M43 compared to Fuji APS-C

[armand]

I currently have the Nikon (full frame and DX) and the Fuji and for travel if I really want to bring all the lenses that I want the Nikon becomes quite cumbersome.
Fuji is more manageable but I would like something more weather resistant if possible, particularly on the zoom side (I'm not that impressed by the 18-135) and with even less weight and bulk. The primes are mostly very nice but I have to take many to cover same ranges and I am somehow lazy (either to walk and change perspective or change the lenses as often as I would like).

I keep thinking about the m43 as an alternative for light travel (family or hiking) and so far I was put off by the m43 noise even at lower iso and lack of a perfect camera (currently the E-M5 II has the brains and the E-M1 has the body). I probably could live with the noise especially as I would shoot mostly at lower isos, landscapes in particularly with or without tripod.

The reason why I'm suddenly more interested is because I had a friend with a GX8 and an Oly 12-40 2.8 and I've been pleasantly surprised by how small and light the zoom was, for a wethersealed zoom that is.
GX8 left me unimpressed, grip is larger but handling feels more awkward compared to the X-T1 and it's probably the same size.

I would get the E-M5 II with the Oly 12-40 2.8 and the Pana 35-100 2.8 and maybe the 7-14 2.8, plus a couple of primes. The Pana zooms because they are much lighter without a large loss in IQ and this move is for lower weight and bulk. The Pana also has nice sales until tomorrow.

Compared to Fuji I would be on plus for landscapes (more DOF for the same ISO) and for any stationary opportunities that would benefit from more DOF. I would lose the lower light higher shutter needed opportunities (larger sensor and faster lenses on the Fuji side) as well the less DOF situations.
I have to calculate exactly how much weight I would save.


So after this long digression the question is for those who used both how do they feel they compare and if the above rationale makes sense?

Thanks

[armand]

For whatever it's worth this is a weight comparison between the m43, Fuji APS-C, Sony full frame mirrorless and Nikon full frame, for a travel system.

21 mm (prime ideally, or zooms if prime not available)
35 mm prime
85 mm prime
"normal" zoom
telephoto zoom (can be replaced with a shorter but faster telephoto prime)

[DanLehman]

I would get the E-M5 II with the Oly 12-40 2.8 and the Pana 35-100 2.8 and maybe the 7-14 2.8, plus a couple of primes. The Pana zooms because they are much lighter without a large loss in IQ and this move is for lower weight and bulk. The Pana also has nice sales until tomorrow.

Just a remark that your "the Pana zooms" doesn't match your list, as it's plural but you subbed Oly normal zoom for the 12-35/2.8 Pany one --which would be lighter by a good deal, I think.  I have what you list, but w/Pana 7-14/4 not the newer (bigger & heavier & pricier --I shop *used*-- 2.8 weatherized Oly).  Not only is the 35-100/2.8 lighter (than 12-40, & esp. 40-150), it doesn't change length in zooming.  (The Oly zooms both (all 3?) offer somewhat closer focusing distance.)

Also, you might want to handle an E-M5 vs. -M1 :: I find the -M5 lousy in hand sans grip, and the Oly grip adds a redundant landscape-mode shutter & electronics & ... weight; maybe some 3rd-party one will give just *grip* w/o the weight gain?  As for "brains", what's that amount to --esp. in light of the latest firmware upgrade for the E-M1, which seemed to offer some significant pluses?

Cheers,
-d.

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

The Panasonic zooms (12-35 and 35-100) are definitely smaller feeling overall.  The Oly Pro lenses are "big" when it comes to m43.  Then again, for what you get, they can spoil you very quickly.  For nature, the Oly lenses are amazing because of their close focus.  You get a 1:3 mag, so near macro.  The 40-150 2.8 will render an object on frame virtually the same size from its closest distance as the 12-40.  So 150mm at MFD, compared to to the 12-40 at 40mm and MFD.  It's quite a change in the way you work if you are into close up nature photography.  It is a pleasure not having to switch lenses as often because of things like this.

If you have never felt the E-M1 I would give it a shot.  You can get them for the same price as an E-M5mkII now...or less used.  It is by far the better feeling and handling body.  Olympus nailed it's feel especially if you put an L-bracket it on it.  The extra couple millimeters of metal added to the bottom make the E-M1 the perfect size. 

