E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
Alex Notpro
Contributing MemberPosts: 709Gear list
Like?
E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
7 months ago

Looking for any A7 owners who are also current/former EM1 owners...

What capabilities or features do you miss the most (if any) in moving from the EM1 to the A7?

Anything from minor annoyances to major omissions by Sony?

PLEASE don't try to compare Full Frame versus Micro Four Thirds, that is not the point of this thread.

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc... the kind of subtle differences you won't find by reading the spec sheets.

Thanks in advance for sharing.

 Alex Notpro's gear list:Alex Notpro's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Leica Nocticron 42.5mm Apple iPhone 5s +14 more
Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
KwhyChang
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,157Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

Alex Notpro wrote:

Looking for any A7 owners who are also current/former EM1 owners...

What capabilities or features do you miss the most (if any) in moving from the EM1 to the A7?

Anything from minor annoyances to major omissions by Sony?

PLEASE don't try to compare Full Frame versus Micro Four Thirds, that is not the point of this thread.

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc... the kind of subtle differences you won't find by reading the spec sheets.

Thanks in advance for sharing.

I have E-M1 and A7. What I miss most is the way you review images. With the E-M1 you can use the dial to zoom in and out to examine detail. With the A7, you press mag once, then you are almost fully magnified and then have to push the zoom out button ten times or less to look at what you want.

Other than that, I miss time with the E-M1. The A7 is more fun to use and the results are more enjoyable to look at.

-- hide signature --

Dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Hass
Regular MemberPosts: 392Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

I don't own either, but as a MFT user with IBIS (GX7) and a current SLT owner (bought my son one for learning ILC) i would bet the farm they are missing IBIS. Some E mount lenses have OIS, but not all do and using adapters omits this.

I look at it like this. When do you see the most difference in FF vs smaller sensors? When the ISO gets high. They all look good at ISO 200. And, when does ISO get high? when you are in too low of light to get the SS you need. Problem is, if you use FF without IS, in the times when you need IS most (during slower SS, like in low light), the extra ISO you HAVE to use to keep your SS high negates the advantage of larger sensors.

Not many people shoot sports in the dark, so keeping SS at 1/1000 isn't this issue. Keeping it high enough to freeze hand shake or slow subject movements is, and IBIS helps heaps with this. Most of my shooting is done at 1/50 - 1/100 in lower light and i never get camera shake blur. If i hadn't IBIS for my most used non stabilized lenses, my ISO would be a stop or two higher.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cosmonaut
Senior MemberPosts: 1,914Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

I had the E-M1 and I don't miss anything. It had poor high ISO performance, shutter shock, poor focus peaking and even low ISO images looked pixelated. It locked up with me several times and it had to many buttons and dials. i much prefer the simpler a7R even if the AF is a little slower I get more crisp images and really nice image quality.

-- hide signature --

www.gregmccary.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Godfrey
Forum ProPosts: 27,524
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

I have both cameras.

The E-M1 is very sweet: fast, responsive, superb control ergonomics, incredible customizability. Excellent lenses. Up to ISO 6400, it and the A7 files are of equal quality. And the range of mFT lenses available is terrific, and even better with the addition of the FourThirds lenses. I use the E-M1 entirely with mFT and FT lenses and get fantastic results from it. The E-M1 kit ends up being significantly smaller due to the smaller format's influence on lens size.

The A7/A7r bodies are a bit clunky with somewhat haphazard control ergonomics, menus that are a mess, and very few dedicated lenses as yet. I bought it to use with manual focus SLR lenses (Leica R and Nikon F). It has an excellent sensor, the larger format lets my lenses show their full designed for nature, and it has just enough configurability to be able to be customized and work the way I want.

What do I miss from the E-M1 when I'm using the A7? The E-M1's responsiveness, quiet, smooth shutter, the image stabilization when I'm using longer lenses, and overall superb feel and ergonomics.

What do I miss from the A7 when I'm using the E-M1? My Leica R lenses.

I like both cameras very much, and I could live with only either one of them very easily. I'd probably keep the A7 if I had to sell one kit because the Leica R lenses are that good, but not if I needed more reach (telephotos) and autofocus.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EarthQuake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,268
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Jack Hass, 7 months ago

Jack Hass wrote:

I don't own either, but as a MFT user with IBIS (GX7) and a current SLT owner (bought my son one for learning ILC) i would bet the farm they are missing IBIS. Some E mount lenses have OIS, but not all do and using adapters omits this.

