Olympus EM1-III vs Sony a7S-III (another m43 vs FF)

[mostlyboringphotog]

Where is the surprise? I have owned the S5 and the quality of the 24 megapixels file was impressive you could push them way beyond any MFT

Well the S5 is 24 mp and the a7SIII only 12 mp.

The surprise for me was the resolving power of a full frame 12 mp being equal to slightly superior to a 20 mp m43.

There are two stops benefit of DR and is superior in all aspects EXCEPT I had to lug a 2.3 Kg lens shooting wildlife and that just did not cut the cake

But for prime work the new Lumix S are 320 grams so actually the camera weight less than my EM1+17mm 1.2 pro

Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent.

Interesting, what FF kit would give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8 and, when mounted on my camera (Olympus E-M5 III), weighs 530 grams (414g body+battery & 116g lens)?

Canon RP w/RF 50mm F1.8 1.07 lb / 485 g (Body with Battery and Memory) + 160 g (0.35 lb) = 645g

Using the "equivalent", I can argue that Canon RP is actually lighter per amount of light collected at f/1.8. ;-)

Surely, Canon is not "lighter" but if 4/3rd is counting on "light system", I would be worried.

For shooters of landscape, portraits, night photography and events not requiring long lens or high frame rate there is ZERO reason to get an OMD EM1MKIII nor a G9 or an APSC camera. The S5 costs the same of the OMD EM1MKIII nobody sane of mind would buy the Olympus if they do not need lighter long lenses and some form of agility that the full frame platform does not have due to the lens size at tele end

I guess OMD knows that hence are focussing on wildlife and macro and Panasonic on video capabilities

Wise decisions

 

[Funny Valentine]

With the a7SIII you can switch between photo and video all day long without worrying about overheating and record limits. With the Canon R6 you can't. It's as simple as that.

That's fine. Video matters little to me. I just picked the R6 as the lowest res non-sony FF camera. There are plenty of cameras that can record all day long without overheating and record limits and still cost a lot less if you need that, yet give you usable resolution for when you need that too. The A7sIII doesn't do that for me. It's as simple as that.

Taking photos with the R6 will eat up your video shooting time.

True, but inconsequential to me, if video was my thing I'd probably pick another camera and it wouldn't be the A7sIII, I'd want a better hybrid.

Also considering photo alone features:

- above ISO 6400 the noise pattern on the a7sIII looks more grainy, more filmic. R6 is mushier in my opinion. On prints the a7sIII comes out nicer.

Subjective, I spent a few hours looking at images, above ISO6400; I can see areas where each looks mushier. The Canon also seems to look better in darker areas. The thing that really matters is, above ISO6400 both cameras look average at best (IMHO and I'd never use either for anything but a low res social media post - if that).

- the colours from the a7sIII look nicer to me.

Subjective. I like Canon's reds and yellows better, Canon's blues seem to be a a tiny bit darker but I prefer that. My EM1.2 (and probably the EM1.3 I like better than either.

- AF tracking is stickier on the a7sIII

I would have to test this. The R6 will focus down to EV -6.5EV. The Sony can't do that on any camera it makes. The R5 and R6 (from reviews seem to be pretty much flawless and even match the best that Sony can do.

Canon R6 is rated at -6.5 EV only with an f/1.2 lens at f/1.2.

Sony a7sIII can do AF at -6 EV with an f/2 lens

That's a big difference in favour of the Sony. Also watch Cameraconspiracies videos with the R6 where the AF just doesn't work in low light at 8:49

- overall the a7sIII body can be customised to a greater extent than the R6.

The setup on the R6 is perfect as is the body, feel, ergonomics. I'd prefer an R5 top plate and mode selector, but that's a purely subjective thing. The controls of the R6 just feel more natural and easier to work and. And there comes a point where chasing *est is pointless. I can setup the R6 to exactly how I want to shoot and miss nothing. I did that on the R, I've done that on the Z7 (Z6's would be the same way). I've done it on my EM1.2 and the EM1.3 would be nearly the same - maybe just one or two changes at most. But I guess it's good to know a camera that costs a lot more has a couple more customization options.