I think you will be surprised at how competent the 12-40 is for the purporse you are after.  It's one of those lenses you never want to take off.  And aside from gaining a stop or two, you gain almost nothing by going to the primes for most purposes.  Its really that good a zoom.

Depends what you need.  I use to do a lot of my travel photography with an X100 and a Leica M8 with a 75mm lens before I got into M43.  That's all I needed.  Even the fuji with two primes or the nikon with two small primes makes a decent travel kit.  Just once you start adding zooms, filters, telephoto...etc... even APS-C starts getting big. 

[scooby70]

I keep thinking about the m43 as an alternative for light travel (family or hiking) and so far I was put off by the m43 noise even at lower iso and lack of a perfect camera

I keep reading about MFT noise at lower ISO but I just don't see it. When shooting normally I ETTR or at the least go for a cursor smack in the middle exposure and I rarely if ever consciously under expose and apply large amounts of boost post capture so perhaps that's where I'm going wrong? I do pixel peep even though I shouldn't but still I don't see it. Maybe I should try harder?

There has been at least one thread here recently regarding MFT noise and I'm sure there are others on line and whenever I think that the gear I have isn't good enough a quick Google to what others are achieving with the same or more humble gear usually convinces me that the gear isn't the issue.

MFT may not be the pinnacle of photography gear nirvana but I don't know what is or where I can buy a perfect camera.

When out waking or on holiday I'm not too sure that I need perfection or that I need to produce several meter wide gallery quality prints and I therefore settle for a balance of portability and acceptable image quality and surprisingly I even get pictures which are acceptable to me from MFT even when straying from lower ISO's.

Maybe you could take a fresh look at MFT and try and see what your problem is with low ISO images and how/if they can be overcome?

[HSakols]

Maybe just get say an Olympus EPL6 which are going for $300 here in the US. They are tiny and have an articulating screen.  Use it for interesting hand held compositions that you would never dare with your Nikon.  This is where you will SEE a difference.  The Fuji already has a digital view finder.  The problem is you will then want an entire collection of m4/3 lenses as well. 

[armand]

Just a remark that your "the Pana zooms" doesn't match your list, as it's plural but you subbed Oly normal zoom for the 12-35/2.8 Pany one --which would be lighter by a good deal, I think.  I have what you list, but w/Pana 7-14/4 not the newer (bigger & heavier & pricier --I shop *used*-- 2.8 weatherized Oly).  Not only is the 35-100/2.8 lighter (than 12-40, & esp. 40-150), it doesn't change length in zooming.  (The Oly zooms both (all 3?) offer somewhat closer focusing distance.)

Also, you might want to handle an E-M5 vs. -M1 :: I find the -M5 lousy in hand sans grip, and the Oly grip adds a redundant landscape-mode shutter & electronics & ... weight; maybe some 3rd-party one will give just *grip* w/o the weight gain?  As for "brains", what's that amount to --esp. in light of the latest firmware upgrade for the E-M1, which seemed to offer some significant pluses?

Cheers,
-d.

The reason I would get the Olympus 12-40 2.8 instead of the Pana 12-35 2.8 is that it will be the lens on the camera most of the times and I think the step in quality it's worth the trade for few grams extra. On the other hand the other 2 zooms from Olympus are just too big compared to the Pana (and a focal length less used) so there the weight savings are worth it.

I did hold the original E-M5 long time ago and I got a Fuji after  (that and the fact the Fuji had a much better kit lens). That's why I would certainly prefer the E-M1 body. I have some concerns though for E-M1 shutter (shutter shock, problems in cold weather, etc). The E-M5 also has the super resolution mode (or something like it) that might be worthwhile and better movies.
Ideally I would get the E-M1 mark ii but it doesn't exist yet.

PS. I could just buy the Pana zooms on sale and wait for the E-M1 mark ii but there is no way I can hold myself for so long.

[eronald]

I have the Pana 12-35. I think it is the sharpest lens I've ever used. Video from my GH4 is out of this world.

Edmund

The reason I would get the Olympus 12-40 2.8 instead of the Pana 12-35 2.8 is that it will be the lens on the camera most of the times and I think the step in quality it's worth the trade for few grams extra. On the other hand the other 2 zooms from Olympus are just too big compared to the Pana (and a focal length less used) so there the weight savings are worth it.