I look at it like this. When do you see the most difference in FF vs smaller sensors? When the ISO gets high. They all look good at ISO 200. And, when does ISO get high? when you are in too low of light to get the SS you need. Problem is, if you use FF without IS, in the times when you need IS most (during slower SS, like in low light), the extra ISO you HAVE to use to keep your SS high negates the advantage of larger sensors.

Not many people shoot sports in the dark, so keeping SS at 1/1000 isn't this issue. Keeping it high enough to freeze hand shake or slow subject movements is, and IBIS helps heaps with this. Most of my shooting is done at 1/50 - 1/100 in lower light and i never get camera shake blur. If i hadn't IBIS for my most used non stabilized lenses, my ISO would be a stop or two higher.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Yeah, I feel like this is rarely brought up but it is soooo important. I don't have an A7 but I do have the EM5, EM1, and A900. If I have to bump ISO even a stop or two the better sensor in the A7 would be moot.

Also, in low light, if I need more DOF, eg, more in focus, I have to stop down and raise ISO on a FF camera, further negating any sensor/noise advantage. In practical use a fast prime on my EM1 gives me better ISO performance than the A900 (which is of course quite an old sensor at this point so its not saying a lot), simply because F1.4 of FF is often too thin to be usable, so I have to stop down to F2 or F2.8.

In good light the larger format wins, as you simply have more flexibility for DOF control, DR, etc, but in lower light lacking IBIS with primes, the small sensor punches well above its weight.

Also for totally static shots I can get down to 0.5 seconds with a 50mm-equiv lens (P25/1.4) on my EM1, which is about a 5 stop improvement over the normal 1/FL rule for hand holding. This is noticeably better than the IBIS on the A900.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Nicotra
Regular MemberPosts: 215
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

The Voigtlander lenses. Really enjoyed the 25mm. Would love to find something similar for my A7r.

/Chris

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Hass
Regular MemberPosts: 392Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to EarthQuake, 7 months ago

EarthQuake wrote:

Also for totally static shots I can get down to 0.5 seconds with a 50mm-equiv lens (P25/1.4) on my EM1, which is about a 5 stop improvement over the normal 1/FL rule for hand holding. This is noticeably better than the IBIS on the A900.

Agreed. Im not saying a larger sensor with better high ISO is never better, but it is the minority. There are three basic shooting scenarios. Low light, where motion is fairly slow or stationary, moderate light (such as gyms and very overcast days) where action is taking place, and bright sunny days or bright lights where action is taking place.

  • Low light: nobody is really going to try to shoot action here, so SS are going to be as low as possible to keep ISO down. In this scenario, IBIS can make up for better ISO figures. One with IBIS/OIS can shoot slower SS and lower ISO and get away with it.
  • Moderate light, action: This is where better ISO performance will shine, but it's only 1/3 of the deal. In this light, SS need to be higher, and it will be high enough to negate camera shake, but since light is in demand ISO will need to be high. In this scenario, better ISO performance is preferred. Indoor sports for example is an example where larger sensor/larger lenses are a benefit. This is why, IMO, Canon haven't bothered to add IBIS. They are much more sports oriented with cameras like the 7D, and sports shooters will have SS high enough to negate camera shake anyway. Plus there are also OIS lenses for when that is a must.
  • Bright light, action: This is a situation where light is so abundant that action is possible without ISO getting too high. Most action shots can be made without going over ISO 800, as long as the lens is fairly fast. In this case, better ISO performance is much less an issue as everything looks fairly good since ISO is low. Once again, IBIS/OIS is not needed since SS is fast enough to freeze normal camera shake.

This is of course a generalization, but it's accurate. Any other situation, like portraits in good light, isn't worth comparing since ISO is low, SS is less of an issue, or one can use flash, ect. The above 3 distinctions pretty much cover what is necessary, and non stabilized high ISO monsters only benefit in 1 out of 3. Don't get me wrong, something that is FF AND stabilized is best overall, but this comparison is based on the A7 vs something like an EM1 that has IBIS. The real world difference comes out surprisingly small.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kiichiro
Regular MemberPosts: 473Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago
Alex Notpro wrote:

Looking for any A7 owners who are also current/former EM1 owners...