- longer battery life, deeper buffer, smaller files and all that

R6 has a higher resolution sensor, produces better looking more detailed images at most ISOs, has 2.5 stop better IBIS which works even better with RF lenses with IS, more AF points, faster continuous shooting, much better ergonomics, faster USB out, costs $1000 less...and all that.

The EM1.2/3 have higher resolution sensors that show more detail at ISOs people use most (Base to ISO1600). Both have better IBIS which can work with several lenses for better results, have larger viewfinder magnification, 6x faster FPS shooting and a bunch of other setting that still out match the A7sIII, a ProCapture mode in continuous shooting, a high res mode (plus a hand held mode on the EM1.3), are smaller and lighter, and costs $2800 less (EM1.2) or $2300 less (EM1.3)...and all that too.

A low-res, over-priced (IMO) $3800 FF camera vs a $1500 M43 one. Lol. Even if the EM1.3 only came close to the Sony, instead of beating it in several areas speaks hugely negative to a camera that costs 2.5 times more.

Enjoy it. I'll put my money elsewhere.

We each use cameras differently. One is clearly for Video, that also does photos well. Not sure why people on m43 forums get offended when I posted a comparison between these 2 cameras. I guess people just hate Sony. I got lectured on how the S5 is better than the a7siii and now the R6.

--
...

 

[NowHearThis]

With the a7SIII you can switch between photo and video all day long without worrying about overheating and record limits. With the Canon R6 you can't. It's as simple as that.

That's fine. Video matters little to me. I just picked the R6 as the lowest res non-sony FF camera. There are plenty of cameras that can record all day long without overheating and record limits and still cost a lot less if you need that, yet give you usable resolution for when you need that too. The A7sIII doesn't do that for me. It's as simple as that.

Taking photos with the R6 will eat up your video shooting time.

True, but inconsequential to me, if video was my thing I'd probably pick another camera and it wouldn't be the A7sIII, I'd want a better hybrid.

Also considering photo alone features:

- above ISO 6400 the noise pattern on the a7sIII looks more grainy, more filmic. R6 is mushier in my opinion. On prints the a7sIII comes out nicer.

Subjective, I spent a few hours looking at images, above ISO6400; I can see areas where each looks mushier. The Canon also seems to look better in darker areas. The thing that really matters is, above ISO6400 both cameras look average at best (IMHO and I'd never use either for anything but a low res social media post - if that).

- the colours from the a7sIII look nicer to me.

Subjective. I like Canon's reds and yellows better, Canon's blues seem to be a a tiny bit darker but I prefer that. My EM1.2 (and probably the EM1.3 I like better than either.

- AF tracking is stickier on the a7sIII

I would have to test this. The R6 will focus down to EV -6.5EV. The Sony can't do that on any camera it makes. The R5 and R6 (from reviews seem to be pretty much flawless and even match the best that Sony can do.

Canon R6 is rated at -6.5 EV only with an f/1.2 lens at f/1.2.

Sony a7sIII can do AF at -6 EV with an f/2 lens

That's a big difference in favour of the Sony. Also watch Cameraconspiracies videos with the R6 where the AF just doesn't work in low light at 8:49

- overall the a7sIII body can be customised to a greater extent than the R6.

The setup on the R6 is perfect as is the body, feel, ergonomics. I'd prefer an R5 top plate and mode selector, but that's a purely subjective thing. The controls of the R6 just feel more natural and easier to work and. And there comes a point where chasing *est is pointless. I can setup the R6 to exactly how I want to shoot and miss nothing. I did that on the R, I've done that on the Z7 (Z6's would be the same way). I've done it on my EM1.2 and the EM1.3 would be nearly the same - maybe just one or two changes at most. But I guess it's good to know a camera that costs a lot more has a couple more customization options.

- longer battery life, deeper buffer, smaller files and all that

R6 has a higher resolution sensor, produces better looking more detailed images at most ISOs, has 2.5 stop better IBIS which works even better with RF lenses with IS, more AF points, faster continuous shooting, much better ergonomics, faster USB out, costs $1000 less...and all that.

The EM1.2/3 have higher resolution sensors that show more detail at ISOs people use most (Base to ISO1600). Both have better IBIS which can work with several lenses for better results, have larger viewfinder magnification, 6x faster FPS shooting and a bunch of other setting that still out match the A7sIII, a ProCapture mode in continuous shooting, a high res mode (plus a hand held mode on the EM1.3), are smaller and lighter, and costs $2800 less (EM1.2) or $2300 less (EM1.3)...and all that too.

