Lenses making me consider switching back to 4/3 system

[Skeeterbytes]

My experience with the G9 really gave me a good impression using MFT system. My biggest concern was the very few times I want to make a large print. The high rez handheld mode solves that problem for me. I am aware of the limitations and can work around them. I am excited about going back to the smaller, very sharp lenses. What I especially like about a couple of the lenses is the extended range without losing image quality.

For about twelve years I was one of the sports photographers shooting for the University of New Mexico. Had a lot of fun, got to know some well known athletes such as Holly Holm, an MMA fighter who upset Rhonda Rousey several years ago. Even had my one second of fame as a book cover photo I took for Katie Hnida (first female to kick extra point in Div ! football) was flashed on national television for about a second. Now I just want to shoot grandkids sports so not worried about the best gear anymore. For now that may the main reason I still hang on to my Sony gear. I think the EM1 3 would probably be close to a7r4 for focus. I know there is a 12-40 and 35-100 2.8 for sports, so down the road could completely go MFT. The Tamron 17-70 on the a7r4 using crop mode has me a little spoiled for my granddaughter mid school basketball games. I would love something like the Tamron 25-150 equivalent for MFT system.

Dad sports shooter here. I was able to use 4/3 then m4/3 for most everything she did, but especially with 4/3 ran into issues inside (gymnastics, indoor soccer) due to either light, netting/plexiglas shields or both. With good light I can use m4/3 in a gym, but some gyms have horrid light and then I need to get close and shoot fast primes instead of zooms. The f:1.2s are especially handy.

Now she's a college runner and I've been able to shoot several D1 XC meets and spring track is upcoming. Also volunteer at her old HS, which gets me back on the soccer pitch in addition to running.

I use a pair of cameras (E-M1ii and 1iii lately), a Pro tele zoom and the 300 Pro for most events, adjusting the lenses depending on what, the season and the time of day. m4/3 is certainly up to the task.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Henry Richardson]

Probably the biggest factor in helping me make my decision is how much dynamic range would I give up using 4/3 compared to full frame. This is important for travel because sometimes I have to shoot midday when the sun produces a lot of shadows.

You probably already know this, but just in case. To get the maximum DR shoot at the base ISO 200. Don't use the lower or higher ISO settings. Shoot raw, of course. ETTR and adjust brightness in your raw processing software. Ever since Adobe introduced their new raw process version in 2012 for Lightroom and Photoshop/ACR they have had the best highlight recovery. I am not sure if that is still the case, but from time to time I see software reviews and comments on the forum that indicate it still is true.

By the way, I international travel a lot (well, I did, before the pandemic) and I have been using m4/3 since April 2012. I have not found dynamic range to be a problem and I don't always shoot at ISO 200.

I encourage you to read these posts that compare dynamic range, noise, etc. to some excellent FF cameras from a few years ago: Canon 5D II and Sony A900. You may be surprised that current m4/3 sensors compare so well to dream FF camera sensors from just a few years ago. Also a comparison of current m4/3 to current APS-C.

Current 20mp sensors are really good

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63489203

DXO: m4/3 vs. FF -- we have it good!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63063404

Olympus 20MP Sensor (E-M1.2) & New Sony A6600 DXO

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63722419

Sony A900 - Canon 5DII - Olympus E-M1II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63723048

Raw converters keep getting better too

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63073635

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Henry Richardson]

For about twelve years I was one of the sports photographers shooting for the University of New Mexico. Had a lot of fun, got to know some well known athletes such as Holly Holm, an MMA fighter who upset Rhonda Rousey several years ago. Even had my one second of fame as a book cover photo I took for Katie Hnida (first female to kick extra point in Div ! football) was flashed on national television for about a second. Now I just want to shoot grandkids sports so not worried about the best gear anymore. For now that may the main reason I still hang on to my Sony gear. I think the EM1 3 would probably be close to a7r4 for focus. I know there is a 12-40 and 35-100 2.8 for sports, so down the road could completely go MFT. The Tamron 17-70 on the a7r4 using crop mode has me a little spoiled for my granddaughter mid school basketball games. I would love something like the Tamron 25-150 equivalent for MFT system.

That reminds me of this sort of tongue in cheek thread with a photo of 2 pro baseball photographers in Japan:

2016: I am glad I am not a pro

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57301124

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[gary stepic]

I agree! I see these photographers shoot with huge, long and extremely expensive 2.8 lenses to publish a small photo in the newspaper, sometimes a photo as huge as 8x10. For college sports most shots were for media guides where the biggest full page photo again would be no bigger then 8x10, most much smaller.

At our arena there are very large player photos hanging from the top, many shot with the old 4 megapixel Nikon D2H (it was my very first DSLR). They are so far away no one would ever notice the lack of detail.

Gary

 

[gary0319]

For outdoor sports there are plenty of good MFT solutions. In a pinch the 12-100 f/4 works quite well and is sharp enough to do some tight crops.

Here’s an equestrian shot and crop with the 12-100.

