Looking for opinions from wildlife/landscape photographers that moved from APS-C

Bexter · Feb 18, 2016

Hi All, I am currently a Sony A mount (Sony A77) shooter and do really like the system. I get the feeling that Sony are dropping the A mount and am looking for an upgrade path.

Did anyone else switch from APS-C to Micro 4/3 and what are your thoughts?

I looked today at an Oly EM1 and the 40-150mm + 1.4x tele. I was very impressed with the size and weight. However I am concerned about these things:

Image quality at higher ISO's (guessing similar to my A77 which isn't brilliant but ok)
Autofocus speed
Lack of shallow depth of field

Can anyone comment that has had a similar background to me about these things.

Just for the record I use the following lenses on my A77 so would need similar ones for Oly and would sell the Sony/Minolta gear

Minolta 200mm f2.8 and 1.4x tele
Sony 70-400mm (love this but it is heavy)
Sony CZ 16-80mm
Minolta 100mm Macro
Minolts Macro ringflash and controller

Also anyone recommend a good macro flash for m4/3? The ones I saw look for emount and I imagine are quite large.

Any feedback is appreciated. I am not totally set on M4/3 so looking for balanced opinions!

Thanks!

Bexter · Feb 19, 2016

Hitherto said:
The ISO sensitivity issue is an interesting one, the APS-C sensor is 0.5 bigger again in terms of crop factor and therefore has an APS-C sensor has about 1stop squared light gathering advantage over Micro Four Thirds in terms of ISO. That means ISO200 becomes the equivalent of ISO400, likewise at the higher end of the scale ISO1600 becomes ISO3200. The Sony sensor has a bit better ISO performance because as a whole its a larger sensor, the photosites are more spread out and it catches more light through the lens onto the imaging circle.

The limits of Micro Four Thirds are really ISO3200 in a pinch though when I'm working with landscape shots I don't like going past ISO800 to be honest really before it introduces questionable noise characteristics I would not be happy with.

The ways and means around this when shooting landscape are really choosing a faster lens to regain some of the lost light gather, a 12mm F/2 means your shooting with a 24mm F/4 and this becomes one of my favourite lenses wide open. Accepting what it is, I use a slightly shallower depth of field on Micro Four Thirds cameras which also allows me to use a faster aperture, and therefore a lower ISO.

It's not a perfect solution, but you can achieve good results with landscape shots:

You can replace most of your lenses basically with a twin lens kit such as the Olympus 12-40 F/2.8 and Olympus 40-150 F/2.8 or the Panasonic 35-100 F/2.8 maybe adding a prime or two or three for extra light gather when you need it.

As far as flash units go I'd recommend you get the FL600R flash to replace your existing unit.

Hi, I think those lens choices are good but the flash I don't thing is good for macro.

Bexter · Feb 19, 2016

Great pictures!

Bexter · Feb 19, 2016

I am overwhelmed with the kind and detailed responses from this forum, thank you all so much, I am reading every reply. It is amazing that you all took so much time out and read all my questions and answered them so honestly. No fanboy ism and you guys know the strengths and weaknesses of your system.

I will continue to read here and do research and let you know what I end up doing.

Bexter · Feb 19, 2016

Glen Barrington said:
It's that simple, no apologies, it wasn't designed for that sort of work. It's never been clear to me why people get so defensive about m43s modest iso capabilities. People need to buy the tools that meet their needs, and NO tool can meet every need.

One of my major needs is to not have a sore back at the end of a day of what should be happy shooting, that's why I like m43s.

The problem with equivalence as an issue, isn't that it is wrong, but that it allows people to forget why they are looking at a camera in the first place. People get bogged down in numbers that LOOK huge, but in real, practical shooting terms are pretty small.

That being said, it DOES work well for the sort of iso levels found in film photography. Say, iso 3200 and below with the best image quality at under iso 400 (800 is pretty good, but <400 is better), iso 1600 is quite manageable with even the modest noise control found in, say, ACDSee, and 3200 and higher really requires one of the better noise control plugins. I've been pretty happy with Topaz DeNoise.

I have yet to encounter a situation using iso levels less than 3200 that I couldn't take a picture of with my m43s camera. And yes, the Olympus in body IS DOES make a big difference with all lenses.

I don't know WHY the Exif data isn't showing on the photo above, it's in the database. 1/250/sec, f/5.0, iso 200, Olympus 14-54 mm MkI lens, 54 mm focal length.

Erick L · Feb 19, 2016

I'd go with the new a6300 and adapter.

KTClown · Feb 19, 2016

The Sigma is much better in my opinion, a very nice lens. And metal not plastic.

Gary

Pueblo, CO

aimawayfromface · Feb 19, 2016

Bexter said:
I am overwhelmed with the kind and detailed responses from this forum, thank you all so much, I am reading every reply. It is amazing that you all took so much time out and read all my questions and answered them so honestly. No fanboy ism and you guys know the strengths and weaknesses of your system.

