Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: jimcamel on July 18, 2015, 01:00:00 pm
-
I am booked for a trip to Antarctica next Feb (although not with LULA) - and I've been shooting Nikon APS-C for about 10+ years. Travel weight for the Nikon system is becoming an issue (D7100+backup, F2.8 17-55, 10-20 and F2.8 70-200)-so I am now starting to seek input on a full switch to mirrorless. My SO received an OMD EM1 in December so one option is, of course to get another but with F2.8 lenses and we'd have the same body.
That's the easy way out. But here are my questions and I'd love your input.
1. My overriding concern is geting excellent dynamic range - esp for Antarctica
2. I want to reduce the weight and space requirement for travelling
3. I'd love to stay around 24MP as I print on an Epson 7900
4. I can switch to a new system - but just because I can doesn't mean I should ....
So with some of these thoughts in mind.....your guess on a successor to the OMD EM1 by, say, December ?
What about the Sony system - would it's resolution/dynamic range capabilities be worth it over having the same EM1 bodies ?
Panasonic instead of Olympus ?
Ignore the weight issue and go to full frame Nikon, to get the dynamic range, as I already have an investment in a few F2.8 FX lenses - or can the EM1 match that enough that the Nikon FX premium would not be worth it
One concern I have with the EM-1 surfaced last Friday, shooting indoors at the Pan Am Games opening - with the 14-150mm kit lens ... it just couldn't focus automatically so I took it off auto for her and put it on MANUAL at F4 and she could then tweak it and shoot.
But what is your feeling on this system, overall ?
I feel I need to make a move sometime this fall in order to become sufficiently familiar to a whole new system - despite having been able to lightly use the EM1 since January.
jc
-
You really need to make a choice between system weight and absolute dynamic range. While the bodies of the mirrorless systems all are a pound (more or less), there's a significant difference in the lenses. My 9-18, 1-35/2.8, 35-100/2.8 lens kit weighs in less than the 70-200/2.8. But, the sensor won't collect as much light, so low-light performance won't be a good as a 36x24 or DX sensor.
-
I have the E-M5, Panasonic GX7 and Canon 7D2 so can offer some advice on both systems along with the APS-C (OK, ignore for now Nikon's superiority in dynamic range).
1. the dunamic range of the MFT probably exceeds that of the Canon, and reports of the E-M5 are that it matches that of the Nikon D800. The E-M1 is said to take it even further so I don't think you need have any concerns about that. The shadow recovery of the E-M5 is also superb. One thing you do need to learn is managing highlights - on both MFTs the highlights (especailly small specular highlights) can become 'crunchy' very quickly so I tend to underexpose more than I do with the Canon and use the shadow detail to full effect.
2. A massive saving in space and weight saving. Not so much the body but the lenses for equivalent focal length.
3. You will see very little difference between 16MP MFT and 22-24MP APS-C. You need to change your workflow but the differences are negligible. I have absolutely no problem printing the E-M5 image to A3 so do not worry about that.
4. Why switch? I have my MFTs for 'take anywhere' (be it round town or on trips where bulk could be a issue) and my Canon for wildlife and selected times out. I find that if I am able to frame fully with the lens/position then the MFT is every bit as good as the Canon. If I need to crop heavily the APS-C still wins out.
The SOny A7R2 certainly looks to be taking things one step further but I would wait for more reviews to come out before really taking it seriously .
Regards AF, the Olympus low-light AF is probably the worst of the 3 with the 7D2 far better than either MFT. But the kit lens will certainly not have helped your cause. The E-M1 is said to be much better so it will probably serve your needs extremely well.
-
Here's how I think of it.
The E-M1 is a good choice for this trip -- IF it provides enough DR and detail for your print needs, and IF you prefer to shoot hand-held most of the time, and IF you are OK with the slightly larger DoF.
The Olympus Pro lenses are outstanding. The body and Pro lenses are weather-sealed and should be suitable for that environment. The IBIS is excellent. As noted, DR and high ISO basically match most APS systems.
I can take a lightweight prime off my E-M1, plant it on a GM1, and I've got a tiny camera with outstanding IQ.
