'

Sounds like I've talked myself into going with one system, the Olympus.  Well I still have that one on my B&H wish list ... so now if I just had the money I'd be all set!

[SZRitter]

For me, 4:3 aspect ratio has been a bit of a switch from 3:2. I used to photograph a lot of sports, and the 3:2 framing, at least to me, seems to lend itself much better to this than 4:3. But, for a lot of portraits, landscapes, and just general things, 4:3 works just as well. I am also a web developer, and my boss has a tendency to design things for a wider (3:2 or 16:9) aspect ratio.

That all said, the E-M5 plus a small prime just feels right. And the images are incredibly sharp. If we ever get onto a next generation of the chip with a bit better of SNR and possibly dynamic range, it will be the perfect small system.