Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: DougB on February 12, 2016, 01:13:17 am
-
About a half a year ago I made the decision to switch from my Canon 7D to an E-M1 with Pro lenses (thanks, in part, to advice from members of this forum).
However, the last week or so I’ve had full frame on my mind.
While I really do love the camera and Pro lenses I also purchased, I can’t help but wonder about going full frame. I had shot APS-C for years, with many friends and colleagues shooting full frame. The reason I never switched when I was a Canon shooter was the cost.
After a photographic awakening (thanks to a Canon G16), I decided to go smaller with my next system — enter Micro Four Thirds. It seemed to be the obvious choice as a one-system solution. The size, weatherproofing, speed, amazing lenses … perfect.
After almost seven months of use, I can honestly say I’m very happy with the great IQ I’m getting from my MFT … but I can’t help wondering if there’s not something out there that can help me create even better images.
Enter the Sony A7. I had discounted this option when I decided on MFT because I just didn’t think it was in my price range. And it’s true that with the equivalent lenses and A7 body, it would be more expensive than the equivalent MFT system. But lately I’ve been thinking a lot about which SYSTEM I’m buying into.
My Olympus body is fantastic. While it took a while to figure it out and really bond with it, I can’t say enough good things about it. However, I kind of feel duped realizing I could get a very similarly-sized system through the A7 with 24-70 F4 and 70-200 F4.
I’m at the point where I’ve invested very little in the system at present, other than a few lens filters — not even a spare battery. I also got black market versions, so I could sell my Oly kit at a relatively small financial hit.
While I’d be giving up a great body for a mediocre one, I could start a potentially future-proof lens collection in a surprisingly lightweight system. I’ve been thinking about this a lot the last couple of days, but there’s no clear cut answer. I do have a few questions, if anyone has any input:
1. Is Sony pulling a fast one on us with body size? The A7 is noticeably lighter/smaller than the A7ii. Who thinks future cameras A-series cameras will continue to grow in size/weight? If so, that’s a mark against the Sony.
2. Resale value: Will my Oly and Pro lenses be worth more now or later? How will MFT fare long-term versus Sony’s full frame system?
3. Will Sony’s AF system (current and/or future) hold up to professional use? While I don’t currently shoot professionally, there’s definitely a possibility I’d like to shoot weddings, headshots, or editorial assignments in the future. With the Sony system, it seems like I could have a smallish travel system and a real professional rig all under one roof.
4. Anyone think the price of the A7 will come down further? When is the A7iii expected?
Another option would be to hold onto my Oly system for now and either a) buy an A7ii when the price drops, or b) pray Oly releases a full frame system (because I would totally be down for that).
Anyhow, if you’ve read this far and have any thoughts, I’m all ears. Perhaps the best thing for me to do at this point is to shoot and enjoy the gear I have.
-
Doug,
I too covet a full frame, weather proof, camera with a set of excellent lenses. My problem is I can no longer carry them due to an arthritic neck. I had the Canon 5Dii with a set of L-zooms covering from 16-400 mm. I traveled with the gear in a big Pelican case. Like you I bought the E-M1 (and also the E-M5ii) with the 12-40 and the Pany 35-100 and the 60 mm Macro. Same experience as you with image quality; it loses nothing to the 5Dii for prints up to 21x28 inches. Most of my prints are in the 16x20 inch range. Very satisfactory.
You have posed a lot of good questions. Here is another question to answer. Do you print larger than 21x28? If so, you might need full frame. I am also not sure the Sony lenses you mentioned compete well with the Oly lenses. The 24-70 does not seem to be the best performer. Comparing the 70-200 to the Pany 35-100, the Sony is much heavier and the reviews are not great. Will you be satisfied, or tempted to move up to the Sony pro lenses?
I have to admit, that I am very tempted by the Sony AR7ii. I just want it because it is so capable. The specs are fantastic. I could see buying it for use near home, money no object. The beauty of the Oly system is it travels well in a much smaller case.
-
Doug, you forgot to mention what type of photography you do. I tried m43 for a while, and I shoot mostly landscapes/seascapes, and travel/people. I had the EM1 plus a couple of lenses. What bummed me was the poor sensor performance in long exposures, compared to other cameras.
In the meantime, I kept my Canon system (6D and a few lenses), and watched the Alpha 7 system mature. Last year I made a full switch to Sony, getting a used A7 (for a good low price), and an A7II (great camera). I don't know how Sony did it, but these cameras are the same size as the EM1, while providing a much better sensor (for my use). Couple that with the Zeiss Batis and Loxias, and I was convinced (I used to shoot with Zeiss 21 2.8 and 25 2.0 in the Canon).
So, for me, it is the system that hits the sweet spot. For you, only you can decide. IMO, a good m43 camera with good quality lenses, is about the same ballpark price as a good Alpha 7 kit, so it is a no brainer.