A 35mm system will cost almost twice as much, weigh twice as much, will have more DR and more detail. It also usually (but not always) needs a more stable platform to make the most of that detail.
The differences between Panasonic and Olympus are small. Panasonic is notably better for video or if you want a tiny body. Olympus IMO offers IBIS on all models, and better color rendition.
I see little reason to wait for the E-M1 successor; it won't be much better, and it'll cost more.
I'd see if you can borrow that E-M1 for a full day, take it into some high-DR areas, do some prints, and see if you like using it and the results. That will be a true real-world test that will tell you what you need to know, yes?
-
Rent an E-M1 and the Oly 12-40 Pro. Shoot it side by side with your Nikon and the 17-55. Compare your results as you would process and print them. LensRental.com, which I think is the largest firm renting lenses and cameras in the US, has a 20% off sale through (I think) the end of August. Given the cost of your trip, the cost of the rental, to help you make the right decision, is really a cheap investment.
I was a longtime Canon shooter, and six months ago, I purchased an E-M1, the 7-14 Panasonic, the Oly 12-40 Pro and the Oly 40-150 f4-5.6R.
My images are better now, from a much smaller, lighter setup. I'm very happy with my choices. My only complaint is a full day of shooting takes 2 batteries, and the seemingly limitless customization options on the body are quite daunting to learn.
Brad
-
it's a little difficult for me to reconcile 4:3 (or even APSC) with a printing on a 7900
I shoot Canon 5D3, 7D and for the last 2 years GX7. The GX7 with Pany 7-14, 12-35, and 35-100 has comparable (or better) resolution to the 7D and with lenses that are 1 stop faster on the GX7 comparable for low light. For printing, and particularly landscapes I greatly prefer 2:3 over 4:3. Under good conditions with little or no cropping 17x22 prints from the GX7 are okay as compared to 17x25 from the 7D. The full frame camera will print larger or crop more with files that seem more robust in all respects with much better high ISO performance.
For landscapes I'm still using the 5D3 and for action and long reach the 7D
If you can reconcile your print expectations (and the present long lens limitations) with 4:3, 2 weather sealed Olympus bodies with 7-14, 12-40, and 40-150 lenses (with converter) and perhaps a fast prime will be half the size and weight of APSC or full frame (but not a whole lot cheaper). It remains to be seen how much better the Pany GX8 will be or when the 100-400 lens will be available.
Based on my experience so far, if I were going to Antarctica next year I'd take my Canons with 24-105, 70-200 f4, and 100-400ii (with converter) and maybe a wider angle. If my back gets worse and/or 4:3 gets better my opinion may change.
-
As I have written before, I was a canon aficionado for many, many years. Lately, I came from a 5Dii with several L-lens, making prints up to 17x25 on my 3800. Bought the E-M1, the pany leica 35-100, the Oly 12-40 pro and some primes. Long story short, the E-M1 kills the 5dii. Now I know that 5dii is ancient technology but I mainly do landscapes on a tripod and using similar technique the E-M1 prints are clearly superior. Now, I would expect that there is some larger print size at which the Canon 5dii will produce the better prints. How often do you need prints bigger than say 24x30?
Beside the weight and size, there are many reasons to prefer the E-M1 and now include the E-M5ii which has a high resolution mode that may offer some benefit to landscape shooters. The charm of the E-M1 and now the E-M5ii (which I also have) is their operation and IBIS system. In terms of operation, Canon is mired in the dark ages. Image stabilization for every lens, no matter who makes it. I predict that the E-m1 and the E-M5ii will excel while shooting from a small boat or raft, due to IBIS. These cameras provide focusing aids that Canon can only dream of. HDR shooting is very flexible and the EVR is a pleasure to use. Weather sealed! The pro zoom 12-40 mm is flat out better than my 24-105 L zoom; it is the best zoom I have used. Pany 35-100 is at least the equal to my 70-200 zoom. Weather sealed!
The OP should get the Oly 12-40 and spend time working with the E-M1. Understand the logic of the interface and control wheels. Make some prints. Convince yourself, one way or the other. Then, this camera becomes a tool-in-hand and a pleasure to shoot.
