Fall

[armand]

Fall - progression
- a mix of Olympus E-M1iii with 12-100 F4 and Nikon Z7 with 14-24 F2.8S

[John R]

Lovely images Armand. Every time I see one of your images using the Olympus camera, I have thought of giving up everything so I can try one of these small form cameras. Would suit my style as I would much rather walk around with a small 24-100 lens!

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Yes, a lovely set.

I find at my age (82) I tend most often to carry my little Canon G5X with its 24-100 (FF equiv) lens.

[francois]

Refreshing photos… it's a very nice set, bravo!

[armand]

Thank you John, Eric and Francois!

Lovely images Armand. Every time I see one of your images using the Olympus camera, I have thought of giving up everything so I can try one of these small form cameras. Would suit my style as I would much rather walk around with a small 24-100 lens!

JR

John, I might start a post specific to the use of this camera if I get the time.
What do you use now? Do you shoot in lower light conditions?
I seem to have more difficulties than others holding a camera steady so with my Z7 I can have difficulties getting even just 2 stops stabilization. With the E-M1iii and 12-100 I get definitely better results. I practically use the camera only at base iso unless I need higher shutter speed. I can get sharp shots in the 1-2 sec range at 200mm equiv if I'm not overcaffeinated or tired.

It's not that light as it seems though and I'm still not entirely happy with the colors, I think it's mostly a WB issue. I ordered the Nikon 24-200 4-6.3 for the Z7 so I'll compare the combo at some point, I think they are similar size/weight. I expect better colors and dynamic range from the Nikon, but better stabilization from Oly particularly if I require more DOF. The handheld high resolution on the Oly sounds better on paper then in practice, it mostly gives you less noise.

[armand]

Just checked, a Nikon Z6ii with 24-200 F4-6.3 is practically the same price and weight as the Olympus E-M1iii with 12-100 F4.

[John R]

Thank you John, Eric and Francois!

John, I might start a post specific to the use of this camera if I get the time.
What do you use now? Do you shoot in lower light conditions?
I seem to have more difficulties than others holding a camera steady so with my Z7 I can have difficulties getting even just 2 stops stabilization. With the E-M1iii and 12-100 I get definitely better results. I practically use the camera only at base iso unless I need higher shutter speed. I can get sharp shots in the 1-2 sec range at 200mm equiv if I'm not overcaffeinated or tired.

It's not that light as it seems though and I'm still not entirely happy with the colors, I think it's mostly a WB issue. I ordered the Nikon 24-200 4-6.3 for the Z7 so I'll compare the combo at some point, I think they are similar size/weight. I expect better colors and dynamic range from the Nikon, but better stabilization from Oly particularly if I require more DOF. The handheld high resolution on the Oly sounds better on paper then in practice, it mostly gives you less noise.

Thank you for all that information, Armand. Very helpful. I use 50-300 mm Pentax. Really poor quality on the long end. It's just sooner or later I won't be able to carry heavy equipment and do relish the idea of a good all in one lens, like the Z 24-200 you just mentioned. Like you, I need IS, even for 1/30.

JR

[degrub]

m4/3:
FOV is 1/2 that of FF. Thus the m4/3 200 mm is "equivalent to FF 400mm" marketing nonsense.
Diffraction starts to kick in by f5.6

Easy to adapt most manual aperture / focus FF lenses to m4/3. Most of my lenses are older Oly four thirds spec or manual focus FF. Leica R and M lenses are nice.
IBIS is good for manual focus lenses up to about 200-250mm in my experience. 300mm and up, you have to turn off and use a mono or tripod, at least for me.  Olympus has been integrating lens IS with body IS for longer lenses.

i agree, that Nikon setup looks really nice. Wish it was a constant f/4 or faster though for the same weight.

i would bet you could rent both setups from Lensrental.com for a week to try them out.

[armand]

For a quick FOV/DOF equivalence here.

Olympus E-M1iii with 12-100 F4: 24-200 mm equiv FOV. Slightly trickier for DOF equivalence, if you want a 4/3 format is a little less than 2 stops difference, if you want 3/2 format is about 2 stops. So worst case scenario is F8 equiv.
Now, because of better stabilization (the 12-100 IS works with the OIS for up to 7.5 stops), if you need more DOF in a light that requires above base ISO, the Olympus can come ahead if you don't have a tripod. In practice is not as easy because there are different generation of sensors.

If you need shallower DOF or higher shutter speed, the 24-200Z is brighter when taking into account the full frame sensor.