What capabilities or features do you miss the most (if any) in moving from the EM1 to the A7?

Anything from minor annoyances to major omissions by Sony?

PLEASE don't try to compare Full Frame versus Micro Four Thirds, that is not the point of this thread.

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc... the kind of subtle differences you won't find by reading the spec sheets.

Thanks in advance for sharing.

I had an OMD and miss the 5 axis and super fast AF.  I am going to buy an a6000 to take care of the fast AF while at the same time it can use my FE lenses so I don't need to buy into another system.

I am sure in a couple of years Sony will have a nice IBIS too.

 Kiichiro's gear list:Kiichiro's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX20 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,184Gear list
Like?
Re: I have no idea ...
In reply to Jack Hass, 7 months ago

Jack Hass wrote:

EarthQuake wrote:

Also for totally static shots I can get down to 0.5 seconds with a 50mm-equiv lens (P25/1.4) on my EM1, which is about a 5 stop improvement over the normal 1/FL rule for hand holding. This is noticeably better than the IBIS on the A900.

Agreed. Im not saying a larger sensor with better high ISO is never better, but it is the minority. There are three basic shooting scenarios. Low light, where motion is fairly slow or stationary, moderate light (such as gyms and very overcast days) where action is taking place, and bright sunny days or bright lights where action is taking place.

  • Low light: nobody is really going to try to shoot action here, so SS are going to be as low as possible to keep ISO down. In this scenario, IBIS can make up for better ISO figures. One with IBIS/OIS can shoot slower SS and lower ISO and get away with it.
  • Moderate light, action: This is where better ISO performance will shine, but it's only 1/3 of the deal. In this light, SS need to be higher, and it will be high enough to negate camera shake, but since light is in demand ISO will need to be high. In this scenario, better ISO performance is preferred. Indoor sports for example is an example where larger sensor/larger lenses are a benefit. This is why, IMO, Canon haven't bothered to add IBIS. They are much more sports oriented with cameras like the 7D, and sports shooters will have SS high enough to negate camera shake anyway. Plus there are also OIS lenses for when that is a must.
  • Bright light, action: This is a situation where light is so abundant that action is possible without ISO getting too high. Most action shots can be made without going over ISO 800, as long as the lens is fairly fast. In this case, better ISO performance is much less an issue as everything looks fairly good since ISO is low. Once again, IBIS/OIS is not needed since SS is fast enough to freeze normal camera shake.

This is of course a generalization, but it's accurate. Any other situation, like portraits in good light, isn't worth comparing since ISO is low, SS is less of an issue, or one can use flash, ect. The above 3 distinctions pretty much cover what is necessary, and non stabilized high ISO monsters only benefit in 1 out of 3. Don't get me wrong, something that is FF AND stabilized is best overall, but this comparison is based on the A7 vs something like an EM1 that has IBIS. The real world difference comes out surprisingly small.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about - FF is one benefit out of three? FF has many benefits, many more than the three topics you list here...

Whether or not you freeze SS, you can view all formats as being able to shoot equivalent, as the right exposure relationship between SS, f-stop and ISO levels roughly equates to similar levels of DOF and noise at equivalent settings (if possible).

FF just gives you a broader range than a smaller sensor does (you can open wider). Both formats let you stop down to similar result levels.

If you throw around IBIS, you have to identify what types of shooting this is about. OSS for FF is available (e.g. if you want to do video). But, general numbers are that IBIS give you three stops of compensation over non-IBIS, whereas FF gives you two stops over m43. In other words, a m43 IBIS versus a non-OSS FF comparison is only about a one stop advantage. I probably would prefer the FF, because SS longer than around 1/80th give blurry people subjects, and if I can shoot at 1/20th or so, I don't need IBIS, since the scene allows me to use a bean-bag, tripod, or otherwise.

I remember reading that m43 users often talk about lack of shallow DOF. Sure, there are techniques, but it pales in comparison to FF flexibility. But then AF is fast(er). A bit, the A7 is no slough.

Also, as I am shooting FF more nowadays, I begin to appreciate the FF benefits more and more, each time that I use it. And yes, I do have to remind myself sometimes to STOP DOWN - as for some cases I do want a large DOF and high sharpness result. My little trick? I use iAuto then - works like a charm.