-
If you really need 24 MP they you are out of luck with M4/3. The EM1 is 16 and the highest resolution M4/3 AFAIK is 20MP on the new Panasonic body. But IMO you do not need 24 MP to get great prints with the 7900. I regularly print EM1 images at 30 x 24. Good shooting technique and care in processing are important, of course.
-
I've been using µ4/3 for around 3 1/2 years, but still have a Nikon D7000 and the 17-55. I'm sure the dynamic range isn't as good as the current APS-C sensors. However, the EVF's of the Olympus cameras can be configured to show highlights and low lights in real time. I find this invaluable for setting exposure so that highlights are up there, but not clipped. I shot in Cuba a few months ago in very harsh, bright light and didn't run into significant dynamic range issues with an E-M1. I print on a Canon 9000II at up to 13x19 and find the print quality to be excellent particularly with the better lenses.
The size and weight of a kit is quickly driven by the lenses and not the camera body. An E-M1, Olympus 12-40/2.8, 9-18/4-5.6 and Panasonic 35-100/2.8 will all fit in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20. Can't do that with a DX or FX system.
-
As the original poster, I am really appreciating the input I'm getting on this thread.
I'm at my cottage for the first part of the week and I brought along the EM1 and D7100 for some fun. I also picked up, today, the OLY 12-40mm F2.8 and I am REALLY looking forward to trying that on the EM1 (instead of the 14-140mm that's currently on the body).
Again, thanks to everybody for their comments.
I'll let you know in a day or two my impressions as I will be able to try some close-to-duplicate shots with the two setups. Ought to be fun.
jc
-
I would strongly encourage you to have a look at the work of pro photographer Jay Dickman, who has shot with the E-M1 system in arctic conditions with some superb results >> http://www.jaydickman.net/
While DR isn't going to be as great as it is with, say, a Nikon D810 (few cameras are), it should be more than sufficient given the relatively bright conditions under which you'll be shooting during the day. Whenever possible, keep your ISO at base level. Remember that today's state-of-the-art m4/3 cameras produce far greater acuity and color accuracy than 35mm ever did, and I know of several photographers (including Jay) who have made solid 30x40' prints from 4/3 sensors (provided their shot discipline was on-target)
One advantage of the 4/3s is that you'll enjoy increased depth of field for those landscape shots. And if you're thinking about a second body, you might want to opt for the E-M5II with it's sensor shift / high pixel capability which could give you some enormous enlargement potential for landscape stuff that isn't moving.
-
Based on my experience so far, if I were going to Antarctica next year I'd take my Canons with 24-105, 70-200 f4, and 100-400ii (with converter) and maybe a wider angle. If my back gets worse and/or 4:3 gets better my opinion may change.
I also shoot Canon(5DIII and now 5DSR) and a GX7(7-14,12-35,35-100 Panny lenses) and was fortunate to shoot in Antarctica last year. I do 80% of my shooting with MFT system. Also great on long hikes. However, as all of the good points already made seem to suggest, that little extra oomph for DR, resolution etc in my my mind still make hauling that SLR stuff for a trip of a lifetime well worth it. Zodiac shooting isn't that logistically difficult with the SLR system. I'll be in Svalbard this Autumn with SLR kit in tow.
Have a great time!!!!
-
......While DR isn't going to be as great as it is with, say, a Nikon D810 (few cameras are), it should be more than sufficient given the relatively bright conditions under which you'll be shooting during the day.
For those of you who may have been to Antarctica, what do you think about the point raised by Robert. It seems to make sense to me. I'd expect below "normal" dynamic range in that type of shooting environment.
Brad
-
I've been using µ4/3 for around 3 1/2 years, but still have a Nikon D7000 and the 17-55. I'm sure the dynamic range isn't as good as the current APS-C sensors. However, the EVF's of the Olympus cameras can be configured to show highlights and low lights in real time. I find this invaluable for setting exposure so that highlights are up there, but not clipped. I shot in Cuba a few months ago in very harsh, bright light and didn't run into significant dynamic range issues with an E-M1. I print on a Canon 9000II at up to 13x19 and find the print quality to be excellent particularly with the better lenses.