A low-res, over-priced (IMO) $3800 FF camera vs a $1500 M43 one. Lol. Even if the EM1.3 only came close to the Sony, instead of beating it in several areas speaks hugely negative to a camera that costs 2.5 times more.

Enjoy it. I'll put my money elsewhere.

We each use cameras differently. One is clearly for Video, that also does photos well.

“Well” is subjective. I think it does well for photos if you never look at the images beyond the size of your iPad screen - then again, why spend $3800 on something if that’s your end goal.

Not sure why people on m43 forums get offended when I posted a comparison between these 2 cameras.

No one is offended, some like me think the comparison, the set up, and your delivery are purposefully combative and frankly quite dumb. No offense, just clearing up your misconception. Really not sure why these comparisons are made here either and why you expect expect people to 1) care, 2) be impressed or something.

I guess people just hate Sony. I got lectured on how the S5 is better than the a7siii and now the R6.

For some things each one is. The A7sIII is not the greatest tool out there not by a long shot.

You should know not everyone (or even most) “hates Sony”; I don’t hate Sony, I dislike some of their lenses, design choices, color science in the past, and I think they’ve copying canon’s cripple hammer on several of their cameras. I’ve had 2 Sony’s and liked different things about them. I like the A1 minus the price and the A7IV will likely be what the R6 should have been.

If you think I hate Sony, you should go back and read some of my post from years ago about Canon and their stupid f****** metering systems - which while better now, just still can’t do one little thing that a $100 Nikon D40 from over a decade ago can do and do better. But that’s a rant for another day.

But I have to ask what’s the big deal about others bringing up different cameras, I mean you started off comparing a $3800 camera to a $1500 one? Why get offended* when someone else makes a little closer comparison?

* see what I did there, I used your words. Now if I’m wrong, don’t you think you were too?

--
...

--
NHT

 

[jpzundel]

The post contains only 2 photos, both 12MB and ASA 6400

At 300% here is what I see looking at the only focused area, that of the little green monster:

- Olympus image is clean, no discernable noise at 300%.

- Sony is noisy.

Unless the author switched the photos by mistake, I have no idea what he is talking about!

 

[Funny Valentine]

The post contains only 2 photos, both 12MB and ASA 6400

At 300% here is what I see looking at the only focused area, that of the little green monster:

- Olympus image is clean, no discernable noise at 300%.

- Sony is noisy.

Unless the author switched the photos by mistake, I have no idea what he is talking about!

You're referring to Sony single shot vs Olympus 16 stacked shot examples. Of course the Olympus will be cleaner.

Now look at some single shot examples and you will see the 12mp FF sensor does show more detail than a 20mp m43 sensor.






noise reduction off, SOOC




noise reduction off, SOOC









--
...

 

[Raist3d]

Honestly, this is a shooting parameters problem. OP chose FL and aperture to give same view

It's to make both to compete in equivalent conditions

and then decided to shoot the MFT body at 1/90th and FF body at 1/25th.

Because the ISO value is set to 6400. The goal of the comparison was to see which one is cleaner at ISO 6400.

I would happily shoot this kind of scene at 1/10th on that MFT body, so would have more than twice the light in the MFT image compared to the FF one, rather than less than one-third.

Read the comparison first. The m43 image got more total light because of HHHRS.

In the test, the m43 is in pixel shift mode merging 16 images together. It's about comparing both at ISO 6400, downsampled to the same resolution.

If these were SooC jpegs, then noise reduction will have smoothed away details in the MFT image, far more than the FF one.

noise reduction was off, as I mentioned.

I switch between MFT and FF. There are differences in shooting envelope, for example resolution, lens availability and base ISO DR. The MFT body should have beaten the FF one in this comparison and would have, if both had been used at the limit of their shooting envelope.

I gave all the advantages to the m43: 16 images merged together downsampled from 50mp to reduce noise as much as possible. And it barely beat the full frame.

Andrew

I should have read your OP more carefully!

Was the HHhiRes a SooC jpeg?

the HHHRS was a 50mp RAW file opened in workspace and downsampled to a 12mp sRGB "super fine" jpeg without any editing.

