Hiker and traveler - choosing our next camera

Pretty tough call. Also depends on how heavily you have invested on Canon lenses. There are adapters but they can't work as the native glass and also add weight.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/146655216@N05/

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

I think I am optimizing for: Weight/size, IQ, and dynamic range.

When we finish our photos, we love to do photo books & print large canvases for our home. So I think maintaining the image quality of the 6D would be a minimal bar. It'd be a nice bonus if any quality improved (for the larger canvases in particular).

Click to expand...

Scarlet, much depends on how you define "large canvases." What size are those, exactly? What percentage of the time do you make those large canvases?

It also depends on how much sense it makes for you to spend thousands of dollars only to save "a gram or two" (0.035 to 0.07 ounces).

As for expanding dynamic range (DR), have you considered that might be more important than print size? With a small enough camera body and a small lightweight travel tripod you can shoot 3 exposures of scenes at different apertures to be combined in HDR.

For the record, while I prefer shooting with 5DSr and the 24-70/4L, when I'm hiking any distance I rely on a Sony RX-10 (24-200/2.8 lens) and a travel tripod. No, the images aren't as sharp as any full frame can produce, but I find the versatility more than makes up for it in bringing back images I otherwise wouldn't have made.

If you respond to my questions, I can offer more specific options for your consideration.

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

Click to expand...

You sound like the ideal candidate for m4/3 mirrorless. Four years ago, for the purpose of hiking, I switched over to the Olympus EM-1 and a set of micro4/3 lenses. The weight saving comes mostly in the lenses as with a smaller (but still great 16MB sensor) the diameter of the lenses is much smaller for comparable lenses than in FF or FF mirrorless. Although I've done alpine climbing/hiking and photography since the 1970's I had come to gradually carry my heavy gear less and less and also found some shots lacking critical sharpness. So, I switched gear and now carry at least the one superb Olympus 12-40 on all scenic hikes. At age 70 my longest hikes could still be 20 miles and 6000' of gain but on average I probably hike 12 miles and 3000'.

My state of the art (as far as functions) camera body weighs 430 grams and I carry on all photogenic hikes a 12-40 Olympus 2.8 lens (double the FL for FF equivalency); and sometimes the Panasonic 35-100 F2.8, the Olympus 8mm F1.8 FE, and the 60mm macro by Olympus in flower season. If I am in very good wildlife areas I might carry the Olympus 75-300 telephoto instead of the 35-100. These lenses weigh 382 grams, 330 grams, 315 grams, 182 grams, and somewhere around 500 grams for the 75-300. All except the 75-300 are top tier superb lenses. The 12-40 is also a superb lens for close-up photography, being able to produce 1:3 close-up images.


Coronis fritillary on Eucephalus ledophyllus


Othocarpus imbricatus

Scarletink said:

I think I am optimizing for: Weight/size, IQ, and dynamic range.

Click to expand...

You will find IQ to be surprisingly good but give up a stop or two in dynamic range. I don't find this to be very limiting from my experience despite the fact that I also shoot almost exclusively jpegs with the Olympus; only saving as RAW images particularly problematic images that are also high quality.

Scarletink said:

I think weight/size makes sense & is clear, because of vacations & hiking. Awfully nice if we can drop a gram or two.

Click to expand...

Again, the saving is in the lenses, not camera bodies to any great degree.

Scarletink said:

When we finish our photos, we love to do photo books & print large canvases for our home. So I think maintaining the image quality of the 6D would be a minimal bar. It'd be a nice bonus if any quality improved (for the larger canvases in particular).

Click to expand...

You could print to 20x24 with very good quality. I have a 27" monitor and find no limitation in image resolution (small detail in trees or on a horizon line) until I get closer than 8-9" from the monitor, at which point I have gotten too close to comprehend the context of what I am looking at.

Scarletink said:

Finally, dynamic range. Since we're hiking & taking photos (rather than taking photos & hiking), we often end up at beautiful spots at mid-day. We often have blown out highlights (or darks), because the lighting isn't optimal. My thought is that dynamic range might slightly expand the number of photos we could pull darks/lights out of, which otherwise would be too ugly to use

Click to expand...

In my view the vast majority of high dynamic range images are not the best of images. That said, I find with my camera that I can hold detail even in a jpeg in bright clouds and still have detail that replicates what the scene appeared to my eyes in shadow areas. I don't go for the surreal boosting of shadows to several stops beyond reality.

Scarletink said:

The above make sense?

If the above makes sense, I was primarily deciding between the Canon EOS R (to keep the same lens system), and the Sony A7 iii. I also considered the Sony A7R iii, but 1) I think the extra pixels aren't necessarily needed for our printing needs, and 2) I've heard a few things about DR & autofocus & battery life that make me think the A7 iii (If I don't need the pixels) might be better. Not to mention the money saved. The Sony has the added advantage of 2 card slots (be nice to have backup on once in a lifetime trips), and stabilization, since we never carry tripods.

Click to expand...

New generation (past six years) m4/3 bodies have state of the art stabilization. I can consistently shoot all but the 75-300 at 1/30 second and sometimes down to 1/10 second. I carry a tripod for night photography only.

