Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony A6000 + Zeiss 16-70 vs. E-M5 II + Oly 12-40

Go to last post
H

happy guardian

Well-known member
Messages
186
Reaction score
42
Location
Maple, CA
I have a very big predicament to decide between the two. My main reason going into MFT is the 12-40 lens. I am lucky to have tested it out for a few weeks and the thing is brilliant. I was also lucky to have tested the Zeiss 16-70 and while it was ok it did not match the Oly lens in terms of sharpness or contrast. I am not trying to start an APS-C vs MFT debate, but rather ask for opinion from someone who in the past or present also had the chance of using this specific combination of bodies and lenses.
 
Last edited:
happy guardian said:
I have a very big predicament to decide between the two. My main reason going into MFT is the 12-40 lens. I am lucky to have tested it out for a few weeks and the thing is brilliant. I was also lucky to have tested the Zeiss 16-70 and while it was ok it did not match the Oly lens in terms of sharpness or contrast. I am not trying to start an APS-C vs MFT debate, but rather ask for opinion from someone who in the past or present also had the chance of using this specific combination of bodies and lenses.
Click to expand...
Since you have been fortunate enough to test it yourself and see the results with your own eyes, why worry what others have to say?

You found the 12-40 to perform exceptional, which is normal with this lens. You found the 16-70 to perform so-so, which matches what I've read about QC issues with that lens. The m43 combo was sharper, so what's there to debate?
 
Of the 4 pieces of equipment you listed, I've only owned the a6000 but I will still try to make an informed post.

First and foremost, know which SYSTEM you want to invest in most. I'm sure you will want more lenses than the ones you listed.

I would, without a doubt (slight m43 bias here), go with the E-M5 II + 12-40. Reasons for this:

- IBIS for all lenses mounted on the E-M5 II

- f2.8 lens is faster (for DOF maybe the same because of the APS-C sensor, but f/4 not good for low light)

- more lenses to choose from in the m43 arsenal that don't cost an arm or a leg. There are only a couple decent Sony E-mount primes that are affordable and then you get into full-frame primes which are expensive and large.

- I've read many reviews that say the Zeiss 16-70 is not that much better than the kit lens, and the kit lens is not good at all. Pretty much every review says that it's expensive for what it is.

Hope that helps!
 
ijm5012 said:
ijm5012 wroSince you have been fortunate enough to test it yourself and see the results with your own eyes, why worry what others have to say?
Click to expand...
Another question that is absolutely as relevant...

If you don't plan to be of any help, why reply??
 
happy guardian said:
I have a very big predicament to decide between the two. My main reason going into MFT is the 12-40 lens. I am lucky to have tested it out for a few weeks and the thing is brilliant. I was also lucky to have tested the Zeiss 16-70 and while it was ok it did not match the Oly lens in terms of sharpness or contrast. I am not trying to start an APS-C vs MFT debate, but rather ask for opinion from someone who in the past or present also had the chance of using this specific combination of bodies and lenses.
Click to expand...
There are questions that you should probably answer as well before making your decision. One of those is: how many lenses do you really see yourself purchasing? I knew I was going to, over time, buy quite a few... so i picked m43's over Sony's APS-C due to the greater supported lens mount.

If you aren't going to be buying too many lenses, AND you actually will need good C-AF for fast action, the Sony is still a very viable option. If you don't really need heavy C-AF, and would actually get more out of having IBIS and a better initial lens, go with the E-M5 II.
 
jagge said:
jagge said:
ijm5012 wroSince you have been fortunate enough to test it yourself and see the results with your own eyes, why worry what others have to say?
Click to expand...
Another question that is absolutely as relevant...

If you don't plan to be of any help, why reply??
Click to expand...
I see you intentionally neglected the second half of my post, so let me mention it again for you:

"You found the 12-40 to perform exceptional, which is normal with this lens. You found the 16-70 to perform so-so, which matches what I've read about QC issues with that lens. The m43 combo was sharper, so what's there to debate?"

So, when you read my whole post in its entirety and not pick apart my statements to fit your argument, you find that I actually did address the OP's question.

The 12-40 is sharper than the 16-70. This is in line with what I've read in reviews and forum posts. That's not to say that someone doesn't have a 16-70 that performs just as good as the 12-40, but in general it seems that the QC of Sony's lenses is lesser than that of Olympus'.

If you tested a combo and it was sharper than the other combo you tested, why the hell pose a question asking which combo to pick? Unless you intentionally like blurry pictures, go with the sharper combo. If you use good glass on the 24MP sensor in the a6000, I'm sure you can get better images, but overall m43 lenses are sharper and cheaper than APS-C e mount offerings.
 