Andrew

With the EM1.2 and pixel shift mode, I found that the SooC jpeg was very clean but whatever I did to the RAW it never looked good. What does your SooC jpeg look like?

Andrew

If you use Olympus workspace to convert the raw, you get pretty much the JPEG engine result of the camera, or even a notch better.

 

[ahaslett]

Honestly, this is a shooting parameters problem. OP chose FL and aperture to give same view

It's to make both to compete in equivalent conditions

and then decided to shoot the MFT body at 1/90th and FF body at 1/25th.

Because the ISO value is set to 6400. The goal of the comparison was to see which one is cleaner at ISO 6400.

I would happily shoot this kind of scene at 1/10th on that MFT body, so would have more than twice the light in the MFT image compared to the FF one, rather than less than one-third.

Read the comparison first. The m43 image got more total light because of HHHRS.

In the test, the m43 is in pixel shift mode merging 16 images together. It's about comparing both at ISO 6400, downsampled to the same resolution.

If these were SooC jpegs, then noise reduction will have smoothed away details in the MFT image, far more than the FF one.

noise reduction was off, as I mentioned.

I switch between MFT and FF. There are differences in shooting envelope, for example resolution, lens availability and base ISO DR. The MFT body should have beaten the FF one in this comparison and would have, if both had been used at the limit of their shooting envelope.

I gave all the advantages to the m43: 16 images merged together downsampled from 50mp to reduce noise as much as possible. And it barely beat the full frame.

Andrew

I should have read your OP more carefully!

Was the HHhiRes a SooC jpeg?

the HHHRS was a 50mp RAW file opened in workspace and downsampled to a 12mp sRGB "super fine" jpeg without any editing.

Andrew

With the EM1.2 and pixel shift mode, I found that the SooC jpeg was very clean but whatever I did to the RAW it never looked good. What does your SooC jpeg look like?

Andrew

If you use Olympus workspace to convert the raw, you get pretty much the JPEG engine result of the camera, or even a notch better.

Helpful - thanks.

Andrew

 

[Donald B]

Just noting for what it is worth:

You can take a Sigma DC (apsc image circle) lens in EF mount and fit it on a Panasonic FF camera body (S1 or S5) and it will auto crop sensor to give you its full aps-c image circle on 10Mp worth of sensor.

But you can also focal reduce the same lens on to a M4/3 camera body to place the full aps-c image circle on a 20Mp 4/3 sensor. Add a complimentary extra stops worth of light.

That is: the same image - two different pathways.

I have all the necessary gear and confirm that I have tried both with good results but I have never felt that I need compare them as an academic exercise.

Of course you have, just like the rest of us. enjoy your new 5ds

Whatever lights our fire I suppose but megapixels and sensor sizes are seemingly just another reason to have an argument I suppose.

--
Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

 

[Bassam Guy]

Where is the surprise? I have owned the S5 and the quality of the 24 megapixels file was impressive you could push them way beyond any MFT

Well the S5 is 24 mp and the a7SIII only 12 mp.

The surprise for me was the resolving power of a full frame 12 mp being equal to slightly superior to a 20 mp m43.

There are two stops benefit of DR and is superior in all aspects EXCEPT I had to lug a 2.3 Kg lens shooting wildlife and that just did not cut the cake

But for prime work the new Lumix S are 320 grams so actually the camera weight less than my EM1+17mm 1.2 pro

Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent.

Interesting, what FF kit would give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8 and, when mounted on my camera (Olympus E-M5 III), weighs 530 grams (414g body+battery & 116g lens)?

Canon RP w/RF 50mm F1.8 1.07 lb / 485 g (Body with Battery and Memory) + 160 g (0.35 lb) = 645g

Using the "equivalent", I can argue that Canon RP is actually lighter per amount of light collected at f/1.8. ;-)

Surely, Canon is not "lighter" but if 4/3rd is counting on "light system", I would be worried.

So, a lens that does not nearly "give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF" and on-body weighs 231g more isn't what I asked about.

This is what I replied to: "Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent." I suppose "equivalent" is open to interpretation but angle of view is what I specifically asked about and, to me, aperture is primarily for exposure and only secondarily for bokeh.

Please don't infer that I was talking about what "[micro] 4/3rd is counting on". I did not say why I was interested.