And the extra resolution? Much more useful than with the Nex-7. With the Nex-7 I did not want to raise ISO and then crop afterwards, With the A7, sure!

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pew pew
Contributing MemberPosts: 626Gear list
Like?
Re: I have no idea ...
In reply to blue_skies, 7 months ago

jack hass just talks nonsense 24/7

 pew pew's gear list:pew pew's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-3N Canon EOS 100D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,247
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

Alex Notpro wrote:

Looking for any A7 owners who are also current/former EM1 owners...

What capabilities or features do you miss the most (if any) in moving from the EM1 to the A7?

Anything from minor annoyances to major omissions by Sony?

PLEASE don't try to compare Full Frame versus Micro Four Thirds, that is not the point of this thread.

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc... the kind of subtle differences you won't find by reading the spec sheets.

Thanks in advance for sharing.

Not E-M1 and A7 but GX7 and A7.

The things I like about m4/3....small and good lenses, stabilized body, good bang for buck and size IQ. Some of the other things I like are GX7 specific so wont go there.

I shoot a lot of action in low light so the A7 is to me, the far better camera.....much better with manual focus lenses (and I use many lenses on both), the A7 EVF is reason enough for me to be the difference. a7 focus peaking is far better than the GX7 (does the E-M1 have peaking?).

I guess, I would say the top end m4/3 cameras are the better cameras (maybe I should say the more refined camera...A7 is like a rawboned kid you just know is going to be good at some sport).... in some ways but the A7 gives better results in some ways.

Other than macro and longer telephoto stuff, I would take the A7 most of the time over m4/3.....love both though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Hass
Regular MemberPosts: 392Gear list
Like?
Re: I have no idea ...
In reply to blue_skies, 7 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

Agreed. Im not saying a larger sensor with better high ISO is never better, but it is the minority. There are three basic shooting scenarios. Low light, where motion is fairly slow or stationary, moderate light (such as gyms and very overcast days) where action is taking place, and bright sunny days or bright lights where action is taking place.

  • Low light: nobody is really going to try to shoot action here, so SS are going to be as low as possible to keep ISO down. In this scenario, IBIS can make up for better ISO figures. One with IBIS/OIS can shoot slower SS and lower ISO and get away with it.
  • Moderate light, action: This is where better ISO performance will shine, but it's only 1/3 of the deal. In this light, SS need to be higher, and it will be high enough to negate camera shake, but since light is in demand ISO will need to be high. In this scenario, better ISO performance is preferred. Indoor sports for example is an example where larger sensor/larger lenses are a benefit. This is why, IMO, Canon haven't bothered to add IBIS. They are much more sports oriented with cameras like the 7D, and sports shooters will have SS high enough to negate camera shake anyway. Plus there are also OIS lenses for when that is a must.
  • Bright light, action: This is a situation where light is so abundant that action is possible without ISO getting too high. Most action shots can be made without going over ISO 800, as long as the lens is fairly fast. In this case, better ISO performance is much less an issue as everything looks fairly good since ISO is low. Once again, IBIS/OIS is not needed since SS is fast enough to freeze normal camera shake.

This is of course a generalization, but it's accurate. Any other situation, like portraits in good light, isn't worth comparing since ISO is low, SS is less of an issue, or one can use flash, ect. The above 3 distinctions pretty much cover what is necessary, and non stabilized high ISO monsters only benefit in 1 out of 3. Don't get me wrong, something that is FF AND stabilized is best overall, but this comparison is based on the A7 vs something like an EM1 that has IBIS. The real world difference comes out surprisingly small.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about - FF is one benefit out of three? FF has many benefits, many more than the three topics you list here...

Note i said it was a generalization, and no, FF has no innate benefits. It does a few things slightly better, and a few slightly worse, than sensors of other sizes. Stabilization is something i would say offers benefits.

Whether or not you freeze SS, you can view all formats as being able to shoot equivalent, as the right exposure relationship between SS, f-stop and ISO levels roughly equates to similar levels of DOF and noise at equivalent settings (if possible).

That's the point, with IBIS, it's not always going to be equivelant. IBIS allows you to shoot at lower ISO for slow moving subjects with EVERY lens. In this case, SS, f-stop and ISO levels are not even.