I did hold the original E-M5 long time ago and I got a Fuji after  (that and the fact the Fuji had a much better kit lens). That's why I would certainly prefer the E-M1 body. I have some concerns though for E-M1 shutter (shutter shock, problems in cold weather, etc). The E-M5 also has the super resolution mode (or something like it) that might be worthwhile and better movies.
Ideally I would get the E-M1 mark ii but it doesn't exist yet.

PS. I could just buy the Pana zooms on sale and wait for the E-M1 mark ii but there is no way I can hold myself for so long.

[Alan Klein]

I use MFT whenever I  travel.   The light weight is a pleasure.   I usually make slide shows that i display on my Hdtv and soon to purchase UHDTV.  I rarely print.   ( you didn't mention what you intend to do with your final pictures).  You can get smaller pictures as well with MFT. 

So the first question is what do you do with the images from your travels?

[armand]

Most will not be printed (large at least) but some will get printed up to 16x22 or so, maybe 3-5/trip if I get lucky.

[nma]

I currently have the Nikon (full frame and DX) and the Fuji and for travel if I really want to bring all the lenses that I want the Nikon becomes quite cumbersome.
Fuji is more manageable but I would like something more weather resistant if possible, particularly on the zoom side (I'm not that impressed by the 18-135) and with even less weight and bulk. The primes are mostly very nice but I have to take many to cover same ranges and I am somehow lazy (either to walk and change perspective or change the lenses as often as I would like).

I keep thinking about the m43 as an alternative for light travel (family or hiking) and so far I was put off by the m43 noise even at lower iso and lack of a perfect camera (currently the E-M5 II has the brains and the E-M1 has the body). I probably could live with the noise especially as I would shoot mostly at lower isos, landscapes in particularly with or without tripod.

The reason why I'm suddenly more interested is because I had a friend with a GX8 and an Oly 12-40 2.8 and I've been pleasantly surprised by how small and light the zoom was, for a wethersealed zoom that is.
GX8 left me unimpressed, grip is larger but handling feels more awkward compared to the X-T1 and it's probably the same size.

I would get the E-M5 II with the Oly 12-40 2.8 and the Pana 35-100 2.8 and maybe the 7-14 2.8, plus a couple of primes. The Pana zooms because they are much lighter without a large loss in IQ and this move is for lower weight and bulk. The Pana also has nice sales until tomorrow.

Compared to Fuji I would be on plus for landscapes (more DOF for the same ISO) and for any stationary opportunities that would benefit from more DOF. I would lose the lower light higher shutter needed opportunities (larger sensor and faster lenses on the Fuji side) as well the less DOF situations.
I have to calculate exactly how much weight I would save.


So after this long digression the question is for those who used both how do they feel they compare and if the above rationale makes sense?

Thanks

I use the both the E-M1 and the E-M5ii, with the Oly 12-40 Pro Zoom and the Pana 35-100 zoom, as well as the Oly 60 mm macro and the Pana Leica 25 mm prime. I really don't understand your concern about low ISO noise. In my hands, I am not seeing that. In fact, noise is well controlled by simple adjustment in LR up to ISO 3200. As a previous user of a Canon 5Dii and comparable L lenses, I can say that the my M43 kit, outlined above, comfortably outperforms the Canon on prints up to 17x22 inches, due to its superior lenses. I can also speculate that with good technique, one can easily print up to 30 inches on the long side. With regard to the lenses mentioned above, my experience is that they are better than their Canon L counterparts and most are weatherproof, to boot. The M1 and M5ii have very useful features that Canon does not offer, making the photographic experience more satisfying. For example, focus bracketing, IBIS, HDR-modes, and many customization possibilities. The E-M5ii has a high resolution mode that yields IQ comparable to the Nikon 810 under static conditions. It is true that a modern FF camera system will clearly outperform m43 at high enough enlargement and or very low light. If you are a photographer who frequently needs that capability, the decision is FF. But otherwise, pay no attention to those who claim that m43 is not up to the task.

[armand]

I have the Pana 12-35. I think it is the sharpest lens I've ever used. Video from my GH4 is out of this world.

Edmund

If I was more into video it would have been the favorite, plus a Pana camera. I will shoot the occasional video but otherwise I find it too time consuming.
Both are sharp but the Olympus seems to have a better performance, particularly wide open, between 12 to 25 while Pana is superior between 25 to 35.

