E-M5 iii

[faberryman]

This raises the question though, why not go with a Z7?

Because FF cameras and lenses are larger than m43. Obviously.

[BernardLanguillier]

Because FF cameras and lenses are larger than m43. Obviously.

They are, to some extent.

But I am yet to see a hiker’s backpack that could accommodate a 43 body with transtandard zoom lens and not a Z7 and 24-70mm f4. Probably some ultralight trailrunners would actually fall in the category, but they go for the RX100 or their phone, not an ILC.

The point being whether the limited gains in size have an actual value that compensates what you give up elsewhere.

It did make sense compared to DSLRs, I am less sure it still does relative to FF mirrorless with top quality compact glass.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

Bernard,

    to start with, it is a bit strange to ask why so many people do not instead use a camera that costs well over twice as much, and three of four times as much as current options like the E-M10 Mk III or the E-M5 Mk II, which are probably what you are mostly seeing with Japanese hikers with now. I am also puzzled by your bulk comparison, once it is acknowledged that many hikers likely put low priority on getting "artistically blurry backgrounds" through using large apertures so that small, less bright lenses are often fine. For example, my minimal hiking kit can be E-M5 [425g] with 12-50/3.5-6.3 [211g], and maybe for wildlife also the 40-150/4-5.6 [190g] or for extreme reach, the 70-300/4.8-6.7 [423g]. So starting at 636g for E-M5+12-50, already with more reach that that with about the same reach as the Z7 + 24-70/4 [1175g], and still only 615g with "24-300mm equivalent" FOV range, or 1059g with "24-600" range; the last requiring adding a ??-400mm zoom lens to the Z7 kit, even allowing for cropping to 16 or 20 MP. Others might go for a one-lens kit like E-M5 Mk II with 14-150/4-5.6 at 710g (and $999), or E-M5 Mk II with 12-200/3.5-6.3 at 880g, vs Z7 + 24-70/4 + some telephoto zoom.

And please stop this talk about phones being adequate substitutes for a MILC kit; that falls apart as soon as even modest telephoto reach is desired. The gap in performance and flexibility (focal length choices and maximum usable ISO speed for example) between phones and a fairly basic kit in any MILC system is big, and by any measure bigger than the gap between there and a 35mm format kit.

[Martin Kristiansen]

They are, to some extent.

But I am yet to see a hiker’s backpack that could accommodate a 43 body with transtandard zoom lens and not a Z7 and 24-70mm f4. Probably some ultralight trailrunners would actually fall in the category, but they go for the RX100 or their phone, not an ILC.

The point being whether the limited gains in size have an actual value that compensates what you give up elsewhere.

It did make sense compared to DSLRs, I am less sure it still does relative to FF mirrorless with top quality compact glass.

Cheers,
Bernard

I think the weight saving while not huge is significant Bernard. You have hiked so know that 100g here and a 100g there very quickly adds up to a good or bad day in the mountains. I found when travelling in the Himalayas that having small light kit allowed me an extra lens which was nice. The problem was I ended up with more and more glass that was actually FF and why weight savings started to evaporate.

[BernardLanguillier]

I think the weight saving while not huge is significant Bernard. You have hiked so know that 100g here and a 100g there very quickly adds up to a good or bad day in the mountains. I found when travelling in the Himalayas that having small light kit allowed me an extra lens which was nice. The problem was I ended up with more and more glass that was actually FF and why weight savings started to evaporate.

Hi Martin,

I have saved 1.5kg this year by going from an Osprey pack to a ZPacks one...

The equipment I pack when I walk is split into 2 clear categories:
1. The items that contribute to creating value in terms of deliverable or experience: camera equipment, quality food,...
2. The items that could take something away (safety, ability to execute the plan,...) if not available/not working as expected: packs, tent, pour weather clothes, navigation gear,...

As long as the safety of my group is not significantly put at risk, I go low on weight for items in category 2 and carry as much as I can for category 1 to maximize the value I am attempting to delivery, namely high quality images.

Yes, all that has a cost, but as long as we speak about people with a normal job working in a developed country, most people who can afford a E-M5-III can afford a Z7, the only thing is that they may have to keep their TV or their car one year more. It's all a matter of how important photography is relative to other kinds of spendings.