For shooters of landscape, portraits, night photography and events not requiring long lens or high frame rate there is ZERO reason to get an OMD EM1MKIII nor a G9 or an APSC camera. The S5 costs the same of the OMD EM1MKIII nobody sane of mind would buy the Olympus if they do not need lighter long lenses and some form of agility that the full frame platform does not have due to the lens size at tele end

I guess OMD knows that hence are focussing on wildlife and macro and Panasonic on video capabilities

Wise decisions

 

[George1958]

Where is the surprise? I have owned the S5 and the quality of the 24 megapixels file was impressive you could push them way beyond any MFT

Well the S5 is 24 mp and the a7SIII only 12 mp.

The surprise for me was the resolving power of a full frame 12 mp being equal to slightly superior to a 20 mp m43.

There are two stops benefit of DR and is superior in all aspects EXCEPT I had to lug a 2.3 Kg lens shooting wildlife and that just did not cut the cake

But for prime work the new Lumix S are 320 grams so actually the camera weight less than my EM1+17mm 1.2 pro

Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent.

Interesting, what FF kit would give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8 and, when mounted on my camera (Olympus E-M5 III), weighs 530 grams (414g body+battery & 116g lens)?

Canon RP w/RF 50mm F1.8 1.07 lb / 485 g (Body with Battery and Memory) + 160 g (0.35 lb) = 645g

Using the "equivalent", I can argue that Canon RP is actually lighter per amount of light collected at f/1.8. ;-)

Surely, Canon is not "lighter" but if 4/3rd is counting on "light system", I would be worried.

So, a lens that does not nearly "give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF" and on-body weighs 231g more isn't what I asked about.

This is what I replied to: "Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent." I suppose "equivalent" is open to interpretation but angle of view is what I specifically asked about and, to me, aperture is primarily for exposure and only secondarily for bokeh.

Please don't infer that I was talking about what "[micro] 4/3rd is counting on". I did not say why I was interested.

For shooters of landscape, portraits, night photography and events not requiring long lens or high frame rate there is ZERO reason to get an OMD EM1MKIII nor a G9 or an APSC camera. The S5 costs the same of the OMD EM1MKIII nobody sane of mind would buy the Olympus if they do not need lighter long lenses and some form of agility that the full frame platform does not have due to the lens size at tele end

I guess OMD knows that hence are focussing on wildlife and macro and Panasonic on video capabilities

Wise decisions

There is zero reason to buy a FF over an OMD Mkiii. For one , the cheaper FF bodies do not have the functionality or build quality that the G9 or EM series have. So you spend a bit more for the more premium FF body and for what ? Most people’s photography remains the same, they take the same sort of images they did before having lost a stack of cash Px their old gear and investing in new. There really is no point in that . Looking at images at 100% plus and trying to justify your photography to others on the basis of image attributes is empty and pointless.

You can take a better photograph with any camera.

 

[Rand Fotogott]

Where is the surprise? I have owned the S5 and the quality of the 24 megapixels file was impressive you could push them way beyond any MFT

Well the S5 is 24 mp and the a7SIII only 12 mp.

The surprise for me was the resolving power of a full frame 12 mp being equal to slightly superior to a 20 mp m43.

There are two stops benefit of DR and is superior in all aspects EXCEPT I had to lug a 2.3 Kg lens shooting wildlife and that just did not cut the cake

But for prime work the new Lumix S are 320 grams so actually the camera weight less than my EM1+17mm 1.2 pro

Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent.

Interesting, what FF kit would give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8 and, when mounted on my camera (Olympus E-M5 III), weighs 530 grams (414g body+battery & 116g lens)?

Canon RP w/RF 50mm F1.8 1.07 lb / 485 g (Body with Battery and Memory) + 160 g (0.35 lb) = 645g

Using the "equivalent", I can argue that Canon RP is actually lighter per amount of light collected at f/1.8. ;-)

Surely, Canon is not "lighter" but if 4/3rd is counting on "light system", I would be worried.

So, a lens that does not nearly "give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF" and on-body weighs 231g more isn't what I asked about.

This is what I replied to: "Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent." I suppose "equivalent" is open to interpretation but angle of view is what I specifically asked about and, to me, aperture is primarily for exposure and only secondarily for bokeh.