I do have to actually test them more though, because I did shoot a little side by side the Z7 with the 24-70 F4 and the Oly combo. I could get much lower shutter speeds with the Oly, but the much higher ISO on the Z7 was looking as good or better than the base Oly ISO, at least without being very thorough.


I've seen a test where the Z7ii OIS was as good as the E-M1iii. I have doubts. I actually did get 5-8 stops on the Oly, while more than 2 stops on the Z7 is challenging. Maybe in a mix with the IS of 24-200 will be better.

[armand]

A very quick indoor test, at 200 mm equiv I could get away with iso 1600 and 1/5 on the Nikon, and iso 400 and 1sec on the Olympus.
The shocking difference was focus acquisition though, Olympus had no issues while the Z7 struggled big time.

[John R]

A very quick indoor test, at 200 mm equiv I could get away with iso 1600 and 1/5 on the Nikon, and iso 400 and 1sec on the Olympus.
The shocking difference was focus acquisition though, Olympus had no issues while the Z7 struggled big time.

I tried the Nikon V1 which I bought for my brother. The focus ability was incredible. It is my understanding this has to do with the size of the sensors. The bigger the sensors the more difficult to process the info and lock on a subject. The new Nikon 2's adopted two processors and are now much better. So the internet says. I may even get both the Z6-2, and an Olympus for a walk around camera before they all disappear. My eyes are getting poorer so I welcome a feature that I can focus via a touch screen or touch pad right where I want it. The Oly IS is legendary and I often wonder if the other companies have to pay OLY or have their own designs. My Pentax has always had In-body IS, but I fear they are being pushed out of the market.

From your descriptions of poor quality in low light from the smaller sensors, it seems to me the ideal compromise would actually be an APSC size and not 4/3 or full frame. Once again thanks for that very helpful information and testing, Armand!

[armand]

Thank you John. Yes, APS-C would be nice and my Fuji stuff has more beautiful colors with little postprocessing than the others. With the IBIS on the newest generation they would be great. I still find my X-T2 easier to use for what I need than both the Nikon and Olympus gear that I have. What's missing and why I started to pull towards lower (Olympus E-M1iii) and upper (Nikon Z7), is a quality travel/hiking zoom. I think their 16-80 F4 missed the boat here, too much compromise in the corners and sketchy sample variation; I would have easily paid 50% more for somehow better corners.


I'm out shooting with the Z7 and the 24-200 for a couple of weeks now. I'll reserve further judgement until I get home and work through the photos but the initial impression is not that positive. Stabilization still sucks compared to the E-M1iii with 12-100F4 and the samples are often lacking some sharpness when reviewing on the screen. The saving grace might be the sensor, and when downsized to the E-M1iii size they might actually be similarly sharp. I wonder if it's a focus issue at times, difficult to say yet.
The stabilization is challenging though, as I'm taking the shots while quite out of breath and not that steady, the high altitude is killing me. But I started to go to just one stop often, and no more then 2 stops in order to have most shots sharpish. My style involves moving a lot and taking most shots without a tripod, I cover much more ground this way.

[Chris Kern]

Thank you John. Yes, APS-C would be nice and my Fuji stuff has more beautiful colors with little postprocessing than the others. With the IBIS on the newest generation they would be great. . . .  What's missing and why I started to pull towards lower (Olympus E-M1iii) and upper (Nikon Z7), is a quality travel/hiking zoom. I think their 16-80 F4 missed the boat here, too much compromise in the corners and sketchy sample variation; I would have easily paid 50% more for somehow better corners.

Sadly, yes: the optical characteristics of the Fuji 16-80mm f/4.0 are unimpressive.  The colors and contrast are fine, and the image stabilization works well on its own and is even better on one of the Fuji sensor-stabilized bodies.  However, the center sharpness varies between good and acceptable, at best, depending on the focal length and perhaps sample variation, and the edges are always soft; stopping down only slightly helps.  I expected a lens that would be a good counterpart to Fuji's excellent 10-24mm f/4.0, and was disappointed.

That was my reaction to the first sample I owned, which I gave to a granddaughter who was attending a college photography course that required shooting between medium-wide and medium-telephoto. But the 24-120mm full-frame equivalent range makes for a perfect walk-around lens if you're not shooting landscapes—that's the one lens I never forgot to carry when I was traveling on vacation with my Nikon D800E, pre-pandemic—so I finally gave in and replaced the 16-80mm I had given away.

The second sample has the same technical deficiencies as the first, but I'm more tolerant of them now because this lens is compact and relatively light, and fills a niche that doesn't have an equivalent in the X-mount universe.