Of course, one can get really cheap and good lenses for m43, something which is more difficult to do with the Sony... but once you start thinking Oly Pro lenses, or PanaLeica, the prices are even.
-
My advice for anyone in the throes of "full frame" fever: by all means indulge, and either get it out of your system or discover that the 35mm format works well for you.
-Dave-
-
My advice for anyone in the throes of "full frame" fever: by all means indulge, and either get it out of your system or discover that the 35mm format works well for you.
-Dave-
Yeah, rent a camera (and the lens you think you'll use) for a week. My own story was that after being a 4/3 shooter from early on (E520, E30, E5, E-M5) and loved - loved - shooting with the E-M5, once I tried the D800E it was game over, even with the size and weight penalties.
-
I too suffer from the disease of yearning for something I do not have and THINK might be better. I rented an A7RII with the 50mm f/1.8 to see if I wanted to switch from my fairly complete Fuji X system and concluded I was just fine, thank you very much. Print size plays a role along with the myth of "full frame." As a former 4x5 user, 35mm "full frame" always seemed pretty small. So it's all in the definition. It's true you can't beat physics and all things being equal, bigger is better. The problem is that all things are NOT equal. So, the long and short is that when considering moves that will cost upwards of US$10k, rental is REALLY cheap. Be a big spender, rent for two weeks if that's what it takes. And no, I have no connection to any rental company, except as a paying customer. When you're done, look at prints, not 100% pixel peeps.
Good luck whatever you end up doing. It's supposed to be fun anyway, isn't it?
-
Doug, you forgot to mention what type of photography you do. I tried m43 for a while, and I shoot mostly landscapes/seascapes, and travel/people. I had the EM1 plus a couple of lenses. What bummed me was the poor sensor performance in long exposures, compared to other cameras.
In the meantime, I kept my Canon system (6D and a few lenses), and watched the Alpha 7 system mature. Last year I made a full switch to Sony, getting a used A7 (for a good low price), and an A7II (great camera). I don't know how Sony did it, but these cameras are the same size as the EM1, while providing a much better sensor (for my use). Couple that with the Zeiss Batis and Loxias, and I was convinced (I used to shoot with Zeiss 21 2.8 and 25 2.0 in the Canon).
So, for me, it is the system that hits the sweet spot. For you, only you can decide. IMO, a good m43 camera with good quality lenses, is about the same ballpark price as a good Alpha 7 kit, so it is a no brainer.
Of course, one can get really cheap and good lenses for m43, something which is more difficult to do with the Sony... but once you start thinking Oly Pro lenses, or PanaLeica, the prices are even.
But don't forget the weight differences if you're after f/2.8 lenses. For those, you'll need Sony's GM lenses and the 24-70mm f/2.8 weight 2 pounds! The M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 weighs 0.8 pounds.
-
I always have that full frame bug. I have a full frame system and a medium format system. At the end of the day, I always find I make better images with my E-M1 system. It allows me to do what I do better.
I really find though ide rather have the smaller and lighter lenses. Body size is not a HUGE difference. The lenses make a lot more of a difference. A 70-300, 24-70, and a Macro in M43 fits in a vest pocket. Full frame versions make me feel like I have a ball and chain around me.
The lenses close focus way closer than equivalent full frame lenses. This to my personal shooting (nature, macro) is a huge difference. Also, the weight of the system allows me to carry other items instead of camera gear and be at the same weight, or just carry less and not be encumbered. I can stay out in the field longer and enjoy.
Alien Skin Blow Up makes great up-sized images if I need to print larger than 30". I've done 30" at 5000 ISO from a well shot and prepared file just fine. For me, the E-M1 just always beats the competition. Plus its body is the most usable for how I prefer to work.
That being said..I still carry a very large heavy duty carbon tripod with a RRS BH-55. I find that is the most wonderful place to spend the money on.
It all depends on what it is you shoot, and how you like to shoot. Bottom line. My own experiences, and others, may not apply to you personally. Either way, you won't go wrong with these new cameras!
-
Hi Doug,
I have been contemplating something similar, I ran a price check against similar systems with a standard lens to see what my costs would be to buy into a new system, here are the results:
Canon EOS M3 24MP + Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens | $429 + $399 = $828
Sony A6000 + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS Alpha E-mount Wide-Angle Zoom Lens | $498 +$748 = $1246
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II + Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens | $899 + $1099 = $1998
Fujifilm X-Pro2 + Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS Lens | $1699 + $999 = $2698
Sony A7II + Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 | $1698 + $1348 = $3046
Nikon D810 + Nikkor 16-35 F/4 | $2797 + $1097 = $3894
I am unsure if there is almost $2000 more value in going with a top end full frame option. nor does the Fuji system pricing seem that great. The only all weather sealed option is the m4/3 system, and has me considering it over the others, especially since it would allow for taking images in more weather conditions. If weather sealing were not an issue, I would probably go with the Canon, since the pricing is so attractive.