I will continue to read here and do research and let you know what I end up doing.

For best ISO performance, it's hard to beat Fuji X-trans--and you'll have the same APS-C DOF you're accustomed to. Autofocus on the new bodies is pretty good as well. Fuji X is not as small or lightweight as MFT, but can come close with the right lens choices.

BuckarooBanzai · Feb 19, 2016

For flash with macro, I can suggest you look at Robin Wong's blog and how he shoots. He holds the FL-36R in his left hand with wireless TTL mode selected and holds the camera in his right hand. Pretty good results to my eye. One new feature on the OMD EM10 II (and I believe a firmware update on EM-1 and 5 II) is focus stacking which has potential for some great macro work.

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/09/olympus-mzuiko-60mm-f28-macro-review.html

SirPalomid · Feb 19, 2016

aimawayfromface said:
Bexter said:

I am overwhelmed with the kind and detailed responses from this forum, thank you all so much, I am reading every reply. It is amazing that you all took so much time out and read all my questions and answered them so honestly. No fanboy ism and you guys know the strengths and weaknesses of your system.

I will continue to read here and do research and let you know what I end up doing.

Click to expand...

For best ISO performance, it's hard to beat Fuji X-trans--and you'll have the same APS-C DOF you're accustomed to. Autofocus on the new bodies is pretty good as well. Fuji X is not as small or lightweight as MFT, but can come close with the right lens choices.

There is nothing magical about Fuji high-ISO performance, they are on pair with other APS-C sized sensors, aside from different RAW converting workflow, and "cheating" with ISO values (6400 on Fuji is ISO 3200 on Sony with same shutter speed and aperture values).

Fuji's AF is not even close to m4/3 even with latest firmware, sadly.

What Fuji is really good at - amazing colors and excellent fast lenses for shallower dof.

Bexter · Feb 19, 2016

Erick L said:
I'd go with the new a6300 and adapter.

Bexter · Feb 19, 2016

Erick L said:
I'd go with the new a6300 and adapter.

Adrian Harris · Feb 19, 2016

Bexter said:
Adrian Harris said:

Bexter said:

Hi All, I am currently a Sony A mount (Sony A77) shooter and do really like the system. I get the feeling that Sony are dropping the A mount and am looking for an upgrade path.

Did anyone else switch from APS-C to Micro 4/3 and what are your thoughts?

I looked today at an Oly EM1 and the 40-150mm + 1.4x tele. I was very impressed with the size and weight. However I am concerned about these things:

Image quality at higher ISO's (guessing similar to my A77 which isn't brilliant but ok)
Autofocus speed
Lack of shallow depth of field

Can anyone comment that has had a similar background to me about these things.

Just for the record I use the following lenses on my A77 so would need similar ones for Oly and would sell the Sony/Minolta gear

Minolta 200mm f2.8 and 1.4x tele
Sony 70-400mm (love this but it is heavy)
Sony CZ 16-80mm
Minolta 100mm Macro
Minolts Macro ringflash and controller

Also anyone recommend a good macro flash for m4/3? The ones I saw look for emount and I imagine are quite large.

Any feedback is appreciated. I am not totally set on M4/3 so looking for balanced opinions!

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Hi Better, although I still have my a77 and 70-400g lens plus some other fine lenses I haven't used them for well over a year now
Except for the obvious resolution drop to 16mp, The image quality the convenience and everything else about the Panasonic micro 4/3 system is truly amazing.

I used the GX7 for 2 years with inexpensive lensrs and tested it many times against the A77, there was no quality loss at all. The a77 viewfinder was better though.

But recently have bought the Panasonic GX8 with 20mp and a stunning viewfinder plus 2 pro lenses. Wow, the A77 can't compete. 2 other important issues the gx7 and gx8 both have in body stabilisation, so when I do feel strong, or not have to walk far I can still use the Sony 70-400 G lens as a 140-800, which is great for small birds.

I will shortly be putting my A77 and all the other A lenses on eBay.

Click to expand...

EarthQuake · Feb 19, 2016

KTClown said:
The Sigma is much better in my opinion, a very nice lens. And metal not plastic.

Gary

Pueblo, CO

The Sigma is a fine lens and an excellent value, but it is not a macro lens. The OP is looking to replace his 100/2.8 macro, I assume he would want another macro of similar capability.

Bexter · Feb 19, 2016

Adrian, thanks for the great advice. I'll look further into the newer adapters.

danieljcox · Feb 19, 2016

Bexter said:
Hi All, I am currently a Sony A mount (Sony A77) shooter and do really like the system. I get the feeling that Sony are dropping the A mount and am looking for an upgrade path.

Did anyone else switch from APS-C to Micro 4/3 and what are your thoughts?