The size and weight of a kit is quickly driven by the lenses and not the camera body. An E-M1, Olympus 12-40/2.8, 9-18/4-5.6 and Panasonic 35-100/2.8 will all fit in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20. Can't do that with a DX or FX system.
I concur. Especially in Antarctica, in a relatively bright light, a 70-200/f4 Nikon lens would work quite well and save you a good chunk of space in the bag and almost 2.5lbs when compared to the F2.8 model (3lbs vs 5.4lbs). The smaller size and weight would be also an advantage when shooting from the Zodiac or even on some hikes without a tripod.
-
One thing I noticed while taking photos in Grand Canyon Nat. Park last year was the narrow brightness range. It expanded at sunrise & sunset but otherwise I typically had tons of exposure latitude to work with. (I was using an Olympus E-M1 with the Panasonic 14–45mm "kit" lens and assorted Olympus primes.)
-Dave-
-
Not having any of the mentioned cameras to test, I resorted to using Dpreview's Studio comparison tool.
Below is one comparison for 4/3 OMD EM5, APS D7200, FF D750, and the new 1",20MP Canon G3X.
D7200 and D750 seem about the same and the sharpest, but suprisingly, there is not that much difference between the four cameres.
If weight and size reduction are high priorities, going all the way to the little Canon G3X might be not a bad move. Getting 600mm effective lens length would be a nice bonus.
-
As you already mentioned, you have gotten a lot of good inputs (far more than I can offer), although I have used all of the above - generally speaking. It's been quite awhile since I used a Nikon APS-C camera (my last one was a D7000), and I have spend most of my larger shooting time with my D800 and D750, but within the last few years I also acquired an Oly E-M5 (the first version) for miniaturization and was very happy with it (there is an amazing amount of lens options between Oly and Lumix), except for the teeny-weeny buttons. In making that miniaturization change I had sold my D800 and was without any camera larger than Micro4/3. The fingertip control became so difficult for me however that I reacquired the D800 I had sold (the same camera - bought it back from the guy I sold it to) and bought the D750 on my way back to the larger Nikons. The E-M5 was relegated to the shelf for the most part.
More recently I have acquired three E-mount Sonys: I bought an alpha5100 (24MP APS-C) to hang on the end of a telescope, and I was so impressed with it that I acquired an alpha6000 (same size sensor as the 5100) to get a viewfinder, and most recently an alpha 7R to get more pixels (Same sensor size as the D800/D810 36.3MP/Full Frame with half the size of the camera body), and I really like that small scale (One caveat however, the FF lenses for the a7R are almost the same size as the Nikon glass - it is the same sensor size after all - there is no miniaturization of photons). I know it sounds sort of weird, but the control on the Sonys seem more manageable than those of the Olympus. I've never made an objective comparison, but I'm just more comfortable with the Sony buttons than the Oly buttons. I sold the E-M5 soon after starting to acquire the Sonys. One of the more exciting (for me) features of all these Sony Alphas is the wifi capability. When on tripod (or otherwise independently supported) you can turn on your smartphone or tablet and have significant control of the camera (this was a major factor in getting the 5100 for astrophotography).
To add even more 'craziness' a few years ago I acquired a Nikon1 V1 and for a very short time I was very happy with it, but soon fell out of love with it and gave it to my grand daughter (again because of the size of buttons and a considerably confusing menu system). Now, I have also acquired a new N1 J5, which is very handy (although again without a viewfinder, but also with the wifi capability - albeit on a somewhat lesser scale than Sony). And again its controls seem more manageable than the V1 did a couple years ago. (And by the way the N1 J5 has a 20MP sensor with a 2.7x crop factor and with the FT-1 Nikon adapter you can use some of the same Nikon lenses on the little J5 (or any of the N1 series) that you use now. If you have an ultra stable tripod, any AF-S 300 mm lens will give you 810mm of effective reach with a Nikon1 camera.)
Along with all these recent small-camera acquisitions has come an affinity for video (originally initiated by a DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus drove), and without the attraction to video, I probably would not have gone that direction. I was not fully comfortable with the video capability of either of the full frame Nikons (but have not entirely given up on them). Video may not be your thing, but be prepared, unless you pass away in 10 years you are going to see an amazing upshoot of the interest in and capability of video for everyone (but you'll probably have a different camera by then anyway).