If you chose the original A7 model, do recall the mount on the camera is subject to flexing (only the A7r had a full metal connection to the chassis) and there were light leaks reported on long exposures taken during daylight. Not to mention the reduced bit depth lossy compression.
-
“… something out there that can help me create even better images.”
Define better.
-
Perhaps the best thing for me to do at this point is to shoot and enjoy the gear I have.
That. Spend money on some trips to great places, instead of changing systems.
I wish I had followed my own advice over the years. :(
-
If you chose the original A7 model, do recall the mount on the camera is subject to flexing (only the A7r had a full metal connection to the chassis) and there were light leaks reported on long exposures taken during daylight. Not to mention the reduced bit depth lossy compression.
And it could be that all of these things are complete non issues :D
-
Having shot with MFD, 35mm FF, APS-C, and mft, I prefer mft. The Oly EM-5 II is capable of capturing stunning images, especially with the pro lenses and the fast primes. Of course the big drawback is noise at high ISOs. Fortunately, I mostly shoot at ISO 200.
In high-res mode, it is possible to get clean files up to ISO 800.
I like having a light and comparatively affordable kit. I also prefer a 4:3 aspect ratio over 3:2.
Selecting the right format can be challenging. Maybe I'll buy a used A7r II a few years down the road. I owned an A7 I for a few months. I didn't like the way it handled and I wasn't blown away by its high ISO performance. The A7 II employs the same sensor as the original. I'd opt for the EM-5 II. If you require blazing fast S-AF, the EM-1 is super nice.
-
And it could be that all of these things are complete non issues :D
Indeed... I shoot my A7 in long exposures, never had a problem. Never had a problem also with the lossy RAWs.
-
Canon EOS M3 24MP + Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens | $429 + $399 = $828
Sony A6000 + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS Alpha E-mount Wide-Angle Zoom Lens | $498 +$748 = $1246
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II + Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens | $899 + $1099 = $1998
Fujifilm X-Pro2 + Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS Lens | $1699 + $999 = $2698
Sony A7II + Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 | $1698 + $1348 = $3046
Nikon D810 + Nikkor 16-35 F/4 | $2797 + $1097 = $3894
At least in my mind (different people will, of course, feel differently about desirable versus undesirable cameras and lenses), these cost comparisons are a little misleading... There are camera bodies in here ranging from "utter junk with no viewfinder at all" to " possibly the world's finest pro DSLR". Similarly, the lenses range from a low-end consumer zoom up to several fully professional options with superb image quality.
The EOS-M3 body, lacking a viewfinder, is an unlikely consideration against the others here. A Fuji X-M2 or a Sony a5100 are more likely competitors for this Canon than an X-Pro 2 or an a7II.
The a6000 body is certainly a lot more camera than the EOS-M3, but it's not in a range with any of the others, either (limited controls, no weathersealing)
The remaining four are all very well-built bodies. Which one you like is absolutely a matter of personal preference. I'd give a few points off to the A7II for partial weathersealing and a less versatile interface, but there are certainly plenty of a7 series fans who'd disagree with me. I'd also note that the Olympus is somewhat lighter than the other pro bodies (it's heavier than the M3, and maybe the a6000, but lighter than the cameras with comparable build), and the Nikon is significantly heavier than the rest.
In terms of image quality, they probably rank:
Olympus
Canon
Sony a6000
Fuji
Sony A7II
Nikon
With the three cameras in italics probably in that order, but quite close in quality (the Fuji's new sensor may even beat the A7II under some conditions). Nothing is going to catch the Nikon with its significant resolution advantage (although it will take a big print to see it). The Olympus (small sensor, low resolution, dynamic range) and Canon (dynamic range, cheap lenses only) are probably well behind the pack.
Many of the lenses are fairly comparable (excellent), but I can't imagine the little Canon (which, by the way, is actually an 11-22 - the 10-18 is an EF-S lens for SLRs) competing with the rest of this group for half the price or less (it's certainly not in the same league for build quality). I'd also worry a little about the Sony 10-18 (certainly build quality, maybe optical quality as well.
Dan
-
In terms of image quality, they probably rank:
Olympus
Canon
Sony a6000
Fuji
Sony A7II
Nikon
With the three cameras in italics probably in that order, but quite close in quality (the Fuji's new sensor may even beat the A7II under some conditions). Nothing is going to catch the Nikon with its significant resolution advantage (although it will take a big print to see it). The Olympus (small sensor, low resolution, dynamic range) and Canon (dynamic range, cheap lenses only) are probably well behind the pack.