 

[gary stepic]

Henry,

I am completely sold on going back to MFT system. Now the only question is how long do I hang on to my Sony stuff. What has been fun is seeing the constant improvements over the years. Obviously, due to physics there are limits, but I still expect improvements in resolution, dynamic range, and high iso performance. What I am concluding is I know I will be happy with what is available now, but I always will have an excuse to satisfy my craving for new gear. What is really nice is I do not feel compelled to upgrade whenever something new comes out.

In the past I have always liked using two cameras, one with an ultra wide zoom and another with a standard zoom. I still may want to get a second 4/3 body down the road, then I could keep something like a 7-14 on one camera and the 12-100 on the other. I have crappy eyes which makes cleaning my own sensor uncomfortable for me, and Sony cameras do gather dust. This was a huge reason I have been looking for ways to avoid changing lenses when I travel.

The sensor dust removal system of Olympus along with the very good image stabilization are big pluses for me. The viewfinder will be a downgrade as well as batter life, but neither as much of a problem as dusty sensors and unsteady hands. The smaller files also help and are much easier to work with. The range of the 8-25 and 12-100 lenses really got me to consider MFT again. The high rez mode of the EM1 iii has sealed the deal for me along with help from this thread about some concerns I no longer have.

Gary

--
http://www.honoringcreation.com

 

[gary stepic]

Rick,

You are reminding me of the times I shot our state high school cross country meets. I would find a spot on a hill and shoot hundreds of photos then run down the hill to another spot as the runners were crossing the finish line. I am tired just thinking about this, don't think I could do that anymore.

Gary

 

[Dan]

Been a while but I'm pretty sure there's a way to set up Nikon to have one shot bracketing...not standard but do able if you have it in Live View?

Dan

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Rick,

You are reminding me of the times I shot our state high school cross country meets. I would find a spot on a hill and shoot hundreds of photos then run down the hill to another spot as the runners were crossing the finish line. I am tired just thinking about this, don't think I could do that anymore.

Gary

Oh lordy, humping two cameras on slings trying to get to another part of the course before the pack passes, then flip-flopping back the other way, then working towards the finish line ahead of the crowd...yeah, not easy! (Harder still when you do not know the course.)

But after missing an entire year of sports of any kind, it's good to be back out there.




NCAA XC champion Whittni Orton

Cheers,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

 

[ahaslett]

You probably already know this, but just in case.

With the EM1 mk ii onwards, you can use Workspace to save settings on your PC. Presumably you can track them down and save them on a USB stick, in case you need to reload them using a different PC.

Andrew

 

[Tom Caldwell]

If you have had and know a G9 then I might wonder why you might select its Olympus (OMDS) equivalent and have to go through the re-learning curve of yet another interface that is quite different?

The G9 is so customisable that Panasonic left a whole bunch of function slots with no defaults selected.

 

[gary stepic]

Good shot. University of New Mexico has been pretty good in cross country, never got to shoot any of their meets. Yep, figuring out the course was half the battle. i agree, totally good to get out and about again.

Gary

 

[EZGritz]

I'd like to know if it works for waterfalls. Never tried that.

 

[calson]

For large prints there are advantages to using a full frame 45MP camera. With Nikon and Canon there are also their excellent tilt shift lenses which are not an option with Sony. I am most familiar with the Nikon D850 which automates focus shifting for capturing a scene with maximum depth of field and without the perspective distortion one gets with a wide angle lens.

 

[ahaslett]

For large prints there are advantages to using a full frame 45MP camera. With Nikon and Canon there are also their excellent tilt shift lenses which are not an option with Sony. I am most familiar with the Nikon D850 which automates focus shifting for capturing a scene with maximum depth of field and without the perspective distortion one gets with a wide angle lens.

TS lenses are manual, so adapting Canon lenses to Sony is easy.

Andrew

 

[gary stepic]

Tom,

The main reason I am considering switching back to MFT is due to the high rez option of the EM1 M3. I do not do a lot of printing, but on occasion like to do large canvas prints for my home. For those few times the high rez option is perfect. No other MFT camera has hand held high rez.

Gary

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Tom,

The main reason I am considering switching back to MFT is due to the high rez option of the EM1 M3. I do not do a lot of printing, but on occasion like to do large canvas prints for my home. For those few times the high rez option is perfect. No other MFT camera has hand held high rez.

Gary

Hi Gary,

E-M1X has it also but for somebody wishing to downsize, at a hair under 1 kilo it's not exactly the camera for that.

The E-M1iii adds Starry Sky and much-improved eye detection to its features, but lacks the M1X AI modes.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[gary stepic]

Rick,

I have been looking at so many videos and reviews, the other night could not sleep thinking about this new system for me. For what I do I have no interest in the x version.

Now the fun part starts - do I get a second body, maybe a Panasonic with the 7-14 4.0 and the EM1 iii with the 12-100? Or just one body and the 8-25 instead of the 7-14 (which is probably the way I will go for now). I just printed out the DPR product pages for Oly and Pany lenses along with Pany cameras. I am heading out for a coffee and bagel and will play around with all the possible combinations and lens choices. I think my sleepless nights are not over yet!