Cheers,
Bernard

p.s.: when I reach the EBC 10 years ago after having crossed the Chola pass, I was carrying a D3 and a D2x... Well, I was carrying a D3 and the D2x was carried by the sherpas. I did 4,000 feet vertical last month with a GFX100, 23mm f4, 110mm f2.0, 250mm f4.0, a pano head and a RRS tripod. Had I done that with my Osprey I would had had to leave the 250mm f4.0 at home, and it weights pretty much the same as a whole system based on the E-M5 III.

The point being, that not all grams are equal, and there are ways to leverage improvements to open opportunities to carry better camera equipment.

[johnvanatta]

I just checked--
my Z7 + 4 lens kit, ready to go: 3009g
my EM1.2 + 4 lens kit, ready to go: 2196g

800g is definitely noticeable. Plus the m43 kit packs in less volume and has a lower mount weight--very relevant for shoulder mounting the camera. The compact Z zooms are far and away the closest 35mm competition to m43 lenses, but they're still larger and heavier. Telephotos, of course, are even further apart.

Shooting envelopes are roughly comparable between the two kits, but I slightly prefer the m43 focal length coverage.

In nature, I can't resist the dynamic range and resolution of the Z. I don't mind mounting it on a cotton carrier chest harness, since I don't care if I look geared up and slightly ridiculous. Having weight forward helps balance the backpack, too. For travel and street, resolution matters less; and size, weight, and portability matter more. Even just the Z7 + 24-70/4 combo is more than I like to have on a PD shoulder mount clip.

[BJL]

Another thing about weight: often what matters most to me is the weight of the one camera that I have in hand or hanging from my neck. Changing to the E-M5 with 12-50 hanging was a joy when walking with that in hand for hours. Maybe my case is unusual; I prefer to walk with a hand always at least partly supporting the camera though it is always on a (wrist) strap, to avoid it bouncing around as I walk.

[armand]

The Z7 with the 24-70 gives you more reach with significantly better quality than the Oly with the 12-50. The 12-50 is the reason I got started with Fuji instead of Oly. If you use the 12-40 it gets closer but still you have better low light performance for moving subjects with the Z7.

The bigger difference is on the telephoto side or if you add more zooms, the Z 14-30 being the exception. Obviously the m43 is much cheaper also.

[BJL]

The Z7 with the 24-70 gives you more reach with significantly better quality than the Oly with the 12-50.

Not debating the quality but reach is about the same: the ratio of maximum focal lengths is very close to the ratio of pixel pitch (3.3. µm vs 4.35 µm), so cropping to 20MP from the Z7 @ 70mm covers about the same angular FOV as the E-M5 III at 50mm.

I like to measure reach roughly with a "magnification ratio" of (focal length)/(pixel pitch); it is
50mm/3.3µm = 15,151 for the E-M5 @ 50mm
70mm/4.35µm = 16,091 for the Z7 @ 70mm
And by the way, for the more similarly priced Z6, it is
70mm/5.94 = 11,785

But of course if more reach is needed, there are options on both sides:
- the Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6, 12-60/2.8-4 and 14-140/3.5-5.6, and the Olympus 12-100/4, 14-150/4-5.6, 12-200/4-6.3 for MFT, [UPDATED list],
- a 24-105 and 24-200 on the Z mount lens roadmap;
all kinds of size/weight/reach/speed/price trade=offs, so comparing one particular pair of lenses falls far short of telling the whole story.