Are you looking to fire up the Olympus fans? :)
-
I give Olympus a LOT of well-deserved credit for the smallest and lightest pro bodies around (and make no mistake, the E-M1 and E-M5 II ARE pro bodies), for a bunch of great lenses (mixed in with quite a few mediocre ones, but anything they designate PRO is superb, as are some of the primes), and for one of the two sets of 'best designed cameras and lenses around" - the other one is Fuji. If cost, lens selection and image quality were out of the picture, photographers would argue between Olympus and Fuji endlessly as to what's more pleasant to shoot with, but those two would probably take 80% of the votes between them! Olympus adds "Hand of God" image stabilization to this - there's very little stabilized quite as well as an upper-end Olympus (although some newer lens-based systems come close, and some of the long telephotos may even equal it) - nothing else will stabilize a 50 year old Leica M lens like that, though!
One really interesting way to look at the size and weight advantage - four of capital's six systems offer a 24-70 or 24-80 equivalent f2.8 pro-quality zoom. All four are excellent lenses (well, no real tests on the Sony G-master yet, but preliminary results are very encouraging). There is no Canon mirrorless lens in that range (no high-end Canon mirrorless lenses exist at all), and the Sony Zeiss 16-70 (APS-C) is a stop slower than the others and not up to the same standard.
Olympus E-M5 mk II (14.4 ozs) or E-M1 (17 ozs) with Olympus 12-40 f2.8 PRO (14 ozs). Even with the E-M1, the total weight is under 2 lbs, and the lens takes a 62mm filter!
Fuji X-Pro 2 (17 ozs) and Fujinon 16-55 f2.8 (23 ozs). 2.5 lbs, 77 mm, unstabilized (neither body nor lens) - note that Fuji makes a very nice stabilized 18-55 f2.8-4 that is significantly lighter - not QUITE in the same optical quality range as the others, but fairly close). Choosing the Fujinon 18-55 f2.8-4, a compromise in aperture and weather sealing gets the Fuji into the same weight range as the Olympus.
Sony A7II (20 ozs)and Sony G-Master 24-70 f2.8 (31 ozs). 3.25 lbs, 82mm filter size.
Nikon D810 (31 ozs) and Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 VR (37 ozs). 4.25 lbs, 82mm filter size.
Add multiple lenses and the weight discrepancy gets larger between full frame and smaller formats - an A7II body weighs less than 1.5 times as much as an E-M1, but most of the lenses are more than twice as heavy as their Micro 4/3 equivalent (with Fuji somewhere in the middle). The advantage of Sony FE over FF DSLRs also declines - the lenses are similar in size and weight, and there are numerous focal lengths where Canon or Nikon have significantly lighter options (often with some other disadvantage). The half pound of body weight difference disappears as you add lenses.
Unfortunately, image quality runs more or less counter to compactness. If someone developed a Micro 43 sensor with the noise and dynamic range characteristics of a full-frame sensor, it would be child's play to build a full-frame sensor that was effectively FOUR of them, giving twice the linear resolution with the same noise and DR characteristics.
Right now, the sweet spot in sensor design seems to be the newest generation of Sony 24 MP APS-C sensors (Fuji X-Pro 2 and Sony a6300 - no DSLRs yet, but I suspect we'll see some this year) and the 42 MP full-frame sensor in the A7rII, which has a similar pixel pitch and also uses copper wiring and other newer manufacturing methods (the 42 MP sensor is also BSI, mainly to deal with lens compatibility, rather than improve IQ). These sensors seem to have a generational improvement in per-pixel characteristics over the earlier generation 24 MP sensors and the 36 MP full-frame sensor (although the 36 MP sensor uses superior resolution to come in ahead of the best 24 MP APS-C sensors in overall image quality). A Micro 43 sensor of similar pixel pitch would only be in the 10-12 MP range, which the market doesn't seem to want, so all Micro 43 sensors use smaller pixel pitch (with a resulting decline in dynamic range and increase in noise) to achieve 16-20 MP. When technology permits a 16-20 MP Micro 43 sensor that doesn't compromise noise or DR, it'll also be possible to make a ~36 MP APS-C sensor and a 64-80 MP full-frame sensor with the same technology.
At least to my eye, maximum print sizes run as follows (the bigger the print, the farther you view it from, so it scales a little differently than you might expect). I'm a landscape photographer, so other disciplines may also find this scaling different:
16 MP Micro 43: 12x18 on high detail subjects, 16x20 on most subjects, as large as 20x30 for a certain kind of highly atmospheric image.
16 MP Fuji: 16x24 on high detail subjects, 24x36 on some,but not all images.
Really good 24 MP (24 MP full frame, almost certainly the new 24 MP APS-C): 24x36 on most subjects
36 MP (I've never used the 42 MP A7rII, which I'm sure goes larger still): Significantly above 24x36 - how big is your printer?!!