I looked today at an Oly EM1 and the 40-150mm + 1.4x tele. I was very impressed with the size and weight. However I am concerned about these things:

Image quality at higher ISO's (guessing similar to my A77 which isn't brilliant but ok)
Autofocus speed
Lack of shallow depth of field

Can anyone comment that has had a similar background to me about these things.

Just for the record I use the following lenses on my A77 so would need similar ones for Oly and would sell the Sony/Minolta gear

Minolta 200mm f2.8 and 1.4x tele
Sony 70-400mm (love this but it is heavy)
Sony CZ 16-80mm
Minolta 100mm Macro
Minolts Macro ringflash and controller

Also anyone recommend a good macro flash for m4/3? The ones I saw look for emount and I imagine are quite large.

Any feedback is appreciated. I am not totally set on M4/3 so looking for balanced opinions!

Thanks!

I switched virtually completely from the Nikon system to Panasonic's Lumix system. Could not be happier though there are some pluses and minuses. Pluses include incredibly lightweight and compact system that allows me to take all my gear when on assignment. Not just what I think I might need for that particular shoot. Downside includes about 1.5- 2 stop less high ISO capabilities to a full frame Nikon, but about the same as Nikon DX bodies.

I started shooting MFT seriously back in about 2010. I've written extensively about this major change in how I shoot my professional work in the Lumix Diaries on my Blog.

I absolutely love what Panasonic Lumix and Olympus are doing. I find Lumix much easier to use than Olympus and with much better ergonomics and the fastest way to change AF sensor of ANY camera being made today . Olympus is building some amazing lenses and Lumix is also bringing equally excellent lenses to the system such as the new Leica 100-400mm zoom. For longevity and durability I've had virtually no issues with any of my many Lumix bodies. Olympus on the other hand is having some real challenges keeping their bodies in working order based on many comments here on DPReview. Even so, many photographers are very dedicated to the Olympus brand.

One thing to keep in mind, don't let people dissuade you from looking at Lumix. I often hear uneducated photographers criticizing Panasonic for making things other than cameras and they do make lots of other household appliances but Panasonic is one of the largest electronic companies in the world. Today all cameras are nothing more than electronic computers with quality lenses attached and knowing how to make electronics work and stay working is the name of the game. Take a look at this video showing the Panasoinc Toughbook in action. I can tell you from experience that much of the durability and technology that kept this Toughbook alive is also built in to the Lumix line of cameras.

--

Daniel J. Cox
http://www.naturalexposures.com
http://naturalexposures.com/corkboard/
#Lumixlounge

Adrian Harris · Feb 20, 2016

Erick L said:
I'd go with the new a6300 and adapter.

OzRay · Feb 20, 2016

Adrian Harris said:
the trouble is the new A6 300 with an adaptor and the Old Sony lenses will still weigh just as much there probably wouldn't be any point in changing his system

No where did the OP mention that weight was an issue, quality was the most important aspect. The way some talk about m4/3, it's akin to anorexia being a good thing.

EarthQuake · Feb 20, 2016

OzRay said:
Adrian Harris said:

the trouble is the new A6 300 with an adaptor and the Old Sony lenses will still weigh just as much there probably wouldn't be any point in changing his system

Click to expand...

I agree, there is little point in switching to an A6300 (and losing IBIS) but sticking with the large A mount lenses that will not perform as well on the smaller body. Some (like the OP's 100mm and 200mm) won't even AF without the large, and expensive LAEA4 with AF motor and SLT mirror - essentially converting the A6300 back into a DSLR.

Now, switching to the A6300, selling most of the native A mount lenses and replacing them with E mount, but keeping the 70-400 (there are no E mount alternatives to that lens), would make more sense, but I think the M43 lens lineup has better options.

No where did the OP mention that weight was an issue said:
I looked today at an Oly EM1 and the 40-150mm + 1.4x tele. I was very impressed with the size and weight. However I am concerned about these things:

[/QUOTE]

davidedric · Feb 20, 2016

OzRay said:
it's akin to anorexia being a good thing.

Tread carefully. Maybe you are lucky enough to be strong and healthy, but it may not always be so. Those of us with bodies damaged in various ways are grateful for the reduced weight.

While I am posting, anorexia is a vile disease. I think it's best not to reference it in a throwaway line.

Dave

Erick L · Feb 20, 2016

EarthQuake said:
OzRay said:

Adrian Harris said:

the trouble is the new A6 300 with an adaptor and the Old Sony lenses will still weigh just as much there probably wouldn't be any point in changing his system

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree, there is little point in switching to an A6300 (and losing IBIS) but sticking with the large A mount lenses that will not perform as well on the smaller body.

Why would they not perform?

EarthQuake said:
Some (like the OP's 100mm and 200mm) won't even AF without the large, and expensive LAEA4 with AF motor and SLT mirror

It will AF with the small adapter.

Looking for opinions from wildlife/landscape photographers that moved from APS-C

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts