For travel : Best IQ : Olympus EM10 MKII + Oly 40-150mm f/4-5.6 OR Sony RX10 III

Kovno said:

I've no idea about the answer to your question but I can't see any reason to buy the Sony in addition to what you already have. If you've got money to burn buy another lens for the Olympus!

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

Kovno said:

I've no idea about the answer to your question but I can't see any reason to buy the Sony in addition to what you already have. If you've got money to burn buy another lens for the Olympus!

Click to expand...

Thanks Kovno for your input. I don’t want to buy more lens because it means more bulk, more lens to carry, bigger carrying bag...

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

And the Sony would give me extra reach. What I would like to know is the IQ between it and the em10 at the same focal length.

Click to expand...

golfhov said:

Chizuka said:

Kovno said:

I've no idea about the answer to your question but I can't see any reason to buy the Sony in addition to what you already have. If you've got money to burn buy another lens for the Olympus!

Click to expand...

Thanks Kovno for your input. I don’t want to buy more lens because it means more bulk, more lens to carry, bigger carrying bag...

Click to expand...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#672,633.95,623,ha,t

you sure about that? The rx10iii isn't small. I included the ii which is a bit more compact. Only goes to 200 eq but is a faster lens

golfhov said:

And the Sony would give me extra reach. What I would like to know is the IQ between it and the em10 at the same focal length.

Click to expand...

splitting hairs based on what you have said.

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

golfhov said:

Chizuka said:

Kovno said:

I've no idea about the answer to your question but I can't see any reason to buy the Sony in addition to what you already have. If you've got money to burn buy another lens for the Olympus!

Click to expand...

Thanks Kovno for your input. I don’t want to buy more lens because it means more bulk, more lens to carry, bigger carrying bag...

Click to expand...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#672,633.95,623,ha,t

you sure about that? The rx10iii isn't small. I included the ii which is a bit more compact. Only goes to 200 eq but is a faster lens

Chizuka said:

And the Sony would give me extra reach. What I would like to know is the IQ between it and the em10 at the same focal length.

Click to expand...

splitting hairs based on what you have said.

Click to expand...

Thank you golfhov for your reply. I did not know about the Website that compares camera sizes.

Besides the usual travel photography (landscape and street) which I do mostly with my 12-40mm lens, I do like to take bird pictures and in order to do so, I would have to carry the Panasonic 100-400mm if I want to have the reach that the Sony offers. And that is what appeals to me with the Sony. Otherwise, I have to give up bird photography while travelling or carry a lot more weight (and volume) around.

Click to expand...

golfhov said:

Chizuka said:

golfhov said:

Chizuka said:

Kovno said:

I've no idea about the answer to your question but I can't see any reason to buy the Sony in addition to what you already have. If you've got money to burn buy another lens for the Olympus!

Click to expand...

Thanks Kovno for your input. I don’t want to buy more lens because it means more bulk, more lens to carry, bigger carrying bag...

Click to expand...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#672,633.95,623,ha,t

you sure about that? The rx10iii isn't small. I included the ii which is a bit more compact. Only goes to 200 eq but is a faster lens

golfhov said:

And the Sony would give me extra reach. What I would like to know is the IQ between it and the em10 at the same focal length.

Click to expand...

splitting hairs based on what you have said.

Click to expand...

Thank you golfhov for your reply. I did not know about the Website that compares camera sizes.

Besides the usual travel photography (landscape and street) which I do mostly with my 12-40mm lens, I do like to take bird pictures and in order to do so, I would have to carry the Panasonic 100-400mm if I want to have the reach that the Sony offers. And that is what appeals to me with the Sony. Otherwise, I have to give up bird photography while travelling or carry a lot more weight (and volume) around.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. Throw the lens you want on the calculator. Look at the weights and multiple views. Sometimes one angle makes two things look more similar or different than they are.

The IQ on the RX10iiI is pretty good. With smaller aperture lenses on the MFT camera's you will be splitting hairs. If you throw stuff like the 300 2.8 then the larger sensor will dust it. Just is what it is. There is pretty much a linear correlation between light collected and image sensor size.

Another resource is to go to a site like Flikr and input your parameters. It doesn't take anything into account but the lens and body used or the subject that interests you BUT if you see nothing but images below your stanDard you can make some assumptions

Click to expand...

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Thank you very much John for your detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to write this reply.

Click to expand...

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Thank you very much John for your detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to write this reply.

Click to expand...

you're going to need a long lens for bird pics

I hike with a smaller mirrorless and small zoom

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



(small pocket camera but big zoom !)

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Thank you very much John for your detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to write this reply.

Click to expand...

you're going to need a long lens for bird pics

I hike with a smaller mirrorless and small zoom

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



(small pocket camera but big zoom !)

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I will take with me my Canon PowerShot SX50.

What camera and zoom did you use for this bird picture? I could not see the exif data?

Click to expand...

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Thank you very much John for your detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to write this reply.

Click to expand...

you're going to need a long lens for bird pics

I hike with a smaller mirrorless and small zoom

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



(small pocket camera but big zoom !)

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I will take with me my Canon PowerShot SX50.

What camera and zoom did you use for this bird picture? I could not see the exif data?

Click to expand...

the exif data should be visible if you hover your cursor on the photo

it's in this link www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

hint: the camera manufacturer starts with a "C" (not a N or a S)

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Thank you very much John for your detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to write this reply.

Click to expand...

you're going to need a long lens for bird pics

I hike with a smaller mirrorless and small zoom

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



(small pocket camera but big zoom !)

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I will take with me my Canon PowerShot SX50.

What camera and zoom did you use for this bird picture? I could not see the exif data?

Click to expand...

the exif data should be visible if you hover your cursor on the photo

it's in this link www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

hint: the camera manufacturer starts with a "C" (not a N or a S)

Click to expand...

I did see the exif data now and it says 600mm !!! That is way too big for travelling (at least for me).

But I could not see the picture above in your Flickr account. Why are you giving me a "hint"? Is there something I am missing?

Click to expand...

Foto4x4 said:

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Thank you very much John for your detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to write this reply.

Click to expand...

you're going to need a long lens for bird pics

I hike with a smaller mirrorless and small zoom

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



(small pocket camera but big zoom !)

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I will take with me my Canon PowerShot SX50.

What camera and zoom did you use for this bird picture? I could not see the exif data?

Click to expand...

the exif data should be visible if you hover your cursor on the photo

it's in this link www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

hint: the camera manufacturer starts with a "C" (not a N or a S)

Click to expand...

I did see the exif data now and it says 600mm !!! That is way too big for travelling (at least for me).

But I could not see the picture above in your Flickr account. Why are you giving me a "hint"? Is there something I am missing?

Click to expand...

Yes, totally outside your requirements. He used a large Tamron 150-600 lens. Impractical for hiking. If you do want something that rivals the RX10III reach for your M43 body, I’ve been quite impressed with the Oly 75-300ii. Bear in mind the IBIS in the Oly bodies I have are very good and better than the RX10III, but I think at 600mm equivalent, the Sony is just a tad better resolution. But only if you PP. But the lens is a lot cheaper than a RX10III and smaller than 40-150 f2.8 plus TC.

EDIT: Just did a side by side test of both using an updated holding and settings technique based on what I’ve learned since the last side by side test and the balance is just in favour of the 75-300. Happy to recommend it. Maybe the Panny 100-300 is the way to go as suggested earlier.

Oh, and the Oly 75-300 has better off centre sharpness too, slightly!

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

beagle1 said:

Chizuka said:

Foto4x4 said:

OP, I’m a bit late on this thread, just saw it now. I have the RX10III and amongst others, an EM5.2, 12-40 Pro and the Oly 14-150 (which is close to the 40-150 IQ wise. The main difference will be dynamic range and slightly better ISO performance from the M43 outfit. But not much. On the other hand the RX10III and IV has a wonderful lens and unless you really look hard you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Of course, the RX10III’s main advantage is its all in one. The convenience of never changing lenses and having that extra reach is nice. And if you already owned it, I’d recommend the RX10III for the convenience. I had mine first and only went to M43 a few months ago. When I travel with the car I’ll take the Oly gear but if I was hiking and wanted to limit the gear I had to carry, I’d take the Sony.

In your case, I’d go with what you have but think long and hard about taking either the 40-150 OR the 100-400. I think forgoing the 40-100 range might just be worth it if you think you’ll get enough use from a long telephoto. The vast majority of my shots are under 40mm but quite a few are also in that 100-300 range I have while scarcely any between 40-100. And you’ll get better IQ from a native long lens than cropping.

Let me know if that doesn’t make sense... it’s late here! Happy to answer any further specific questions.

--
Cheers,
John
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9739982393/albums

Click to expand...

Thank you very much John for your detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to write this reply.

Click to expand...

you're going to need a long lens for bird pics

I hike with a smaller mirrorless and small zoom

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



(small pocket camera but big zoom !)

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I will take with me my Canon PowerShot SX50.

What camera and zoom did you use for this bird picture? I could not see the exif data?

Click to expand...

the exif data should be visible if you hover your cursor on the photo

it's in this link www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

hint: the camera manufacturer starts with a "C" (not a N or a S)

Click to expand...

I did see the exif data now and it says 600mm !!! That is way too big for travelling (at least for me).

But I could not see the picture above in your Flickr account. Why are you giving me a "hint"? Is there something I am missing?

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

I am trying to decide on a travelling/hiking camera or kit. So here is my question.

Do you think that the IQ of a picture taken with a Olympus EM10 MKII + Olympus ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 (kit lens) is better than the one taken with the Sony RX10 III (or IV)? I own the Olympus EM10 MKII and I don’t have the Sony RX10 III, so I cannot do the test myself. Anybody?

I also own the Oly 40-150 Pro but I would leave it behind for travelling/hiking because of the weight. And I would bring also the Oly 12-40mm Pro. Or buy the Sony RX10 III.

Click to expand...

jwilliams said:

Chizuka said:

I am trying to decide on a travelling/hiking camera or kit. So here is my question.

Do you think that the IQ of a picture taken with a Olympus EM10 MKII + Olympus ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 (kit lens) is better than the one taken with the Sony RX10 III (or IV)? I own the Olympus EM10 MKII and I don’t have the Sony RX10 III, so I cannot do the test myself. Anybody?

I also own the Oly 40-150 Pro but I would leave it behind for travelling/hiking because of the weight. And I would bring also the Oly 12-40mm Pro. Or buy the Sony RX10 III.

Click to expand...

I think the Sony would probably be better than the Oly with the kit lens. I have that lens and it is Ok but not great. Very good at the short end, but only fair at the long end. It will be a big step down from the 40-150 pro.

I don't have the Sony, but the m43 cameras really need the good pro glass especially on the long end. I have tried a few m43 slow tele zooms and they have been disappointing.

For a do everything camera the Sony sounds good. m43 can beat it, but not with one lens or with the cheaper lenses. m43 has good lenses as you know, but when you get away from the primes and Pro zooms the IQ goes downhill fast.

Click to expand...

Chizuka said:

jwilliams said:

Chizuka said:

I am trying to decide on a travelling/hiking camera or kit. So here is my question.

Do you think that the IQ of a picture taken with a Olympus EM10 MKII + Olympus ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 (kit lens) is better than the one taken with the Sony RX10 III (or IV)? I own the Olympus EM10 MKII and I don’t have the Sony RX10 III, so I cannot do the test myself. Anybody?

I also own the Oly 40-150 Pro but I would leave it behind for travelling/hiking because of the weight. And I would bring also the Oly 12-40mm Pro. Or buy the Sony RX10 III.

Click to expand...

I think the Sony would probably be better than the Oly with the kit lens. I have that lens and it is Ok but not great. Very good at the short end, but only fair at the long end. It will be a big step down from the 40-150 pro.

I don't have the Sony, but the m43 cameras really need the good pro glass especially on the long end. I have tried a few m43 slow tele zooms and they have been disappointing.

For a do everything camera the Sony sounds good. m43 can beat it, but not with one lens or with the cheaper lenses. m43 has good lenses as you know, but when you get away from the primes and Pro zooms the IQ goes downhill fast.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jwilliams said:

Chizuka said:

jwilliams said:

Chizuka said:

I am trying to decide on a travelling/hiking camera or kit. So here is my question.

Do you think that the IQ of a picture taken with a Olympus EM10 MKII + Olympus ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 (kit lens) is better than the one taken with the Sony RX10 III (or IV)? I own the Olympus EM10 MKII and I don’t have the Sony RX10 III, so I cannot do the test myself. Anybody?

I also own the Oly 40-150 Pro but I would leave it behind for travelling/hiking because of the weight. And I would bring also the Oly 12-40mm Pro. Or buy the Sony RX10 III.

Click to expand...

I think the Sony would probably be better than the Oly with the kit lens. I have that lens and it is Ok but not great. Very good at the short end, but only fair at the long end. It will be a big step down from the 40-150 pro.

I don't have the Sony, but the m43 cameras really need the good pro glass especially on the long end. I have tried a few m43 slow tele zooms and they have been disappointing.

For a do everything camera the Sony sounds good. m43 can beat it, but not with one lens or with the cheaper lenses. m43 has good lenses as you know, but when you get away from the primes and Pro zooms the IQ goes downhill fast.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...