Please don't infer that I was talking about what "[micro] 4/3rd is counting on". I did not say why I was interested.

I remember when the EM1X first came out. Suddenly every comparison to FF for size and weight used only that camera. And forget IBIS, build quality and everything else, they don't matter, And in some people's minds all M43 cameras are that size.

I have an Canon RP, and it is a good camera. It can't be compared to most M43 cameras though. It lacks IBIS, lacks most features found on the EM1.3, and has a terrible crop when shooting 4K video.

I am pretty sure what you are seeing are side effects of the insecure FF owner syndrome. They need to justify paying more for cameras with larger sensors, but with fewer features. They think a great photo and a photo with great IQ are the same thing (they'll argue that until they are blue in the face, lol).

Anyway, now other people are repeating what the those with the syndrome say.

For shooters of landscape, portraits, night photography and events not requiring long lens or high frame rate there is ZERO reason to get an OMD EM1MKIII nor a G9 or an APSC camera. The S5 costs the same of the OMD EM1MKIII nobody sane of mind would buy the Olympus if they do not need lighter long lenses and some form of agility that the full frame platform does not have due to the lens size at tele end

I guess OMD knows that hence are focussing on wildlife and macro and Panasonic on video capabilities

Wise decisions

 

[Raist3d]

Where is the surprise? I have owned the S5 and the quality of the 24 megapixels file was impressive you could push them way beyond any MFT

Well the S5 is 24 mp and the a7SIII only 12 mp.

The surprise for me was the resolving power of a full frame 12 mp being equal to slightly superior to a 20 mp m43.

There are two stops benefit of DR and is superior in all aspects EXCEPT I had to lug a 2.3 Kg lens shooting wildlife and that just did not cut the cake

But for prime work the new Lumix S are 320 grams so actually the camera weight less than my EM1+17mm 1.2 pro

Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent.

Interesting, what FF kit would give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8 and, when mounted on my camera (Olympus E-M5 III), weighs 530 grams (414g body+battery & 116g lens)?

Canon RP w/RF 50mm F1.8 1.07 lb / 485 g (Body with Battery and Memory) + 160 g (0.35 lb) = 645g

Using the "equivalent", I can argue that Canon RP is actually lighter per amount of light collected at f/1.8. ;-)

Surely, Canon is not "lighter" but if 4/3rd is counting on "light system", I would be worried.

So, a lens that does not nearly "give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF" and on-body weighs 231g more isn't what I asked about.

This is what I replied to: "Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent." I suppose "equivalent" is open to interpretation but angle of view is what I specifically asked about and, to me, aperture is primarily for exposure and only secondarily for bokeh.

Please don't infer that I was talking about what "[micro] 4/3rd is counting on". I did not say why I was interested.

I remember when the EM1X first came out. Suddenly every comparison to FF for size and weight used only that camera.

well that’s probably because there were already big size comparisons with some of the other m43 models (g9 for example) but definitively upon release of the em1x because being newer and even bigger I think it’s natural to see that happening also it was $3k usd

And forget IBIS, build quality and everything else, they don't matter, And in some people's minds all M43 cameras are that size.

no, the real issue in m43 has always been that the smaller cameras that push the unique selling proposition of size ise hand me down tech instead of using better tech that can be done at that size

as an example look at the Fuji xe4 - same af and image quality of their top tier model. That wasn’t the case for all the 16mp level models and the em5.3 came kinda late

I have an Canon RP, and it is a good camera. It can't be compared to most M43 cameras though. It lacks IBIS, lacks most features found on the EM1.3, and has a terrible crop when shooting 4K video.

canon has pretty decent ibis now in their latest mirrorless

I am pretty sure what you are seeing are side effects of the insecure FF owner syndrome. They need to justify paying more for cameras with larger sensors, but with fewer features. They think a great photo and a photo with great IQ are the same thing (they'll argue that until they are blue in the face, lol).

Anyway, now other people are repeating what the those with the syndrome say.