Another important consideration is lens selection:
Truly complete systems (anything is available, including exotic telephotos out to 800 mm and multiple tilt-shift lenses): only Canon and Nikon full-frame - Canon and Nikon APS-C can use the full-frame lenses, so the whole range is out there at the cost of needlessly heavy lenses and some odd fields of view, both in primes and in zooms starting and stopping in unexpected places (a 24-70 has no wide angle capability on APS-C). These also have the widest selection of rental options, including big-city camera shops.
Essentially complete systems (everything EXCEPT a few exotic lenses): Fuji and Micro 43 (especially with a stabilized Olympus body). Both have most options you might want, with multiple choices at many focal lengths - neither has the oddest lenses available for the two big systems (tilt/shift, fast extreme telephoto, manufacturer fisheye (both have Samyang/Rokinon fisheyes, though)). Micro 43 has an advantage in affordable lenses, while Fuji has an advantage at the high end - either one is quite comprehensive. Significant rental availability, almost entirely online.
Adequate systems (wide selection, but depends on adapted lenses or lenses built for a different format): Canon and Nikon APS-C (using FF lenses), Leica M (very comprehensive within rangefinder limits), Sony FE (especially the A7rII with its full functionality with adapted lenses). Sony could really help their cause here with Sony-branded adapters. The brand-new Sigma Canon-mount adapter is a great start - there is finally an adapter that can be bought in camera stores, rather than primarily through eBay. Does anyone know if that adapter maintains the weathersealing? If you're willing to mess with adapters, the A7rII is the only camera that will mix and match Canon and Nikon glass at full performance...
Limited Systems (check and make sure the lenses you want are available and meet your quality standards): Pentax (both FF and APS-C), Nikon 1, Sony APS-C, Sony FE bodies that perform poorly with adapted lenses.
Dangerously Limited Systems (likely to be discontinued, limited selection and/or limited availability): Samsung NX, Canon Mirrorless (may expand with new bodies), Sigma SA (actually a surprising number of lenses "available", but no distribution - most are special orders even at B+H), Leica mounts other than M
-
Dan, I like your detailed break down of the different formats and capabilities.
It would be wonderful if m43 did everything but it doesn't. I recall Michael Reichmann did a post several years back about his then current Canon G10 p&s comparing it against his rather expensive MFD system, the results from those who looked at them suggested the G10 and P45+ were comparable at the rather moderate print size (I think it was little less than 13x19), the largest difference being depth of field and perhaps color rendition. Fast forward now, we have m43 which is even better quality-wise relative to the G10 and has very nice IBIS, weight and weather-sealing advantages, making it very attractive for certain applications. The allure of larger formats will always be there, whether it is for practical or emotional reasons is another thing.
-
It seems to me that the horse has been beaten to death. If you print really big, even the best Nikon or Sony is not going to be good enough; you need 8x10 or at least MFD. The FF pro bodies with the best lenses are essentially flying submarines. They can do an excellent job at most things but also at the cost of being unnecessary and unwieldy for most things. The Olympus M43 camera with Pro bodies and lenses are an interesting compromise. They can't do everything as well as FF done right. But I happen to think that there are a lot of Lula members have bought the Kool Aid and gone full frame (just in case) but do not ever print their own photos. Instead, they are mainly interested in electronic viewing where they currently do not make use of the IQ of their cameras. It would be interesting to know what fraction of Lula members have printed, say in the last year, a photo larger than 13x19. Thoughts?
-
It seems to me that the horse has been to death. If you print really big, even the best Nikon or Sony is not going to be good enough; you need 8x10 or at least MFD. The FF pro bodies with the best lenses are essentially flying submarines. They can do an excellent job at most things but also at the cost of being unnecessary and unwieldy for most things. The Olympus M43 camera with Pro bodies and lenses are an interesting compromise. They can't do everything as well as FF done right. But I happen to think that there are a lot of Lula members have bought the Kool Aid and gone full frame (just in case) but do not ever print their own photos. Instead, they are mainly interested in electronic viewing where they currently do not make use of the IQ of their cameras. It would be interesting to know what fraction of Lula members have printed, say in the last year, a photo larger than 13x19. Thoughts?
I agree my printer can print to a max of 13x19 and I get excellent prints with my EM1 and also from the files from my E 510 and E 300 using Qimage Ultimate for printing ensuring premium quality output.
-
Another aspect to consider when picking a system is accessories other than lenses (if you use any). Canon and Nikon SLRs have every flash, remote, extension tube, bellows or any other accessory you might possibly want, including stuff made for very specialized applications. Especially Nikon has kept the same basic lens mount for more than half a century, so if you want a gizmo to hook a Nikon up to essentially anything you might want to attach a camera to (ironically, other than a wrong-mount lens, due to Nikon's deep flange distance) it probably exists. Canon's selection is almost, but not quite, as deep. Remote triggers can be more expensive for the locking sockets on these cameras than they are for the headphone jacks and USB ports everyone else favors (although there are now cheap knock-offs).