If you can only afford one camera, you've got a tough decision, but if possible I would always keep two format sizes available for contingencies.
Good luck,
-
You might want to look at the panasonic GX8 that is starting to ship very soon...You say your trip is next February, so this might be a good choice for you.It is has a 20MP sensor, and so far I have read some stellar reviews. A basic search will get you there.
I have the GX7 and use for street coupled with an olympus 17mm with outstanding results. The kit with a few lenses is amazingly small and light.
Enjoy your trip,
Peter
-
Does the Fuji X-T1 hold any interest for you? It's APS-C, but smaller, with a nice selection of very well received lenses.
-
I shoot with a Nikon system (D800) and a Panasonic system (GX7.) The Nikon hasn't been doing much lately, and I've been thinking of giving it to my sister who mostly shoots out of her home, and from a car, where weight isn't a problem.
A couple of things that I don't think have been mentioned in this thread:
If you go back and look at some of Michael's "after-action" reports from earlier Antarctica trips, you'll see that quite a few people suffered equipment problems. That means you should probably take backups for your critical equipment, which would be bodies and one or two lenses. With the Nikon, that's going to add a lot of weight. (If I were going with my Nikon gear, I'd probably take my set of f2.8 zooms, all three of them, and then some length-duplicating prime lenses.) The same is true of APS-C cameras, where you can get small bodies, but are still stuck with the large lenses. If you decided to go m4/3, two new weatherized Panasonic 20.3mp GX8s would cost you $2400 at B&H, less than one Nikon backup body.
But the big difference in weight and space will be with the lenses -- Panasonic offers a 100-300 (equivalent to 200-600mm on a 35mm) that is a bit less than 5 inches long...I have found that I can put a wide array of m4/3 equipment, including two bodies, several lenses, many extra batteries and chargers, in one of the smaller Think Tank backpacks that will easily fit in almost any overhead or under almost any airline seat...You should also note that m4/3 has an extensive line of lenses, including some odd ones, like the Voightlander f0.95 entries in 25 and 42.5mm lengths (equiv. to 50 and 85mm.) Those might not be Antarctica lenses, but it's nice to have such things.
I know I'm sounding like an m4/3 fanboy, and I guess I am -- I think it's a great system. I'd further note that Michael, in his review of superzooms, said that he considered the 1" sensor size to be the minimum for printing for art purposes. He has high standards -- and the m4/3 sensor size has almost twice the real estate as the 1".
You'd have to ask an Antarctica veteran about this, but will you mostly be shooting while wearing gloves? If so, that could be a problem with smaller cameras.
-
Have you possibly looked at the Fuji X-T10? It's an APS-C camera with the size of an Olympus M43. Maybe best of both worlds? You decide...... ;)
-
Have you possibly looked at the Fuji X-T10? It's an APS-C camera with the size of an Olympus M43. Maybe best of both worlds? You decide...... ;)
I looked at the Fuji line and M4/3 from Olympus and Panasonic a few months ago when I wanted to downsize to a smaller, lighter system from Canon APS-c. The Fuji bodies are close in size to the M4/3's. But, and it is a big but, the lenses are still comparatively big, heavy APS-c lenses whereas the M4/3 lenses seem downright tiny by comparison. Ultimately, the lenses determine the overall size and weight of what you're carrying in your bag or around your neck.
I went for M4/3 because of this fact. I don't miss anything about my Canon except the comparative simplicity of the various buttons/menus/customization compared to the complex Oly E-M1 that I purchased.
Brad
-
... I've been shooting Nikon APS-C for about 10+ years. Travel weight for the Nikon system is becoming an issue (D7100+backup, F2.8 17-55, 10-20 and F2.8 70-200)-so I am now starting to seek input on a full switch to mirrorless...
...your guess on a successor to the OMD EM1 by, say, December ? What about the Sony system - would it's resolution/dynamic range capabilities be worth it over having the same EM1 bodies ? Panasonic instead of Olympus ?
