SonyArtisan wrote:
A bit of backstory here so skip to the comparison if desired. I recently picked up an E-M1 to see if I would like the m43 system. The E-M1 is well respected and still considered the flagship by many. Some of you may have seen my other thread where I've been talking about my impulsive buying and selling cameras habit. There are no camera stores within several hours of me that stock more than the usual Canikon (and some Sony) gear so I either need to rent or buy to test out new gear. I typically prefer to buy gear, use it for a short period, then sell it at a slight loss instead of renting. This way there is no time constraint and it costs me about the same in the end. I had an A6000 for all of 2015 that I shot side-by-side with my girlfriend's A7II. When the A6300 was announced I sold the A6000 and purchased the A6300. I did not see enough of an improvement over the A6000 (I really wanted IBIS) and ended up returning it. I then used an RX100IV for the next few months and eventually sold that off to get back into an ILC system. I tried out the Olympus E-PL6 and fell in love with the lens size and quality, but the camera itself wasn't enjoyable to use (no EVF, lack of controls, poor LCD, etc.)
So I've had the E-M1 for about two days and got to compare it to the A7II today. I tested the A7II with the Sony Zeiss 55mm, the 28-70mm, and an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM (in APS-C mode). I tested the E-M1 with the Olympus 45mm f1.8, 14-42mm R ii, and 40-150mm f4-5.6. I also used the remote camera apps extensively. Here are my thoughts about the E-M1:
The good:
- Great build quality, dials feel much better than the A7II. Many more controls. Grip is similar on both.
- Great EVF and screen. I didn't realize how poor the A7II's is until I used it side-by-side against the E-M1.
- AF-S was fast and accurate
- Touch screen works well although I didn't find myself using it much
- IBIS works fantastic. Good for 4-5 stops
- The 45mm and 40-150mm are excellent for the size. The 14-42mm is so-so (as is the Sony 28-70mm)
- The colors out of camera (RAW in LR) were slightly better than the Sony for skintones and foliage. The A7II still makes things look too yellow for my taste.
- Burst is a respectable 10fps
- The 4/3 aspect ratio is interesting to work with. I think I actually like it for portraits but not for landscapes
The bad:
- Menus are about as poor as Sony. I felt that I preferred the Sony menus but probably only because I'm so used to them.
Most reviews I've read indicate that Panasonic's menus are more user-friendly than either Olympus' or Sony's.
- I hated how when reviewing an image and placing your eye to the EVF the camera exits playback mode. Perhaps there is a setting I missed for this.
This does not happen on my Panasonics.
- It appears there is some noise/loss of detail even at base ISO (200).
Four words: DxO Optics Pro Elite. Superb noise reduction and detail retention.
- The remote camera function is better in some ways but has a major flaw. There is no face detect when using the remote app as there is with the A7II and AF works terrible in certain circumstances. For example, I could not achieve focus with the 40-150mm fully zoomed. I continuously pressed on different parts of my face and it would focus on the foliage behind me. I couldn't get a single sharp shot in this situation. Very disappointing and a bit of a dealbreaker in itself since I use this function all the time with my girlfriend for better quality "selfies". The A7II, even with an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM achieved perfect focus every time via face detect.
Panasonic's remote app is widely hailed as among the best, probably THE best.
- The "whirring" IBIS noise is super annoying. I've never experienced a noise like this in a camera except for some noisy AF in certain lenses.
With certain Panasonic OIS lenses I can hear a very faint whirring. I do not hear any whirring from the IBIS in my GX7 bodies.
- The IQ on the A7II turned out substantially better in my testing, even using crop mode with the cheap Canon 55-250mm STM fully zoomed. I thought the excellent Olympus lenses would balance this out but that wasn't the case. I believed the 40-150mm was sharper when I first tested it but it appears the 55-250mm still has an advantage. Both are excellent lenses for the money. The 55mm also killed the 45mm in IQ and shallow DOF (as expected). The 45mm still did excellent, especially when stopped down to f2.2 but the Zony was razor sharp wide-open, and sharper at f1.8 than the 45mm was at f2.2. I think the 45mm is still much sharper than my old Sony E-mount f1.8 OSS lens wide open so still impressive. Kit lenses were about equally mediocre.
That particular Sony lens is hailed as a particularly good one. Other Sony lenses, not so much. You're comparing very different focal lengths. Appropriate comparison for the Oly 45 would be a Sony 85. Reviews indicate Panasonic's 42.5/1.7 is sharper at the edges than the Oly 45.
- The dynamic range of the Sony sensor is significantly better (also expected). Very usable shots even when pulling up shadows. The E-M1 shadows show heavy noise when pulled too much and it loses highlight data much easier.
This is partially offset if you can use an MFT lens that's faster than the Sony equivalent focal length. For example, Panasonic's 12/1.4 or Olympus' 12/2 will let you shoot at a lower ISO on MFT than Sony's 16/2.8 on APS, giving you equal or better noise and DR. This is most relevant when comparing with Sony's APS cameras due to Sony's limited APS lens lineup. Less of a factor when comparing with Sony 35mm, since more fast lenses are available for that line.
- The high ISO performance of the E-M1 is disappointing. I didn't compare it side-by-side to the Sony but even ISO 3200 is almost unusable for me. It seems at least a stop worse than my old A6000, two stops worse than the A6300, and maybe even slightly more than two stops compared to the A7II. It's about on par with my RX100IV which is disappointing to say the least.
In DPR's Studio Test shots, E-M1 looks cleaner to me at ISO 3200 than a6000/a6300 at 6400, so less than one stop advantage there. a7II vs. E-M1 looks like 1.5 stops. The a7II has the same old sensor as the original a7. A modern 35mm sensor, such as the a7RII's, does deliver the expected two stops advantage.
- I didn't compare tracking side-by-side but the few tests I did were disappointing tracking slow moving subjects (cats). I may need to try some different AF settings. I use C-AF and C-AF tracking.
The E-M1 is not the best at C-AF among MFT cameras. Newer Panasonics are reported to do better. That said, the a6000/a6300 are widely reported to be significantly better at C-AF.
Overall I love the camera but I think the sensor and AF may be too limiting for the photography I do. Even though it was compared to the much more expensive A7II in these tests, I think even my old A6000 would beat it in many areas at almost half the cost.
On C-AF, yes, but on noise & DR you can sometimes do better with MFT by using glass that's brighter than what's available for Sony APS. As for S-AF, reviews indicate the a6000/a7/a7II are not great in very low light, whereas Panasonic's S-AF is among the best, working well down to -4EV.
I think if the E-M2 releases with the rumored new sensor that may be an almost perfect camera.
The E-M2 is likely to use the same 20MP Sony MFT sensor that's in the GX8, which has only marginally better rez and comparable noise. It's not a big upgrade.
Not sure if I will be keeping the E-M1 long term. I originally planned to get a two format kit (FF and m43) but now I'm not really sure if m43 would see much use until they make some improvements. Either way I am happy with the decision and glad I finally got to see what all the hype is about. Great camera with just a few flaws
How big are you printing? My experience is that with handheld shots there's no visible detail difference in 16"x21" prints between MFT's 16MP and higher-rez sensors. To get a practical rez benefit, ya gotta use a tripod and good primes, shoot static subjects, and print really big. Where I need more DR is generally on landscape shots, and for those I exposure bracket and HDR. This gives me more DR than you can get from any single capture. The only reason I'd move to a bigger sensor is for ISO 3200+. Fast primes on MFT generally let me keep ISO at 1600 or below.
Since I don't need C-AF, the only upgrade that makes sense to me would be an a7RII with fast primes. This would give me a genuine 2-stop noise benefit, but this is a pricey package, and I could not afford to shoot with three of them as I do with MFT now. Sony APS, with its lack of the fast primes I need, offers almost no noise advantage, and the MP increase yields a print only 10-20% bigger (vs. 20/16MP MFT) in each dimension.