Every other system has its own mix of what is and isn't available. Some are fairly comprehensive, while others have glaring omissions. It's not necessarily related to how good the lens system is, either. I would give Fuji credit for the best lens lineup outside of the two full-frame titans (Micro 43 close behind, but I think Fuji takes it by a bit due to the overall high quality of their line). On the other hand, Fuji seems never to have heard of a flash! They offer two rebranded (and overpriced) cheap Sunpaks, one flash of unknown origin (maybe even actually built by Fuji) that is better built, but radically overpriced for its limited capabilities, and they are supposedly introducing a higher-end flash that nobody has actually seen.
Other than flash, Fuji does a pretty decent, if slightly random job on accessories. Replacement lens hoods are, for some reason, hard to buy, sold as spare parts rather than accessories; but they make their own custom Arca plates of very high quality... I'm not as familiar with the foibles of other makers, since Fuji is where I've ended up settling. As far as I can tell, everybody has their ups, downs and occasional battery shortages!
DSLRs other than the smallest models have a notable advantage over all mirrorless cameras other than the Panasonic GH4 and (oddly) a couple high-end Nikon 1 models. DSLRs use much higher capacity batteries, which are somewhat larger and heavier, but get many more shots than the minuscule mirrorless batteries. Since mirrorless cameras are always in Live View, they may burn through batteries faster as well - I've never had the opportunity to shoot the two with comparably-sized batteries side by side. Apart from the GH4 (and perhaps those Nikon 1s), don't expect more than 300 shots from any mirrorless battery! Sonys seem to have especially bad battery life and notably slow chargers, but their battery meters are accurate and report percentages . Fuji battery meters are like Subaru gas gauges - from half a tank to empty in the blink of an eye. I own quite a number of batteries and always have a spare - fortunately, they're light.
By the way, I agree that Micro 43 is fine for anything up to 13x19 (easily, on the modern bodies), unless you have a very high dynamic range scene.
-
It's interesting how many times people throw out the Olympus/Pany is great...until you get to high ISO. I really wonder how many people making serious images actually venture that high for work they expect to print, sell, display, at any size above 8 inches. I'de love to see work that was shot and distributed made at 100,000 ISO that wasn't possible before. (I am not counting family birthdays and friends in restaurants and clubs)
Unless its fast action in dim light or wildlife photography that requires a fast shutter even in lower light...why would non-perfect high ISO be a downside to a camera? Even then...we have been already shooting that work for years with digital. The latest sensors from M43 are better than most previous generation cameras (including FF) in that regard still. Yes, some cameras A7s may shoot even cleaner at 12,000...but does it matter?
Personally i've always cared most about what quality I got at base ISO since that is where I spend the majority of my time. There isn't a camera out there that I would consider using that isn't decent, and deliverable, up to 6400 ISO. I know some people might need more... but really?
In all reality, the camera to choose is the one that not only feels best, but actually liberates you from the tool itself in order to make the images you enjoy. Doesn't matter what it's specs are if the job gets done if that criteria is met. At least thats what I think.
-
Apart from the GH4 (and perhaps those Nikon 1s), don't expect more than 300 shots from any mirrorless battery!
I regularly do close to 800-1000 shots with A7R2 and _one_ Sony OEM battery (with FE55/1.8 and AF only, I do not spend time reviewing shots on LCD post factum)... granted people extensively using manual focus (more time with EVF/LV to be on) might get way less shots...
-
It's interesting how many times people throw out the Olympus/Pany is great...until you get to high ISO. I really wonder how many people making serious images actually venture that high for work they expect to print, sell, display, at any size above 8 inches.
In my experience few to none of these "concerns" are about real-world issues. IMO it's not hard to work out what they're actually about…just visit some of DPreview's brand- or format-specific forums and observe.
-Dave-
-
Speaking of... I paid a little more attention the the recent "World Press Photo of the Year" winner. Shot on a 5Dmk2. I am assuming it was shot with a 24mm F/1.4 based on what was detailed. Shot at 1/5 sec. Based on the look of the photo, this was definitely a high ISO shot. 6400 most likely. Heavy grain and heavy banding are present. This is "getting the shot." A faster shutter speed could have been used if he had 400,000 ISO...but that would no longer have conveyed to motion of the child being passed or the sense of moment as he tried to be steady in the middle of the night in this kind of situation. It would have made a different image.
Obviously no one cared that this image had horrendous ISO issues going on. Would it have been better perfectly clean? I don't know.
-
I love that photo. In cases like that, there's nothing wrong with a little (or a lot) of grunge. It adds to the sense of urgency and danger.
I occasionally go up to ISO 6400 on my EM1. It's great for monochrome. I've even pulled some usable images at 12,800. Maybe not what most would consider usable but it'll do it in a pinch.
I use Live Bulb and Live Comp frequently for shooting long exposures. The EM1 is not a bad camera for astrophotography if you know what you're doing.