Ignore the weight issue and go to full frame Nikon, to get the dynamic range, as I already have an investment in a few F2.8 FX lenses - or can the EM1 match that enough that the Nikon FX premium would not be worth it
I went through similar considerations and "headaches",
and finally decided to stay with Nikon APS-C for the time being:
/> upgraded to the D7200
/> my new 2.8-4.0/16-80 lens (http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_16-80_2p8-4e_ed_vr) arrived just today :)
both together are reasonably smaller than e.g. the D750 + 24-120 lens
/> the 4.0/70-200 was already mentioned to save some further weight vs. the 2.8 version.
With the APS-C D7200 in 1.3 crop mode it reaches nearly 400 mm eq.
The higher weight of the D7200 vs. the D5500 is not necessarily only a negative attribute.
It may play its role to eliminate the mirror slap / shutter shock issue which I found with the D5500. Noted here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=96574.0). Not so with the D7200. I wish Nikon would take the D5xxx series more serious, a kind of Nikon X-T2 could be nice. Anyway, mirrorless does not seem to be per se free of such effects, even without mirror, from what I read.
Regarding sensor performance and image quality, maybe I did not check intensively enough into the m4/3 format, however, one step smaller, with the 1"-type sensor of the Canon G7X my conclusion is not positive at all (it is actually the same 1" sensor as with the currently acclaimed G3X). From what I can tell one Achilles' heel are tonal gradations such as with skin tones - which often look grainy and with harsh tonal transitions particularly when parts of e.g. a face are in the shadows. I think it is related to what DxO describes in the category "Tonal Range (http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Noise)", and where the 1" sensor just receives a yellow-to-red rating (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/PowerShot-G7-X---Measurements#measuretabs-4), even at base ISO.
So based on these (my individual) experiences, I'll give it some further time until considering again to downsize.
YMMV.
Peter
--
-
Micro 4/3 Oly EM1 or even Fuji XT1 are difficult to justify when the Sony A7's are about the same size. And the IQ on the Sony's is arguably superior.
The only caveat: long lenses, if you need them. I think there is a Sigma 100-500 that comes with Sony mount (I think it has even been reviewed here). The longest native FE lens is the Sony SEL 70-200 f4. Of course you can also mount Sony SAL lenses via appropriate adaptors.
-
Body only, I agree, but you can't take a photo without a lens attached to it and don't forget the impact of having additional lenses in your bag.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.412,624.393,440.327,ha,t
(12-40 lens on the E-M1, 24-70 on the Sony and Nikon)
Micro 4/3 Oly EM1 or even Fuji XT1 are difficult to justify when the Sony A7's are about the same size.
Whether the size difference is worth the cost in quality only the user can decide but printing up to A3 I doubt anyone could tell the difference. But you have the 12-40 with three primes in your bag and/or a longer zoom and the weight/bulk saving will be considerable.
-
Micro 4/3 Oly EM1 or even Fuji XT1 are difficult to justify when the Sony A7's are about the same size. And the IQ on the Sony's is arguably superior.
As has been said elsewhere, it's not so much the body as the lenses. A full frame sensor is going to require a larger lens, at constant aperture, than a smaller sensor. The lack of a mirror helps some, but it helps them all. It's the size of the m4/3 sensor that allows the fine quality M.Zuiko PRO lenses to be as small as they are.
-
As has been said elsewhere, it's not so much the body as the lenses. A full frame sensor is going to require a larger lens, at constant aperture, than a smaller sensor. The lack of a mirror helps some, but it helps them all. It's the size of the m4/3 sensor that allows the fine quality M.Zuiko PRO lenses to be as small as they are.
Well, lets look at actual figures (dimensions in mm, weight in g):
O12-40 O40-150 S24-70 S70-200
Length 84 160 95 175
Diameter 70 79 73 80
Weight 382 880 426 840
I would argue that the increase in size from the Oly to the Sony lenses is not that big; and as for any weight gain in the 4/3 system, well, it is hardly noticeable.
As for the gain in IQ, there is no comparison. I know it well, I have used the EM1 with fine lenses for a while, the noise in long exposure landscape work was just too much.
The Sony A7 system is for all intents and purposes the same size and weight as a micro 4/3 system. And it is FF.