I don’t know man, I see m43 owners here beginning comparisons with FF, not the other way around ;-)

For shooters of landscape, portraits, night photography and events not requiring long lens or high frame rate there is ZERO reason to get an OMD EM1MKIII nor a G9 or an APSC camera. The S5 costs the same of the OMD EM1MKIII nobody sane of mind would buy the Olympus if they do not need lighter long lenses and some form of agility that the full frame platform does not have due to the lens size at tele end

I guess OMD knows that hence are focussing on wildlife and macro and Panasonic on video capabilities

Wise decisions

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Where is the surprise? I have owned the S5 and the quality of the 24 megapixels file was impressive you could push them way beyond any MFT

Well the S5 is 24 mp and the a7SIII only 12 mp.

The surprise for me was the resolving power of a full frame 12 mp being equal to slightly superior to a 20 mp m43.

There are two stops benefit of DR and is superior in all aspects EXCEPT I had to lug a 2.3 Kg lens shooting wildlife and that just did not cut the cake

But for prime work the new Lumix S are 320 grams so actually the camera weight less than my EM1+17mm 1.2 pro

Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent.

Interesting, what FF kit would give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8 and, when mounted on my camera (Olympus E-M5 III), weighs 530 grams (414g body+battery & 116g lens)?

Canon RP w/RF 50mm F1.8 1.07 lb / 485 g (Body with Battery and Memory) + 160 g (0.35 lb) = 645g

Using the "equivalent", I can argue that Canon RP is actually lighter per amount of light collected at f/1.8. ;-)

Surely, Canon is not "lighter" but if 4/3rd is counting on "light system", I would be worried.

So, a lens that does not nearly "give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF" and on-body weighs 231g more isn't what I asked about.

This is what I replied to: "Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent." I suppose "equivalent" is open to interpretation but angle of view is what I specifically asked about and, to me, aperture is primarily for exposure and only secondarily for bokeh.

Please don't infer that I was talking about what "[micro] 4/3rd is counting on". I did not say why I was interested.

The point you refuse to acknowledge is that FF w/50mm f/1.8 lens can weigh less than 1.5 lb. As for FOV, you could get closer for 90mm FOV. But what is it about 90mm FF?

For shooters of landscape, portraits, night photography and events not requiring long lens or high frame rate there is ZERO reason to get an OMD EM1MKIII nor a G9 or an APSC camera. The S5 costs the same of the OMD EM1MKIII nobody sane of mind would buy the Olympus if they do not need lighter long lenses and some form of agility that the full frame platform does not have due to the lens size at tele end

I guess OMD knows that hence are focussing on wildlife and macro and Panasonic on video capabilities

Wise decisions

 

[dgrogers]

You are comparing a prime on the Sony to a decent but not the greatest zoom lens on the Olympus?

 

[Funny Valentine]

You are comparing a prime on the Sony to a decent but not the greatest zoom lens on the Olympus?

The olympus 12-40 pro is the sharpest lens available in the 20mm (40mm FF) range. I don't own the 17 pro or the 25 pro f/1.2.

And tbh that wouldn't make a difference. I also did the comparison with the olympus 25mm f/1.8 at f/4.5 and the results were similar to the 12-40 at 25mm.

Also olympus RAW files are always compressed and 12 bit, Sony gives the option of uncompressed RAW files with 14 bit and they are much easier to edit, and can be pushed so much further.

A 12mp FF sensor will show equal to more detail than a 20mp m43 sensor. These are my findings. Some people will refuse to believe but I tried both side by side and it was clear.

--
...

 

[SonyX]

You are comparing a prime on the Sony to a decent but not the greatest zoom lens on the Olympus?

it can be opposite: greatest and fastest MFT lens vs FF zoom at the same price range





--
Alex

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[SonyX]

A 12mp FF sensor will show equal to more detail than a 20mp m43 sensor. These are my findings. Some people will refuse to believe but I tried both side by side and it was clear.

could you pls provide RAW files (daylight and high ISO)?

--
Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy

 

[Bassam Guy]

Where is the surprise? I have owned the S5 and the quality of the 24 megapixels file was impressive you could push them way beyond any MFT

Well the S5 is 24 mp and the a7SIII only 12 mp.

The surprise for me was the resolving power of a full frame 12 mp being equal to slightly superior to a 20 mp m43.

There are two stops benefit of DR and is superior in all aspects EXCEPT I had to lug a 2.3 Kg lens shooting wildlife and that just did not cut the cake

But for prime work the new Lumix S are 320 grams so actually the camera weight less than my EM1+17mm 1.2 pro

Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent.