UPDATE: the above comparison is perhaps unfair because it omits the great array of F-Mount lenses usable by adding the FTZ adaptor, at the cost of US$250 and 135g

[John Camp]

I really don't know about (or much care about) all the technical aspects, but when I'm wandering around town, I like to carry my GX8 with the Lumix G f2.8 12-35 much more than the Z6 with 24-70. The GX8 is much lighter, but the real thing is, it doesn't have a "big camera" look to it. My town is overrun with tourists carrying a variety of cameras and shooting everything in sight, but most of the cameras are smaller, and I fit in better with the GX8. I can sit on a bench in the plaza with my camera on my lap and my hand on the camera, and it disappears. The Z6 is always there, and large. People think photographers are perverts, but tourists aren't. 8-)  Oddly, the Z6 body is almost exactly the same size as my GX8 body, **except** for that big fake pentaprism lump on the top, which makes the Z6 into a big camera -- as does the lens. The lens is *way* larger than the f2.8 M4/3. I have a particular use for the Z6 which I won't get into (and I'll probably get a Z7 and after Bernard's review, I'll be ordering the 24) but for *my kind* street work, I find the m4/3 superior. I also prefer the 4/3 aspect ratio for street and I like other mechanical aspects of the GX8, like the fully flexible screen.

As for size, I have one of those waterproof Eagle Creek packing cubes, about 10x7x3, and I can fit in it a GX8 body, the 12-35 and the 35-100 F2.8 zooms, two extra batteries and a battery charger. The whole thing will slip into my travel backpack along with my MacBook Pro and the other crap I carry with me when I travel. No way I could do that with the Z6.

[lightskyland]

M43 and APS-C systems are perfect for hikers.

I have a complete FF Sony system but for hiking I usually just take my 6400 or 6500 + 18-135. And a Voigtlander 10mm when I want ultrawide.

Nothing FF can touch it for being lightweight and compact and having a tremendous focal length range and delivering really nice images. My A7R3 + 24-105 and many assorted primes are relegated to use from the car for the most part.

[lightskyland]

Another thing about weight: often what matters most to me is the weight of the one camera that I have in hand or hanging from my neck. Changing to the E-M5 with 12-50 hanging was a joy when walking with that in hand for hours. Maybe my case is unusual; I prefer to walk with a hand always at least partly supporting the camera though it is always on a strap, to avoid it bouncing around as I walk.

This is so true.

I absolutely love hiking with my 6500 + 18-135 (way less than 2 pounds) and loathe the same hike with my A7R3 + 24-105 (almost 4 pounds). And of course the 6500 kit goes to 200mm equiv instead of 135mm. It's a bit less wide, but 24mm isn't wide enough for my tastes anyway so when I need ultrawide I just bring along my Voigtlander 10mm in the pocket (where it isn't dragging on my neck).

It's neck weight that makes a camera either invisible or annoying when I am hiking.

[SrMi]

Though the sensor in the OM-D E-M5 Mk III is clearly not radically new (no dual pixel AF or BSI) it seems to be at least slightly different from the one in the E-M1 II; maybe it is the same variant as in the E-M1X.

I conclude this because the current Sony sensor product list https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/camera/product.html has two 20MP 4/3" sensors and neither fits the E-M1 Mk II.
- The IMX272 seems to be from 2018: it is marked as new on this 2018 page, and its product information sheet is version 1.0 and copyright 2018, too late for the E-M1 Mk II which is from 2016.
- The IMX269 does not fit either as it does not support the 60FPS mode that the E-M1 Mk II has.

Or it could just be that the IMX272 was only put in the product catalog in 2018, after a period of Olympus exclusivity. (Note that Sony had an investment in Olympus at that time, though it has sold it since for a nice profit.)

The new m5 body has cross-type OSPDAF, same as m1.  Sony sensors have only vertical line OSPDAF, AFAIK.

[armand]

Not debating the quality but reach is about the same: the ratio of maximum focal lengths is very close to the ratio of pixel pitch (3.3. µm vs 4.35 µm), so cropping to 20MP from the Z7 @ 70mm covers about the same angular FOV as the E-M5 III at 50mm.

I like to measure reach roughly with a "magnification ratio" of (focal length)/(pixel pitch); it is
50mm/3.3µm = 15,151 for the E-M5 @ 50mm
70mm/4.35µm = 16,091 for the Z7 @ 70mm
And by the way, for the more similarly priced Z6, it is
70mm/5.94 = 11,785

But of course if more reach is needed, there are options on both sides:
- the Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6, 12-60/2.8-4 and 14-140/3.5-5.6, and the Olympus 12-100/4, 14-150/4-5.6, 12-200/4-6.3 for MFT, [UPDATED list],
- a 24-105 and 24-200 on the Z mount lens roadmap;
all kinds of size/weight/reach/speed/price trade=offs, so comparing one particular pair of lenses falls far short of telling the whole story.