-
Body only, I agree, but you can't take a photo without a lens attached to it and don't forget the impact of having additional lenses in your bag.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.412,624.393,440.327,ha,t
(12-40 lens on the E-M1, 24-70 on the Sony and Nikon)
Whether the size difference is worth the cost in quality only the user can decide but printing up to A3 I doubt anyone could tell the difference. But you have the 12-40 with three primes in your bag and/or a longer zoom and the weight/bulk saving will be considerable.
I was not comparing to DSLR systems. All I was saying is that the Sony A7 system offers a much better sensor compared to micro 4/3. When you look at your pic above for comparison, the EM1 with 12-40 vs. A7 with 24-70, yes, the Sony lens is a little bigger, but the difference is quite small (see my previous post for size and weight comparisons).
All I am saying is that the Sony A7 is FF, and it is about the same size and weight (with similar lenses) to a micro 4/3 EM1-based system. While providing much better sensor.
-
Well, lets look at actual figures (dimensions in mm, weight in g):
O12-40 O40-150 S24-70 S70-200
Length 84 160 95 175
Diameter 70 79 73 80
Weight 382 880 426 840
I'm learning more about the Sony. It looks like both Sonys are F4.0 while the M.Zuiko PROs are F2.8. If so, the weights are not "apples-to-apples."
-
I was not comparing to DSLR systems. All I was saying is that the Sony A7 system offers a much better sensor compared to micro 4/3. When you look at your pic above for comparison, the EM1 with 12-40 vs. A7 with 24-70, yes, the Sony lens is a little bigger, but the difference is quite small (see my previous post for size and weight comparisons).
All I am saying is that the Sony A7 is FF, and it is about the same size and weight (with similar lenses) to a micro 4/3 EM1-based system. While providing much better sensor.
Point taken, Paulo but when recommending a system to someone it is necessary to know that is important to that person, and obviously for you the ISO in long exposure is important, but that is not the case for everyone - for example the Sony is nearly three times the price of the E-M1 and if all your shots are in pretty good light, who ares about long exposure noise?.
-
I own an A7r and various m43 cameras. Looking at stats is IMO not that useful when comparing the two. You have to use 'em both in action to appreciate their differences. Let's just say my m43 gear isn't going anywhere. The A7r…jury's still out despite recent lens purchases. YMMV.
-Dave-
-
As a Nikon and Panasonic shooter, I just saw the Sony A7 a few days ago and was quite surprised by the small size of it. I haven't done a lot of numbers on size and length of the lenses, but to tell the truth, the Sony lenses on display were not significantly different than those on my Nikon system (not much smaller) and quite a bit larger than my m4/3 lenses. I agree that the size /numbers given by Paul would suggest that there isn't much difference, but from what I saw, there certainly is. I just looked quickly at B&H and Panasonic zooms to find two comparable lenses. The closest I could get was the Panasonic 14-140 (equiv. 28-280) f3.5-5.6 and the Sony 24-240 f3.5-6.3. The Panny is 2.64 inches (67mm) in diameter and 2.95 inches (75mm) long. It weights 265 grams. The Sony is 3.17 inches (80.5mm) in diameter and and 4.67 inches (118.5mm) long. It weighs 780 grams.
So the Sony is wider, not quite twice as long, and weighs almost three times as much. None of this, of course, says anything about build or use of plastics vs. metals, although I have not been unhappy with my Panasonic lenses. Also, I'm not sure that B&H shows all the Sony lens offerings, but they appear to have no zooms faster than f4, and the lens selection appears to be much more limited. I could be mistaken about this, and might not have seen all the lens offerings.
I also suspect that the difference between f2.8 and f4 has become a lot less important than it was in the film days, because high-ISO quality is so much better. For most people, that one-stop difference in lens speed may not be as important as the reduction in weight.
-
I also suspect that the difference between f2.8 and f4 has become a lot less important than it was in the film days, because high-ISO quality is so much better. For most people, that one-stop difference in lens speed may not be as important as the reduction in weight.
Very true. Especially for the landscape shooters, who typically need greater DOF rather than a creamy bokeh.
-
I also suspect that the difference between f2.8 and f4 has become a lot less important than it was in the film days, because high-ISO quality is so much better. For most people, that one-stop difference in lens speed may not be as important as the reduction in weight.