As I have mentioned, the lenses always had me interested, the hand held high rez mode was the game changer.

Gary

 

[EZGritz]

You might like Pro Capture even though it isn't your application and simulated ND filtering.

 

[kolyy]

I currently have the Sony a7r4. I have shot a lot of weddings, portraits, sports but now at age 73 am mainly interested in travel and landscape photography. I have owned just about every type of system there is (never owned a medium format system). I could make a long list of brands, cameras, and lenses I have owned but will spare you. Ironically one of my favorite cameras was the Panasonic G9 and my least favorite the Olympus EM5. Yet I am now considering the E-M1 Mark III.

What I love about the 4/3 system is the lenses. I loved the Oly 12-100 on the G9. The 10-25 4.0 Oly seems like a perfect walk around compliment when I would want to go wider instead of longer (my current walk around is the Sony 24-105 with my ultra wide being the 12-24 4.0). I do not shoot birds or much where I need a long telephoto but admit I have a lot of fun and like super long lenses for sunsets and the compression effect. The Oly 100-400 seems like a nice lens I know it is still a big lens but for the range and fun factor I could handle lugging it on trips.

The reason the EM5 was my least favorite is because I get lazy and do not take the time to set up and learn a customizable camera like the Olympus cameras. A reason I like the Sony full frame is on rare occasion I want to be able to produce a 6'x4' canvas print to hang in my living room. Most of my other prints are 30"x20". The handheld high rez mode is very intriguing to me. The large prints I would like to produce are mountain and valley type shots, in other words grand landscapes. There may be an ocean or sea in the background the only movement would be leaves from the wind or waves in the ocean. My one question is how would high rez mode handle this? The kind of high rez shots I am thinking of would have lakes or oceans more in the background, not in the near foreground as I mentioned.

I am also curious about making large prints with a 20 megapixel 4/3 system. For my home I use canvas and I am pretty confident prints up to 40"x30" would be fine, please correct me if I am wrong. My guess is some of the upscaling software can be useful.

For travel and landscapes I think dynamic range and iso performance would be good enough with 4/3, as I know those are strengths of full frame. The viewfinder resolution would be a step down but image stabilization a clear step up. Battery life a step down but keeping spares not a problem. I do shoot some grandkids sports. If I totally got rid of my full frame system it seems like there are some good 2.8 4/3 lenses I could use. I rarely have to go above 3200 iso. I am guessing dust would be less of a problem with a 4/3 system, but again correct me if I am wrong.

I would mainly have to take the time to customize the camera and then make a point to memorize how the camera is set up. I may go months between uses and with my previous Olympus I would forget how I programmed the buttons. My biggest worry now is if my bad eyes would be good enough with the viewfinder, a very big step down from the Sony a7r4. I am not worried about having the best viewfinder experience but as long as I can get a good idea of what I am shooting I am ok.

Probably the biggest factor in helping me make my decision is how much dynamic range would I give up using 4/3 compared to full frame. This is important for travel because sometimes I have to shoot midday when the sun produces a lot of shadows.

Gary

As someone who moved from MFT to FF (for my main camera) a couple of years ago, I shake my head in disbelief, reading this thread. I moved to FF precisely because of the poor value of MFT lenses at the wide end and problems with DR at base ISO. You seem to be enamoured with lenses which are honestly inferior to your current setup and do not give you anything, while you loose resolution, DR, low-light capabilities and potential for subject-background separation.

Those MFT lenses do not give you significantly more reach than what you already have. If you crop a 20Mpx region out of the A7RIV sensor you extend your reach by around 1.75x. Your 12-24/4 gives you a 42mm eq. field of view with this crop, the 24-105/4 gives 184mm eq. And you can get pretty close to this by simply entering the APS-S mode in your camera. The A7RIV can be viewed not just as a 61Mpx FF camera, but also a 26Mpx APS-C one, or effectively a 16Mpx MFT one.

Of course, if you want to downsize your lenses, it is perfectly possible to do it within the E-mount system. The Tamron 17-28mm/2.8 is pretty much the same size and weight as the Olympus 8-25mm/4, gives you the same reach, but lets in 8x as much light. And similarly for the Tamron 28-200mm/2.8-5.6 vs Olympus 12-100mm/4, where the Tamron actually gives you more reach and is much cheaper. And if you wanted to downsize even more, you could simply use APS-C lenses, like the Sony 18-135mm, Sony 10-18mm/4 or Tamron 11-20mm/2.8.

Honestly, the whole discussion makes zero sense to me. You are trying to find clumsy workarounds like HHHR or HDR to achieve what you get now with a simple push of the shutter button for every single picture. You are ready to blow thousand of dollars for a downgrade, instead of adding a couple of affordable lenses. This stinks like a bad case of GAS to me.