321estrellas said:
- f2.8 lens is faster (for DOF maybe the same because of the APS-C sensor, but f/4 not good for low light)
Click to expand...
Nope. APS-C (especially the A6000) has a one stop andvantage over m43 so f4 and ISO 400 will give same results as f2.8 and ISO 200. Bigger sensor gathers more light so you can use one stop higher and get equal results IQ wise.
 
jwilliams said:
321estrellas said:
- f2.8 lens is faster (for DOF maybe the same because of the APS-C sensor, but f/4 not good for low light)
Click to expand...
Nope. APS-C (especially the A6000) has a one stop andvantage over m43 so f4 and ISO 400 will give same results as f2.8 and ISO 200. Bigger sensor gathers more light so you can use one stop higher and get equal results IQ wise.
Click to expand...
 
jwilliams said:
321estrellas said:
- f2.8 lens is faster (for DOF maybe the same because of the APS-C sensor, but f/4 not good for low light)
Click to expand...
Nope. APS-C (especially the A6000) has a one stop andvantage over m43 so f4 and ISO 400 will give same results as f2.8 and ISO 200. Bigger sensor gathers more light so you can use one stop higher and get equal results IQ wise.
Click to expand...
 
bskbo said:
jwilliams said:
321estrellas said:
- f2.8 lens is faster (for DOF maybe the same because of the APS-C sensor, but f/4 not good for low light)
Click to expand...
Nope. APS-C (especially the A6000) has a one stop andvantage over m43 so f4 and ISO 400 will give same results as f2.8 and ISO 200. Bigger sensor gathers more light so you can use one stop higher and get equal results IQ wise.

--
Jonathan
Click to expand...
That might be true, but f4 means less light to autofocus with in low light. Also the live view in the A6000 will need more gain to give a clear image in the viewfinder in low light, because of the same reason.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Sony's mirrorless system AF with the lens a full aperture, only stopping down to meter and take the image? I know that with m43 cameras, even at f/8 or f/11, the lens autofocuses at max aperture, only stopping down once focus is achieved.
 
happy guardian said:
I have a very big predicament to decide between the two. My main reason going into MFT is the 12-40 lens. I am lucky to have tested it out for a few weeks and the thing is brilliant. I was also lucky to have tested the Zeiss 16-70 and while it was ok it did not match the Oly lens in terms of sharpness or contrast. I am not trying to start an APS-C vs MFT debate, but rather ask for opinion from someone who in the past or present also had the chance of using this specific combination of bodies and lenses.
Click to expand...
This is what I love... OP ask for those who have had actual experience with these two combos and so far all I've read is "from what the reviewers have said". Duh, the OP can also read these reviews.

Now, OP.

I have the A6000 and the 16-70 Zeiss. I don't have the EM5mk2 but I do have the EM5 and EM1. I don't have the 12-40 Olympus but I do have the 12mm, 45mm primes, I do have the PL 25 f1.4. I do have the 12-35 f2.8 Panny, I do have the Zuiko 12-60, a bunch of lenses.

What do you want to know?
 
I had an a6000 and 16-70. Get the em5mkii and 12-40 combo. Here's why:

IBIS helps get the shot a lot better than the a6000 and 16-70 combo can.

IBIS works on adapted lenses


The difference in quality RAW files is minimal due to sensor size.

you get a weather sealed system.

the MZ 12-40 pro can focus in on subjects at the 40mm end and it has a manual focus clutch which is oh so handy for such shots.

flash attachment accessory that comes with the em5mkii is a lot better than the built in one that the a6000 has.

live composite mode and timelapse/intervalometer features baked into the firmware. the sony play memories apps are crippled and not worth the asking price when olympus gives them to you for free.

personal opinion: the flip out screen is a lot better than the a6000 version.

in the end you get more of a camera with the em5mkii.
 
I will add however that using an a6000 will give you access to "capture one express" for SONY which will make your Sony raw files oh so much nicer. It's free until you pay for the pro version.

however capture one will also make the em5kii files do just as well as the a6000 files. It's just that the software is $299 USD.
 
Here is sample images taken with each of the camera. You be the judge.



2525537910da421699212ba806a4e41e.jpg



944afef0a4c64c1d81c96dd09857d6be.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20d587e5edc947edb9301cca34b15a39.jpg
    20d587e5edc947edb9301cca34b15a39.jpg
    565.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
based on the EXIF.

Also, if you have taken pictures with both set up, why do you need anybody else's opinion?
 
Same image, according to the EXIF?

However, I like the approach of posting comparative images, please redo.

tom
 
I have actually owned all of these pieces of kit. I still have the A6000, but am looking to sell it.

I decided to stick with the EM-5 ii and 12-40. I have sold the 16-70. My reasons for sticking with m43 are these:

- And I am surprised no one said this earlier, the EVF on 5ii is far superior to A6000

- Lens and lenses, the 12-40 is a lot better than 16-70, and cheaper. The native selection of m43 is better and Sony has no native option longer than 240mm, which for me was important. Also, the Sony lenses are over priced and not as good in comparison.

- Ergos are better on 5ii for me.

- Sony AF-C hadn't proved any better to me than even the AF system on 5ii

- Size

- IBIS, IMO, kills Sony optical stabilization

- Unexpected, but the standard flash for 5ii is useful

- JPEG on Oly is vastly better

- RAW are too close to call

- Also unexpected, but 5ii has better battery life, not much, but noticeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top