^^^ Ding! We have a winner!
-
^^^ Ding! We have a winner!
Well....
Like most things in photography, it depends.
It depends on what kind of depth of field you're after, for one thing. That one stop difference might be important. Or it might not.
-
And the Olympus is £400 cheaper (in UK = approx 600USD)
Again, priorities....
-
The bodies are "only" $200 different on the US Amazon.
But what's more important is what the costs are for the kit you need to do what you do.
-
I was trying to compare the "pro" 24-70 and 70-200 sort of zoom offers from both systems. And they are not that different in terms of size and weight. Of course the Oly is equiv. to 80-300mm.
As for comparing apertures, well, that is a wasps nest, as m4/3 f2.8 is equivalent, DOF wise, to f5.6. Whereas the Sony FF f4 is a true f4.
Indeed, there is nothing like trying them out, and choose according to one's needs. All I was trying to do was to introduce a third variable from a mirrorless system that is not that big compared to m4/3, and has a very palpable advantage regarding sensor size.
-
I have the exact same question as the OP...I am going to Antarctica with Lindblad this winter and need to upgrade my camera gear. Weight is a serious/ growing concern as I get older, and I am not a professional photographer, and don't print big. However, I want a system that I can use to react quickly to what is around me. I am so familiar with my Nikon D7000 that upgrading to the 7200 and upgrading to a better lens at the long end has a lot of appeal. I could take along the D7000 as backup. But this is going to be a big camera kit compared to the Olympus system. The size/weight reduction and quality of the available lens set for the Olympus holds huge appeal. However, one of my concerns about the Olympus is the AF system. I have read that it can be slow and I dont want to miss a shot while it is searching for focus. In fact, wasnt this mentioned as. A problem in one of the Antarctica trip reports?
-
I have the exact same question as the OP...I am going to Antarctica with Lindblad this winter and need to upgrade my camera gear. Weight is a serious/ growing concern as I get older, and I am not a professional photographer, and don't print big. However, I want a system that I can use to react quickly to what is around me. I am so familiar with my Nikon D7000 that upgrading to the 7200 and upgrading to a better lens at the long end has a lot of appeal. I could take along the D7000 as backup. But this is going to be a big camera kit compared to the Olympus system. The size/weight reduction and quality of the available lens set for the Olympus holds huge appeal. However, one of my concerns about the Olympus is the AF system. I have read that it can be slow and I dont want to miss a shot while it is searching for focus. In fact, wasnt this mentioned as. A problem in one of the Antarctica trip reports?
You should have no concern whatsoever regarding Olympus autofocus on E-M1, E-M5 for landscape and nature photography, providing you are using m43 lenses such as the 12-40, 40-150 and 7-14 pro zooms (waterproof and freeze proof, too). These zooms and the m43 primes focus very rapidly and the focus is dead-on accurate. The issues of searching for focus mainly refers to the use of the older four thirds lenses that require adapters. The other issue with m43 focusing is tracking fast moving subjects, not of concern in landscape photography. This is also not any concern for m43 lenses if you want to picture a penguin or seal.
-
As a Nikon FF owner and EM1 owner, I would have another concern about Antarctica, which is battery life in cold weather. The EM1 seems to drain batteries relatively quickly (perhaps other users could share their energy saving settings?) and I guess the problem is only worse in cold weather?
-
Yes; take several batteries. The EVFs on these m4/3 cameries and smaller battery size means shorter life. And the cold will make it worse.
-
My wife had problems with the shutter not releasing with her E-M1 in Yellowstone last May and the temperatures were in the high 20's. The E-M5 Mark II has a simpler single shutter design and does not suffer the same problem with cold weather as the E-M1 camera.
In terms of image quality these cameras are as good as full frame cameras for prints up to 11x14 if there is minimal cropping. Don't forget these are half size sensors and the IQ is exceptionally good. I shoot with the D810 and have been very impressed with the IQ from the Olympus cameras with their f2.8 Pro lenses and even the 75-300mm zoom.
-
I would ask myself, if I am younger than 40, I should go for Nikon, when I was 50, I have no regret go for the 4/3.............. Enjoy your travel time is the most important thing, right?!? ;P