Photography is a funny thing. The grass is always greener in another system. Most pros have multiple systems available to them and choose the right tool for the job. Is micro-4/3 going to be the right tool in every situation? No, probably not. If it ticks enough of the boxes for you, you may be happy with it.
I personally did not like the Sony A7R1. I haven't played with the non R version, but some reviews claim it was the better camera of the two in terms of usability. It had a quieter shutter and better AF capabilities than the original R. I found the autofocus system on the A7R1 to be painful. I also still have an RX1 on my shelf but dislike the Sony ergonomics there too.
If you think about making the switch, go rent one for a week and live with it. See what you like, what you don't like. Compare the images. Make some prints! If you think it's better given the trade-offs, go for it.
-
I'd also encourage you to rent an X-Pro 2 (in addition to the Sony, not instead of). Mine just came in, and it's an amazingly nice-handling camera. All the controls are nearly perfectly placed, at least to my hand. AF is fast and sure enough that I never notice that it's focusing (like a good DSLR). Weathersealed much better than any Sony, maybe as well as an E-M1. Best lenses out there for ANY system - well, maybe Leica :D). The lens lineup includes a lot of fast lenses that regain some of the bokeh it gives up by not being FF. Very good, modern 24 MP sensor (yes, it's APS-C, but all the lenses are optimized for APS-C, so the focal lengths and lens size work out). I haven't had a chance to work with the raw files yet - come on, Phase One, update C1 to deal with it... From people who have, it compares pretty darned favorably with 24 MP full-frame cameras (not with "pixel monsters" with a big pixel count advantages).
It DOES have a couple of drawbacks. Probably the most important is that Fuji has never heard of a flash, and has even less idea what one is used for. I just realized that my year and a half old X-T1 still has the hotshoe cover in - I've never put a flash on it! While I primarily shoot landscape, I certainly do the occasional event or other situation when I might want one. They are claiming to be about to release a decent midrange flash unit, but I've seen nothing at all on it since they showed a prototype in January.
The second drawback is that I'd call the EVF "good" to "very good", rather than "great". This is due to the hybrid viewfinder (remember that it has an OPTICAL viewfinder in addition to the EVF). The optical finder is a great addition, especially in low light, but it does mean that the EVF is not quite as big, nor as accurate as the best in cameras that aren't trying to share a single eyepiece between two types of finder. Fuji's own X-T1 has one of the best EVFs around, but it's 16 MP, and probably not enough of an upgrade from an E-M1. There will be an X-T2, which will have a fantastic EVF with the 24 MP sensor (losing the optical finder in the process), but that's not here yet.
The third drawback is that you are already at the top of Fuji's line. The 24 MP X-Trans III sensor is a tremendous upgrade over 16 MP on a much smaller sensor (and at least very close to the A7II in performance, if not better). However, it's also the best sensor that will work with the beautiful Fujinon lenses, and it will be years until we see another sensor upgrade. Sony does leave you with a path from the A7II to the A7rII for more performance.
I chose to top out at 24 MP, capable of making 24x36" prints, to get the cameras and handling I liked, plus the very complete and uniformly high quality lens lineup. Everyone makes their choice, and Fuji may not be everyone's cup of tea, especially if you need flash or 42 MP. Fuji IS a very realistic choice at 24 MP, arguably the best choice out there now at that resolution level when you take everything into account. Anything full-frame with the same resolution will be much larger and heavier, and nothing else APS-C will come close for lenses. Very worth looking at alongside the intermediate-resolution Sonys (or anything else other than 36+MP pixel monsters).
-
I have a Canon 5DSr and many of Canon's best lenses (nothing above 200mm though), and I have an Olympus EM-1 with their Pro lenses. The Canon is better in just about every department - except I cannot shoot video with an LCD - I just like using the built in EVF on the Olympus.
But. The Olympus is a beautiful little camera and the lenses are so light and compact. It will do the job professionally and for fun most of the time perfectly adequately - and that is the point no? Most of the time the quality of my pictures is limited mainly by my skill and imagination, not what camera I have.
So full-frame will absolutely not make your pictures 'better'. But in absolute terms full-frame will produce a better quality file - just that normally the difference will not matter. I've used 'full-frame' for about 11 years or so now.
Below is a picture I took at the World Track Cycling championships in London last weekend - with an EM-1 and the wide end of the 40-150mm 2.8 lens. ISO 1600, 1000th sec, f3.2. We had to walk miles to get to the track and I'm glad I was not lugging my Canon gear.....
Edit - for our American friends I have added a picture of Sarah Hammer.