FF just gives you a broader range than a smaller sensor does (you can open wider). Both formats let you stop down to similar result levels.

Totally depends on your purpose. Like i said, some benefits, some things are worse. Take for example the peak of lens resolution. If i need to stop down to my lens's sharpest aperture, is FF going to be at the same F stop as MFT? No, MFT lenses tend to hit their peak at around F2-F4. FF tend to hit theirs between F4 and F8. This is one advantage of smaller format lenses, they have less falloff at the fast end.

If you throw around IBIS, you have to identify what types of shooting this is about. OSS for FF is available (e.g. if you want to do video). But, general numbers are that IBIS give you three stops of compensation over non-IBIS, whereas FF gives you two stops over m43. In other words, a m43 IBIS versus a non-OSS FF comparison is only about a one stop advantage. I probably would prefer the FF, because SS longer than around 1/80th give blurry people subjects,

That's why i classified my last post into three types. Two were action, one was static. I was explaining when IBIS would be more useful than a larger sensor without IS, which is more often than many think.

and if I can shoot at 1/20th or so, I don't need IBIS, since the scene allows me to use a bean-bag, tripod, or otherwise.

You seem to be downplaying the importance of IS, but there is a reason every system either has IBIS or OIS lenses.

I remember reading that m43 users often talk about lack of shallow DOF. Sure, there are techniques, but it pales in comparison to FF flexibility. But then AF is fast(er). A bit, the A7 is no slough.

Actually more often i wish i had more DOF, so i can get both eyes in focus even when my subject is not squared to the lens. All i have to do to get more separation is change the ratio of my and the background's subject distance.

Also, as I am shooting FF more nowadays, I begin to appreciate the FF benefits more and more, each time that I use it. And yes, I do have to remind myself sometimes to STOP DOWN - as for some cases I do want a large DOF and high sharpness result. My little trick? I use iAuto then - works like a charm.

.....

And the extra resolution? Much more useful than with the Nex-7. With the Nex-7 I did not want to raise ISO and then crop afterwards, With the A7, sure!

And the 7 had no IBIS either.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,811Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

Alex Notpro wrote:

moving from the EM1 to the A7?

not moving - just using both

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,811Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

Alex Notpro wrote:

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc...

A7 battery life is miserable vs E-M1

I miss fully articulated LCD of my pre E-M1 GH3 camera (both in A7 and in E-M1)

I find a dedicated exposure comp in A7 dial totally useless

more effort to make zebra in A7 show raw clipping vs real time blinkies in E-M1

m43 CDAF (any latest Olympus of Panasonic camera) runs circles around A7 w/ PDAF on sensor

stupid situation with flashes shoe mounts in Sony system

face detection implementation is worse in A7 vs both GH3 and E-M1

A7 has only 2 custom sets vs for example 4 in E-M1 (and in E-M1 I can reassign all useless modes on mode dial)

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,811Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to Alex Notpro, 7 months ago

Alex Notpro wrote:

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc..

EyeFi cards work better in A7 than in E-M1 (albeit the raw files are bigger)

I am not using peaking - but from my quick glance in both A7 has a better one

EFCS is sorely missed in m43 (no plz do not suggest electronic rolling shutter as Panasonics have instead)

you can get wireless radio (not optical and not Aokatec-like) TTL transmitter/receivers for Sony

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nostatic
Regular MemberPosts: 185
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to exdeejjjaaaa, 7 months ago

IBIS is nice. OSS on the FE 24-70 isn't bad, and tonight I shot handheld video in low light with both the A7r and RX1r - came out great. There are a couple of lenses I miss from u4/3 (the 75/1.8 is spectacular). But beyond that - nothing. I still have a GH3 that I primarily use for video. Had EM5, tried an EM1 and didn't really like it - same with GX7. Did like the GM1 but have ended up going all-in after trying the A7(r).

To my eye the files between A7(r) and u4/3 are pretty different - especially wrt dynamic range. You can push the snot out of the A7(r) raw files in post. Anything from u4/3, less so. Also, i can get a usable image at iso 12800. From the Oly/Panny, 6400 was pushing it.

It really depends on how/what you shoot. No single best solution...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,811Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to nostatic, 7 months ago

nostatic wrote:

To my eye the files between A7(r) and u4/3 are pretty different - especially wrt dynamic range.

DR, S/N, mp, DOF = those are not the type of usability that OP was asking about IMHO...

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,184Gear list
Like?
Re: I have no idea ...
In reply to Jack Hass, 7 months ago

Jack Hass wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

Agreed. Im not saying a larger sensor with better high ISO is never better, but it is the minority. There are three basic shooting scenarios. Low light, where motion is fairly slow or stationary, moderate light (such as gyms and very overcast days) where action is taking place, and bright sunny days or bright lights where action is taking place.

  • Low light: nobody is really going to try to shoot action here, so SS are going to be as low as possible to keep ISO down. In this scenario, IBIS can make up for better ISO figures. One with IBIS/OIS can shoot slower SS and lower ISO and get away with it.
  • Moderate light, action: This is where better ISO performance will shine, but it's only 1/3 of the deal. In this light, SS need to be higher, and it will be high enough to negate camera shake, but since light is in demand ISO will need to be high. In this scenario, better ISO performance is preferred. Indoor sports for example is an example where larger sensor/larger lenses are a benefit. This is why, IMO, Canon haven't bothered to add IBIS. They are much more sports oriented with cameras like the 7D, and sports shooters will have SS high enough to negate camera shake anyway. Plus there are also OIS lenses for when that is a must.
  • Bright light, action: This is a situation where light is so abundant that action is possible without ISO getting too high. Most action shots can be made without going over ISO 800, as long as the lens is fairly fast. In this case, better ISO performance is much less an issue as everything looks fairly good since ISO is low. Once again, IBIS/OIS is not needed since SS is fast enough to freeze normal camera shake.

This is of course a generalization, but it's accurate. Any other situation, like portraits in good light, isn't worth comparing since ISO is low, SS is less of an issue, or one can use flash, ect. The above 3 distinctions pretty much cover what is necessary, and non stabilized high ISO monsters only benefit in 1 out of 3. Don't get me wrong, something that is FF AND stabilized is best overall, but this comparison is based on the A7 vs something like an EM1 that has IBIS. The real world difference comes out surprisingly small.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about - FF is one benefit out of three? FF has many benefits, many more than the three topics you list here...

Note i said it was a generalization, and no, FF has no innate benefits. It does a few things slightly better, and a few slightly worse, than sensors of other sizes. Stabilization is something i would say offers benefits.

Why is IBIS better than OSS? It is only needed under certain conditions, and for that, just use an OSS lens, big deal.

Oh, what? For (FF) MF lenses? Lol, the 2x crop factor kills the fun of those pretty quickly, I'd say. Even speed boosters only give you the intended view on APS-C, not on m43.

Whether or not you freeze SS, you can view all formats as being able to shoot equivalent, as the right exposure relationship between SS, f-stop and ISO levels roughly equates to similar levels of DOF and noise at equivalent settings (if possible).

That's the point, with IBIS, it's not always going to be equivelant. IBIS allows you to shoot at lower ISO for slow moving subjects with EVERY lens. In this case, SS, f-stop and ISO levels are not even.

Sorry, but that is very strange thinking. Because you have IBIS, you have a better choice? Just how many lenses with OSS would you actually need, and why?

But you skip the point entirely, stopping down with a larger sensor negates most of the benefits of the smaller sensor. The inverse is impossible...

FF just gives you a broader range than a smaller sensor does (you can open wider). Both formats let you stop down to similar result levels.

Totally depends on your purpose. Like i said, some benefits, some things are worse. Take for example the peak of lens resolution. If i need to stop down to my lens's sharpest aperture, is FF going to be at the same F stop as MFT? No, MFT lenses tend to hit their peak at around F2-F4. FF tend to hit theirs between F4 and F8. This is one advantage of smaller format lenses, they have less falloff at the fast end.

What's the difference? F2-F4 on m43 matches F4-F8 on FF. Sounds like a wash to me. Except that on FF I can go wider, and capture more light, create more DOF effects, capture a different mood, end up with less noise in dark situations. You are making an argument for FF it seems.