UPDATE: the above comparison is perhaps unfair because it omits the great array of F-Mount lenses usable by adding the FTZ adaptor, at the cost of US$250 and 135g

I agree that the Z7 doesn’t have much more reach but I was replying to this:

So starting at 636g for E-M5+12-50, already with more reach that that Z7 + 24-70/4 [1175g]

And while the reach is similar the quality is something else, there is no comparison between the sensors. For many conditions it doesn’t matter, for landscape at wider focal ranges it gives you more options.

So far, for hiking and travel, I used 1” (RX100 i and RX10 iv), m43 (E-M5ii with 12-40 F2.8 or 12-100 F4), APS-C (Fuji X-T1/2 with 10-24 F4, 18-55 F2.8-4, 55-200 and various primes) and full frame (Z7 with 24-70 F4, occasionally D750 with 24-120 F4 and other lenses). There is no clear choice between them, it depends on how far you have to go with them, space available, what kind of shooting you expect, and most importantly what compromises you are willing to make.

[Alan Klein]

I agree that the Z7 doesn’t have much more reach but I was replying to this:
And while the reach is similar the quality is something else, there is no comparison between the sensors. For many conditions it doesn’t matter, for landscape at wider focal ranges it gives you more options.

So far, for hiking and travel, I used 1” (RX100 i and RX10 iv), m43 (E-M5ii with 12-40 F2.8 or 12-100 F4), APS-C (Fuji X-T1/2 with 10-24 F4, 18-55 F2.8-4, 55-200 and various primes) and full frame (Z7 with 24-70 F4, occasionally D750 with 24-120 F4 and other lenses). There is no clear choice between them, it depends on how far you have to go with them, space available, what kind of shooting you expect, and most importantly what compromises you are willing to make.

So Armand, I have a question.  First, I own a Sony RX100iv which I use on vacation and "here and there".  I've been thinking of getting an m43.  Since you use both, when do you use one over the other?  What advantage to me would the m43 be?  What disadvantages?

[BJL]

I agree that the Z7 doesn’t have much more reach but I was replying to this:

So starting at 636g for E-M5+12-50, already with more reach than that Z7 + 24-70/4 [1175g]

And while the reach is similar the quality is something else, there is no comparison between the sensors. For many conditions it doesn’t matter, for landscape at wider focal ranges it gives you more options.

Ah yes, my mistake (I calculated for the Z6); I have noted the correction above.

And of course the larger, more expensive sensor and lenses have advantages to balance against the other advantage of the smaller system; this sub-thread started by answering Bernard's specific (perhaps rhetorical) question as to why some Japanese hikers would prefer an E-M5 kit over a Z7 kit.

[BJL]

... I have a question.  First, I own a Sony RX100iv which I use on vacation and "here and there".  I've been thinking of getting an m43. ... What advantage to me would the m43 be?  What disadvantages?

I think this sort of question deserves a thread of its own. Even as an enthusiastic MFT user, I see some "traveling light" use cases where one of the good 1" or 4/3" fixed-lens cameras would be better choice than any "ILC body plus one lens" option, and I would love feed-back from those who have actually tried both.

[Alan Klein]

I think this sort of question deserves a thread of its own. Even as an enthusiastic MFT user, I see some "traveling light" use cases where one of the good 1" or 4/3" fixed-lens cameras would be better choice than any "ILC body plus one lens" option, and I would love feed-back from those who have actually tried both.

Done.  New thread here.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132572.0

[jeremyrh]

Hi Martin,

I have saved 1.5kg this year by going from an Osprey pack to a ZPacks one...

Ohh, awesome - Dyneema Composite? Which pack?

The point being, that not all grams are equal, and there are ways to leverage improvements to open opportunities to carry better camera equipment.

Carry less water is one obvious place to save weight, as long as you don't compromise safety, obvs.  A filter can come in handy :-)

[BernardLanguillier]

Ohh, awesome - Dyneema Composite? Which pack?

Yes! Zpacks!

Cheers,
Bernard