Jim
-
To comment on Dan's post, I am a happy user of the Fuji X-E2 (hoping for a 24MP X-E3), go back and forth between it and the D800, but Fujis don't have IBIS, so if you find yourself handholding at marginal shutter speeds with primes that could be an issue
-
If you consider full frame to be the mountain top, then I have been to the mountain top and back down the other side. I owned and used the original Canon 5D, with its then glorious 12 megapixels. That was a long time and many technological advances ago. I have since moved on from FF and am happily using the Fuji and Olympus systems. I am enjoying photography more with the smaller equipment, and I can truthfully say I'm making better images. Why? I'm shooting more. The larger heavier Canon gear ended up staying home on the shelf all too often. Great cameras on the shelf do not capture great images. In the end it's much more about what is in front of the lens, than what size the sensor is in the body behind the lens. Enjoy whatever you shoot with, but get out there and shoot.
-
No, Fujis don't have IBIS (and I sometimes wish they did), but almost all of the zooms have very good lens-based stabilization (the notable exception is the otherwise lovely 16-55 f2.8), and all but one or two of the primes are f2 or faster. The two cases where the lack of IBIS is most noticeable are the aforementioned 16-55 (one reason I don't have one) and if you are shooting a prime and want to close down the aperture for DOF reasons. On the other hand, some of the lenses have truly remarkable lens-based stabilization - the 100-400 deserves special mention!
-
but Fujis don't have IBIS
neither they have EFCS
-
About a half a year ago I made the decision to switch from my Canon 7D to an E-M1 with Pro lenses (thanks, in part, to advice from members of this forum).
However, the last week or so I’ve had full frame on my mind.
...
After almost seven months of use, I can honestly say I’m very happy with the great IQ I’m getting from my MFT … but I can’t help wondering if there’s not something out there that can help me create even better images.
... I could get a very similarly-sized system through the A7 with 24-70 F4 and 70-200 F4.
3. ... While I don’t currently shoot professionally, there’s definitely a possibility I’d like to shoot weddings, headshots, or editorial assignments in the future.
...
... ) pray Oly releases a full frame system (because I would totally be down for that).
As a prior poster asked --this is key--, "Define *better*" !!
You sound as though "full-frame" has an intoxicating effect.
(And I too share the Med.Format-&-larger user's puzzlement at what's so "full" about it! ;D )
You indicate some *maybe* aspect to what you might shoot professionally in the future; what tickles your fancy currently?
I note the supposed equivalence of 35mm 24-70/4 & 70-200/4,
which suggests that you currently have Oly's 12-40/2.8 & 40-150/2.8
--though that gives greater speed & reach, similar DoF.
For lighter weight, the Pany 35-100/2.8 is great
(shorter on avg. but for lens hood than the 12-40 & lighter).
Maybe one of the newer Oly bodies would make a good
complement to your E-M1 --E-M10ii or Pen F ?
--dl*
====
-
Also...the word on shooting "professionally in the future"...
If you charge correctly based on your actual cost of doing business...you don't even need to own equipment to shoot. Rental is not that expensive, and makes shooting different scenarios you encounter when creating client work easier to manage. Own what you love and shoot with for you...let the clients pay for equipment used to make their images. Otherwise you can end up going down a very expensive reinvestment tunnel when beginning to shoot pro or not making any actual money due to "what you need" for a shoot that stakes just increased on because of money and a contract.
Every click of the shutter costs money. Even if its personal. In film days we saw it literally with development costs, film costs, scanning, etc... Now it's an upfront cost and there are repair costs. Every click of the shutter costs money.
And on that note... I actually switched from shooting full frame canon systems for clients to medium format. Then I went back down to M43. I shoot 70% of my work M43 for clients, and the remaining 30% as medium format. "36mm" sensor size means nothing in terms of shooting pro. It comes down to needs. E-M1 functionality serves my needs better than anything else ever did.
-
A problem with which-system deliberations these days --a "good problem" one might suggest-- is that there are many good systems.
The OP writes "getting duped", and re that it should be suggested that he at least bide his time until it's known what the impending upgrade to the Oly E-M1 is --although an increase in resolution to 20mpx is rumored and hoped-for (as though 16 is really a limiting factor), maybe there will be a significant improvement to AF & other functions that would make one feel duped if just having jumped to "full frame" Sony! Part of the biding one's time might include renting the considered FF body & lens(es).
I'll note that one professional often posting to these forums --aka "BCooter", of Russell-Rutherford-- has often opined his preference for E-M5 (Sony's 16mpx) IQ vs. E-M1 (by "10%") & 1DX (!) and relatively recently remarked at the Canon's remarkable performance in rough-&-tumble shooting which made tough demands on camera ruggedness and super AF ability. --but with "only" 18mpx. What if the E-M1 upgrade took a good step in upping its AF performance?
(Btw, take a gander at the current set of images spilling down this front page of www.mu-43.com; what would be "better" w/<some_other_camera>? (Those motorcycle shots speak well for the 40-150/2.8, and that B&W abstract w/the abseiler makes my day!) )
--dl*
====