Interesting, what FF kit would give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8 and, when mounted on my camera (Olympus E-M5 III), weighs 530 grams (414g body+battery & 116g lens)?

Canon RP w/RF 50mm F1.8 1.07 lb / 485 g (Body with Battery and Memory) + 160 g (0.35 lb) = 645g

Using the "equivalent", I can argue that Canon RP is actually lighter per amount of light collected at f/1.8. ;-)

Surely, Canon is not "lighter" but if 4/3rd is counting on "light system", I would be worried.

So, a lens that does not nearly "give me the same angle of view as a 90mm FF" and on-body weighs 231g more isn't what I asked about.

This is what I replied to: "Yes a full frame prime setup is lighter than a m43 equivalent." I suppose "equivalent" is open to interpretation but angle of view is what I specifically asked about and, to me, aperture is primarily for exposure and only secondarily for bokeh.

Please don't infer that I was talking about what "[micro] 4/3rd is counting on". I did not say why I was interested.

The point you refuse to acknowledge is that FF w/50mm f/1.8 lens can weigh less than 1.5 lb. As for FOV, you could get closer for 90mm FOV. But what is it about 90mm FF?

I fully acknowledge and understand everything you have stated. However, even the far wider AOV FF 50mm at 1.5 lb is far heftier than 116g, and not "lighter" as Funny Valentine inferred. I like 90mm FF FL for portraits (why are my reasons pertinent?). Getting closer @50 FF doesn't have the same look and makes proper lighting more difficult. I don't want to further digress into the differences but if you are truly interested in answering your question, simply google "wide angle vs telephoto portrait".

I asked a simple question and thought I was unambiguous ("same AOV as a 90mm FF, aperture opens to f1.8"). Super shallow DOF is not a factor. I will probably rent such a FF combination for a poorly lit private "party" that I have been hired to photograph in October. The attendees (celebrities) do not want a 50 poked a few inches from their cheeks and would not be conducive for semi-candids.

If I can't find a suitable FF solution, I could rent a 45 1.2 or pray that AI noise reduction works as well as advertised but I prefer to get the higher resolution that FF can provide.

So, thank you for your effort.

For shooters of landscape, portraits, night photography and events not requiring long lens or high frame rate there is ZERO reason to get an OMD EM1MKIII nor a G9 or an APSC camera. The S5 costs the same of the OMD EM1MKIII nobody sane of mind would buy the Olympus if they do not need lighter long lenses and some form of agility that the full frame platform does not have due to the lens size at tele end

I guess OMD knows that hence are focussing on wildlife and macro and Panasonic on video capabilities

Wise decisions

 

[Funny Valentine]

A 12mp FF sensor will show equal to more detail than a 20mp m43 sensor. These are my findings. Some people will refuse to believe but I tried both side by side and it was clear.

could you pls provide RAW files (daylight and high ISO)?

I can only submit jpegs to dpreview.

These are all SOOC jpegs with SRGB color space, and noise reduction turned off. Olympus jpeg is set to superfine and Sony is set to extra fine.

You will have to trust me on this one.

I posted this comparison based on my workflow which consists of lightroom edits of RAW files and in camera jpegs as backup.

If people want to run topaz denoise or super resolution dxo depp prime or whatever, they can. But I find this workflow highly unrealistic and incompatible with everyday use.

 

[Funny Valentine]

Camera conspiracies was definitely here, or he had the same idea, good thing he's a video guy:



TBH, I think the olympus em1.3 and Sony a7sIII make a great paring, even for photos.

I totally recommend buying both. The beauty of the a7sIII as a photo camera is getting full frame uncompressed 14bit RAW files, so light and tiny and easy to edit. The dynamic range of photos is so high. In my own tests, the a7SIII RAW files can be pushed to the limits more than the Canon R6 (which I owned previously btw).

I don't have the R6 anymore, so anyone who has the R6 can compare it to the a7SIII and see if its better.

But I can tell you that I did some blue light photography with the a7sIII, and the RAW files can be pushed so much more than the R6 and em1.3. The tonal range on the a7sIII is something else. You have to use it to believe it. Test charts (dxo/photonstophotos) won't tell you the whole story.

--
...