[armand]

Well, the Pana 35-100 2.8 is on its way. I'll also get the Oly 12-40 2.8 with likely the E-M5 ii with a L-plate with grip.

Now I have to decide on primes. It's easy to lose focus and forget why I'm getting this system, eg for light high quality travel/hiking and not as a full system.

I'll probably get the Oly macro for when I expect lots of opportunities but it's not essential.

I likely want to cover the 85 mm range with a faster prime: Oly 45 1.8, Pana 42.5 1.7?  (42.5 1.2 Nocticron is a little too heavy and pricey)

Normal range low light. I used to be into the 50mm range and still like but after using the 23 1.4 on my Fuji I will have to admit that 35mm is definitely more versatile. The lens in this area has to be fast.
The Panaleica 25 1.4 is the fastest but the Oly 17 1.8 is more versatile. Kind of in between is also the pancake 20 1.7. Any experiences with these?

I gave up for now on the idea of a ultra wide, the only one was the Pana 7-14 4.0 as the Oly is too heavy and there are no light primes shorter than 24mm (equivalent) that I could see. I don't use ultra wide that often too justify another 300g (and 900$ as the sale went away). Maybe the 8mm fisheye from Pana? How does is look after defishing, if it can be done?

[petermfiore]

I likely want to cover the 85 mm range with a faster prime: Oly 45 1.8. The lens in this area has to be fast.
The Panaleica 25 1.4 is the fastest but the Oly 17 1.8 is more versatile. Kind of in between is also the pancake 20 1.7. Any experiences with these?

I have the 45 f/1.8, great lens all around... 17 f/1.7 much faster to focus then the 20 f1.7, but I like the 40 Field of view of the 20mm better for street. With the 20, I zone manual focus, with f/8 for DOF. I use these three lenses all the time. I much prefer primes over zooms.

Peter

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

I have the 45 f/1.8, great lens all around... 17 f/1.7 much faster to focus then the 20 f1.7, but I like the 40 Field of view of the 20mm better for street. With the 20, I zone manual focus, with f/8 for DOF. I use these three lenses all the time. I much prefer primes over zooms.

Peter

I like the 20mm view as well...but I honestly couldn't live with its focus speed.  Maybe for some things its fine, but for even general use, it was noticeably slow on the E-M1 to focus.  Maybe better on Pana bodies...but it was slow.  I stuck to the Oly 17.

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

I gave up for now on the idea of a ultra wide, the only one was the Pana 7-14 4.0 as the Oly is too heavy and there are no light primes shorter than 24mm (equivalent) that I could see. I don't use ultra wide that often too justify another 300g (and 900$ as the sale went away). Maybe the 8mm fisheye from Pana? How does is look after defishing, if it can be done?

Sure it can!  NOt trying to advertise, but don't want to repeat everything either.  I have an entire write up about defishing with this gear.
https://unlockingolympus.com/2016/02/defishing-the-fisheye/

Basically, it works great.  The better the fisheye, the better the defish as well. 

[Telecaster]

Both are sharp but the Olympus seems to have a better performance, particularly wide open, between 12 to 25 while Pana is superior between 25 to 35.

I own both lenses (Oly 12–40 & Pana 12–35mm). I can't tell the difference between my samples.

-Dave-

[armand]

I am familiar with the 40mm view as in a recent trip I only took an X-E1 with the 27mm 2.8 (and shot in b&w simulation also ) but if focus speed is not that fast I would rather choose between the 17 1.8 and 25 1.4.

[armand]

Sure it can!  NOt trying to advertise, but don't want to repeat everything either.  I have an entire write up about defishing with this gear.
https://unlockingolympus.com/2016/02/defishing-the-fisheye/

Basically, it works great.  The better the fisheye, the better the defish as well.

Thanks, I might get it. A little apprehensive as I've never shot with a fisheye before.

[HSakols]

My 17 1.8, 45 1.8 and 75 1.8 are probably sharper than any of my Nikon lenses (24-70 2.8, 70-200 f4 etc.).  The 75mm is exceptional and would cost over $2000 if manufactured for a Nikon full frame.  Narrow depth of field a problem with micro 4/3 - maybe not.