If you throw around IBIS, you have to identify what types of shooting this is about. OSS for FF is available (e.g. if you want to do video). But, general numbers are that IBIS give you three stops of compensation over non-IBIS, whereas FF gives you two stops over m43. In other words, a m43 IBIS versus a non-OSS FF comparison is only about a one stop advantage. I probably would prefer the FF, because SS longer than around 1/80th give blurry people subjects,

That's why i classified my last post into three types. Two were action, one was static. I was explaining when IBIS would be more useful than a larger sensor without IS, which is more often than many think.

IBIS is hardly useful for FF - that is mostly coming from the m43 community that likes shooting at ISO 100. With FF you can go to much higher ISOs, why is IBIS such a big deal.

Again, if your shutter time hits 1/20th, what exactly are you photographing? Wouldn't you use a tripod or bean bag by then?

Dpreview complained about the 1/60th setting leading to blurry images, and I concur. It would be better if it was 1/100th or user selectable. But heck, even 1/120th is only one stop, I gladly take that (I just reduce DOF one stop, and I am quite happy where I am).

and if I can shoot at 1/20th or so, I don't need IBIS, since the scene allows me to use a bean-bag, tripod, or otherwise.

You seem to be downplaying the importance of IS, but there is a reason every system either has IBIS or OIS lenses.

The smaller the sensor, the more important it becomes - they are great for cell phones.

If you shoot slow SS on FF, you are either stopped down too much, or the scene is simply too dark. Consider a tripod or a flash. And what about MFNR options? They are built in (JPG) and they work great.

I remember reading that m43 users often talk about lack of shallow DOF. Sure, there are techniques, but it pales in comparison to FF flexibility. But then AF is fast(er). A bit, the A7 is no slough.

Actually more often i wish i had more DOF, so i can get both eyes in focus even when my subject is not squared to the lens. All i have to do to get more separation is change the ratio of my and the background's subject distance.

I only hear this from m43 shooters, trying to turn a drawback into a benefit. Personally, I don't like deep DOF images - they give me the TV-video look, or the smallish P&S look. Everything is sharp.

The pictures that I like separate the subject from the background. If not, they are just documentary images that I can take with any camera.

And again, you do realize that you can stop down on FF, right? And it gives plenty of DOF.

But on a smaller sensor (m43?) you can not go wider to create a certain effect. Sure, you can do a close-up and get some background blur, but these images do not compete with FF sensors with a fast lens.

Also, as I am shooting FF more nowadays, I begin to appreciate the FF benefits more and more, each time that I use it. And yes, I do have to remind myself sometimes to STOP DOWN - as for some cases I do want a large DOF and high sharpness result. My little trick? I use iAuto then - works like a charm.

.....

And the extra resolution? Much more useful than with the Nex-7. With the Nex-7 I did not want to raise ISO and then crop afterwards, With the A7, sure!

And the 7 had no IBIS either.

I know you like IBIS, as if it is some magical trick. Fact is, if you need IBIS for everything, you should either get a flash, a tripod, a larger sensor camera, or pick up a new hobby...

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

I think that your slogan and handle are ill chosen.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
verybiglebowski
Senior MemberPosts: 3,162Gear list
Like?
Re: E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?
In reply to KwhyChang, 7 months ago

KwhyChang wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

Looking for any A7 owners who are also current/former EM1 owners...

What capabilities or features do you miss the most (if any) in moving from the EM1 to the A7?

Anything from minor annoyances to major omissions by Sony?

PLEASE don't try to compare Full Frame versus Micro Four Thirds, that is not the point of this thread.

I'm specifically interested in USABILITY of these cameras, how they handle in the field, etc... the kind of subtle differences you won't find by reading the spec sheets.

Thanks in advance for sharing.

I have E-M1 and A7. What I miss most is the way you review images. With the E-M1 you can use the dial to zoom in and out to examine detail. With the A7, you press mag once, then you are almost fully magnified and then have to push the zoom out button ten times or less to look at what you want.

Other than that, I miss time with the E-M1. The A7 is more fun to use and the results are more enjoyable to look at.

-- hide signature --

Dave

You can use rear control wheel to zoom in/out in playback mode, once you press C2. Not a big help but more convinient than pushing buttons here and there...

-- hide signature --

Don't trust your eyes or mind, they might betray you! Trust only comments posted on the forums, because there is the absolute truth!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/
http://verybiglobo.blogspot.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads