Thinking about moving from APS-C to MFT

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

rush77 said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

rush77 said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

Loga said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

Loga said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

Be careful with words like equivalent here

Click to expand...

Loga said:

The m43 has a close match in focal length, but no match in light gathering ability as long as we speak of zooms. The best you can match in this regard is having 3 primes around the Tamron's range.

However, I was really thinking of replacing my three beloved primes, the 14 f2.5, the 25 f1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 with this A7+Tamron combo. Even the Tamron goes up only to 75mm, the f2.8 aperture and the greater resolution makes it an easy match for the Oly 45 1.8.

Click to expand...

Loga said:

Loga said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------
http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos

Click to expand...

James Stirling said:

Loga said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

James Stirling said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

Be careful with words like equivalent here

Click to expand...

Believe me I know this but them is the facts

James Stirling said:

The m43 has a close match in focal length, but no match in light gathering ability as long as we speak of zooms. The best you can match in this regard is having 3 primes around the Tamron's range.

However, I was really thinking of replacing my three beloved primes, the 14 f2.5, the 25 f1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 with this A7+Tamron combo. Even the Tamron goes up only to 75mm, the f2.8 aperture and the greater resolution makes it an easy match for the Oly 45 1.8.

Click to expand...

I do like the longer focal length range of the 24-105mm I got for my Sony kit and I am very happy with its performance . But it does come in £500 more than the Tamron which is also about 110g lighter. If the Tamron performs as suggested it could be a real winner. If the Tamron had been out when I got the 24-105 it would have given me pause for thought

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------
http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

Loga said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

rush77 said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

Be careful with words like equivalent here

Click to expand...

Believe me I know this but them is the facts

rush77 said:

The m43 has a close match in focal length, but no match in light gathering ability as long as we speak of zooms. The best you can match in this regard is having 3 primes around the Tamron's range.

However, I was really thinking of replacing my three beloved primes, the 14 f2.5, the 25 f1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 with this A7+Tamron combo. Even the Tamron goes up only to 75mm, the f2.8 aperture and the greater resolution makes it an easy match for the Oly 45 1.8.

Click to expand...

I do like the longer focal length range of the 24-105mm I got for my Sony kit and I am very happy with its performance . But it does come in £500 more than the Tamron which is also about 110g lighter. If the Tamron performs as suggested it could be a real winner. If the Tamron had been out when I got the 24-105 it would have given me pause for thought

rush77 said:

rush77 said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------
http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

Light gathering capabilities are the same, an f2.8 will always be an f2.8, that's what the f number means. What's not the same is the DOF because of the diferent focal lenght needed by each format.

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

Loga said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

rush77 said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

Be careful with words like equivalent here

Click to expand...

Believe me I know this but them is the facts

rush77 said:

The m43 has a close match in focal length, but no match in light gathering ability as long as we speak of zooms. The best you can match in this regard is having 3 primes around the Tamron's range.

However, I was really thinking of replacing my three beloved primes, the 14 f2.5, the 25 f1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 with this A7+Tamron combo. Even the Tamron goes up only to 75mm, the f2.8 aperture and the greater resolution makes it an easy match for the Oly 45 1.8.

Click to expand...

I do like the longer focal length range of the 24-105mm I got for my Sony kit and I am very happy with its performance . But it does come in £500 more than the Tamron which is also about 110g lighter. If the Tamron performs as suggested it could be a real winner. If the Tamron had been out when I got the 24-105 it would have given me pause for thought

rush77 said:

rush77 said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------
http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

Light gathering capabilities are the same, an f2.8 will always be an f2.8, that's what the f number means. What's not the same is the DOF because of the diferent focal lenght needed by each format.

Click to expand...

RobbieBear said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

Loga said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

RobbieBear said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

Be careful with words like equivalent here

Click to expand...

Believe me I know this but them is the facts

RobbieBear said:

The m43 has a close match in focal length, but no match in light gathering ability as long as we speak of zooms. The best you can match in this regard is having 3 primes around the Tamron's range.

However, I was really thinking of replacing my three beloved primes, the 14 f2.5, the 25 f1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 with this A7+Tamron combo. Even the Tamron goes up only to 75mm, the f2.8 aperture and the greater resolution makes it an easy match for the Oly 45 1.8.

Click to expand...

I do like the longer focal length range of the 24-105mm I got for my Sony kit and I am very happy with its performance . But it does come in £500 more than the Tamron which is also about 110g lighter. If the Tamron performs as suggested it could be a real winner. If the Tamron had been out when I got the 24-105 it would have given me pause for thought

RobbieBear said:

RobbieBear said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------
http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

Light gathering capabilities are the same, an f2.8 will always be an f2.8, that's what the f number means. What's not the same is the DOF because of the diferent focal lenght needed by each format.

Click to expand...

Have a look at this short explanation:

https://photo.stackexchange.com/que...t-are-less-bright-than-ff-cameras/91151#91151

Click to expand...

em jo photo said:

Hi Rush,

Lensrentals.com is every new camera shopper's best friend in the world.

The kit you have in mind sounds like it's honing in on a ~$3000 - $4000 budget. Is that about right? Olympus E-M1.2 is ~$2,000, then at least another $1,000 - $2000 or more for lenses, assuming you want m4/3 glass similar to the 2.8 zooms you have for your Canon kit.

If you're going to spend that much money, why not block out a few hundred bucks and rent some different kits to try them out yourself?

$300 at Lensrentals.com would get you an E-M1.2 + a Nice Lens, and a Sony A7-something + a Nice Lens (or anything else you'd like to compare--maybe a Fuji X-H1 or X-T2?), both in your hands, for seven days.

Weigh, handle, shoot, examine the results yourself, at your leisure, shooting your subjects in your way. Explore new possibilities. The world is your oyster.

If you're spending a few thousand dollars anyway, it's an inexpensive way to be sure of your investment.

I do it all the time, and I'll tell you: when you have different gear in your hands at the same time, or when you're looking at photographs you've produced with that equipment side-by-side, the differences that'll mean something to you become immediately apparent.

Lots of people have great advice; but you're always better off seeing for yourself. There's no chance of FOMO if you already know, from direct personal experience, that you aren't missing anything.

Good luck!

Click to expand...

Simon97 said:

You will often read about or hear people tell you that the smaller MFT sensors are going to be more noisy and you take an image quality hit. I say this is not true!

Use the DPR studio scene comparison tool. Since you are using a Canon APS-C camera, let's compare using Canon's current 24mp APSC sensor. Now we can compare to a MFT camera with a 20 mp sensor. Looking at iso 1600 raw, the noise is pretty much the same. In fact the warmer tones are a bit cleaner in the MFT camera. Looking around the details of the test scene, there is no significant resolution advantage either.

If you select a MFT camera with a 16mp sensor, you give up a bit resolution but the image is a bit cleaner still.


Canon's current 24mp APS-C sensor Vs. MFT 20mp sensor

To be fair, Canon's AF is great for action and video. They have a very fine set of lenses at reasonable cost.

OTOH, MFT gives you good image quality using small cameras and lenses.

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

RobbieBear said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

Loga said:

rush77 said:

James Stirling said:

rush77 said:

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

Click to expand...

The recently announced and just available for pre-order Tamron 28-75mm looks to be a promising option for pairing with the A7iii . It is small , light and cheap considering what it offers

Dpreview shot showing its size on a Sony body

rush77 said:

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

Click to expand...

You cannot go wrong with either Olympus or Panasonic though if you do light painting a lot Olympus has a rather useful live composite mode which makes it a doddle

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

I know about Tamron for Sony but I think is not that lighter and it's bigger than a M43 equivalent.

Click to expand...

Be careful with words like equivalent here

Click to expand...

Believe me I know this but them is the facts

rush77 said:

The m43 has a close match in focal length, but no match in light gathering ability as long as we speak of zooms. The best you can match in this regard is having 3 primes around the Tamron's range.

However, I was really thinking of replacing my three beloved primes, the 14 f2.5, the 25 f1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 with this A7+Tamron combo. Even the Tamron goes up only to 75mm, the f2.8 aperture and the greater resolution makes it an easy match for the Oly 45 1.8.

Click to expand...

I do like the longer focal length range of the 24-105mm I got for my Sony kit and I am very happy with its performance . But it does come in £500 more than the Tamron which is also about 110g lighter. If the Tamron performs as suggested it could be a real winner. If the Tamron had been out when I got the 24-105 it would have given me pause for thought

rush77 said:

rush77 said:

I was thinking about the 24-105 as a general lens for Sony, and then getting the 70-200, a wide lens and some primes for portraits but... it's lot of money and I suspect is not as lighter as MFT or resistant.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------
http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

Light gathering capabilities are the same, an f2.8 will always be an f2.8, that's what the f number means. What's not the same is the DOF because of the diferent focal lenght needed by each format.

Click to expand...

Have a look at this short explanation:

https://photo.stackexchange.com/que...t-are-less-bright-than-ff-cameras/91151#91151

Click to expand...

I'm aware of what it's explained there and it's a conversation I don't want to start because there are very passionate people about this.

Click to expand...

rush77 said:

What I'm saying is that f number is a quotient between focal lenght and aperture size, and nothing else, there's no equivalences, etc.. Of course a FF sensor gets more light, because it's bigger and the same image it's spread over a bigger area.

m43 sensors have more noise because they are smaller, and their "pixels" are smaller, same with APS-C, etc... but the euivalence thing for me is meaningless... why not do the evquivalence with medium format instead of ff?

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

The primary M4/3 advantage is in size and weight. And the longer the lens, the greater that advantage becomes.



But there are disadvantages too. The APSC sensor is around 48% larger. This means an f/2.8 lens used on an APSC sensor is somewhat faster than an F/2.8 lens used on a Four Thirds sensor. Something like half a stop.

And if you prefer an OVF over an EVF, then you will want a DSLR rather than a MILC camera.

Either way, the cost would be about the same. Around $4,400 for the camera plus three lenses. While the Panasonic G9 body costs a lot more than a Canon 70D or 80D, the Panasonic lenses are quite a bit cheaper than the Tamron or Sigma full frame lenses with the same effective focal lengths.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...