Upgrade from Olympus E-P3?

pmac100 wrote:

Hi...

I currently own an Olympus E-P3, along with Panasonic 14-42, Panasonic 14 prime and Panasonic 45-200 lenses.

Hello.

I have an E-P3, and I recently upgraded to a newer-sensored model.

I primarily use the camera for landscapes and wildlife shots while hiking; very rarely indoors. I wouldn't call myself a serious hobbyist, but I've learned enough to feel comfortable using occasional manual settings for certain situations.

So... this summer our family will be doing a tour of various national parks out west. For us, it's sort of a once-in-a-lifetime trip. I'd like to make the most of it from a photography standpoint, and am wondering if there's any value in upgrading to a newer m4/3 camera (and maybe picking up a new lens) for this trip?

Short answer - yes. All of the 16mp cameras have better sensors in them. Obviously the resolution is better, but high-ISO shooting is also better (by about a stop) and (most importantly for landscapes) the dynamic range is much better.

Is there a significant improvement in image quality with current cameras over what I have now? I know the current sensors have more megapixels, but do they also do better in low light / high ISO situations (e.g, very early in the day, or using a long lens to capture wildlife)?

See above.

Here's a couple examples of a low light situation I did some shooting in; could a newer m4/3 camera improve the results?:

Pre-dawn water

This shot is low-contrast, so the greater dynamic range of a newer sensor wouldn't make much difference. There would be less noise, but this may not be hugely noticeable. Frankly, with this shot, you probably wouldn't notice much difference.

Pre-sunrise hike

With some of those shots you probably would notice a difference when pixel peeping, in terms of noise. This is because in some of the more high-contrast photos you have done a good job at preserving highlights at the expense of deepening the shadows. You can lift shadows with much better results with the newer sensors.

What about lenses; are there any worth considering that would be a big improvement over the Lumix 14mm that I have?

Yeah, other primes with similar focal lengths are the 12mm f/2.0, 15mm f/1.7 and 17mm f/1.8.

All of those lenses are quite a bit brighter than the f/2.5 of your 14mm.

However, they are also more expensive.

Can an m4/3 camera even be used for night sky photography, something I wanted to try while out west?

Yes, it can.

With a newer sensor, you can safely shoot at ISO 1600 without getting too much noise. With my E-P3, I don't like going past ISO 800.

I'm going to be shooting at night in New Zealand this year and am weighing up which prime lens to use.

The two main candidates are the 12/2.0 and the 17/1.8.

I'm leaning towards the 17/1.8, because it has less coma distortion (the type of distortion that makes stars look dagger-shaped in the edges of the frame).

With the 17/1.8, you would typically shoot at 17mm (obviously...) f/1.8 or f/2.0 (yep, go wide open), ISO 1600, 20 seconds.

Any longer than 20-30 seconds and you will start getting star trails.

S

Thanks...