Other in camera functions include focus stacking (which I might use for flowers but more likely mosses), the ability to shoot a 50MB landscape image, and Live Composite for star trails.

Scarletink said:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 6D,Canon EOS R,Sony ILCE-7M3

If you believe Photons to photos, it looks like the Sony is a step above the DR of the Canon EOS R. Am I reading this right, and is it believable? If all of the above makes sense and that data is correct, I think the Sony A7 iii might be the best option for us.

I'd love to know if my assumptions & use cases & end decision make sense, or if I'm overlooking something

Click to expand...

Scarletink said:

If the above makes sense, I was primarily deciding between the Canon EOS R (to keep the same lens system), and the Sony A7 iii.

Click to expand...

Check cameras and lenses for your application. There is always a tradeoff between image quality and manageable size.

Using an adapter (to keep old lenses) will increase size and weight compared to a lens designed for mirrorless cameras.

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

I think I am optimizing for: Weight/size, IQ, and dynamic range.

I think weight/size makes sense & is clear, because of vacations & hiking. Awfully nice if we can drop a gram or two.

When we finish our photos, we love to do photo books & print large canvases for our home. So I think maintaining the image quality of the 6D would be a minimal bar. It'd be a nice bonus if any quality improved (for the larger canvases in particular).

Finally, dynamic range. Since we're hiking & taking photos (rather than taking photos & hiking), we often end up at beautiful spots at mid-day. We often have blown out highlights (or darks), because the lighting isn't optimal. My thought is that dynamic range might slightly expand the number of photos we could pull darks/lights out of, which otherwise would be too ugly to use

The above make sense?

Click to expand...

First of all there is a huge gap between what you might see pixel peeping in processing and what anyone might see, including you, looking at a print at normal viewing distance. You might beat the 2012 era sensor in the former setting, but don't count on by the latter standard. What you are going to really gain is less weight and bulk to carry, not better images on your walls.

Scarletink said:

If the above makes sense, I was primarily deciding between the Canon EOS R (to keep the same lens system),

Click to expand...

You should assume that you will migrate to native lenses quicker than you might think. You will be happy the day you ditch the adapter and you will start to think about that fact fairly soon. But for adapters, for your class of shooting the Metabones EF to FE on the Sony will produce the same usability as the EOS EF to R adapter. Neither one will be a factor for very long, I'd guess though.

Scarletink said:

and the Sony A7 iii. I also considered the Sony A7R iii, but 1) I think the extra pixels aren't necessarily needed for our printing needs, and 2) I've heard a few things about DR & autofocus & battery life that make me think the A7 iii (If I don't need the pixels) might be better. Not to mention the money saved.

Click to expand...

Right. The extra pixels are not going to get you anything.

Scarletink said:

The Sony has the added advantage of 2 card slots (be nice to have backup on once in a lifetime trips),

Click to expand...

Nice for anxiety reduction, but extremely unlikely to ever happen. It wouldn't be a factor for me.

Scarletink said:

and stabilization, since we never carry tripods.

Click to expand...

This, in my view, is the first real difference. It will give you some dof flexibility via smaller aperture or reduced noise via lower ISO that you won't have with the Canon (until you get the new RF IS f4 zoom lens), but with the Sony you can get that IBIS advantage with every lens, including instantly with your current Canon 2.8 L zoom and the metabones adapter if you want it.

Scarletink said:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 6D,Canon EOS R,Sony ILCE-7M3

If you believe Photons to photos, it looks like the Sony is a step above the DR of the Canon EOS R. Am I reading this right, and is it believable?

Click to expand...

Technically, it's probably right, but will you actually see it on your wall, no.

Scarletink said:

If all of the above makes sense and that data is correct, I think the Sony A7 iii might be the best option for us.

I'd love to know if my assumptions & use cases & end decision make sense, or if I'm overlooking something

Click to expand...

Overall however I'd say the earlier response that recommends considering 4/3 makes sense to think about. Your audience will never ever see any difference. Although I've never shot 4/3, I did stop carrying the A7R and switched to Sony A6x APS-C because the camera and lenses are much lighter and smaller. I can never see any real difference, certainly not in a print.

Bottom line: IQ of all current cameras is great, even down to 4/3, probably, and certainly down to APS-C. Don't decide between these two FF based on IQ, is my advice. Stabilization is a possible factor as is lens choice, assuming you will want to get to native sooner than you now imagine.

Gary from Seattle said:

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

Click to expand...

You sound like the ideal candidate for m4/3 mirrorless. Four years ago, for the purpose of hiking, I switched over to the Olympus EM-1 and a set of micro4/3 lenses. The weight saving comes mostly in the lenses as with a smaller (but still great 16MB sensor) the diameter of the lenses is much smaller for comparable lenses than in FF or FF mirrorless. Although I've done alpine climbing/hiking and photography since the 1970's I had come to gradually carry my heavy gear less and less and also found some shots lacking critical sharpness. So, I switched gear and now carry at least the one superb Olympus 12-40 on all scenic hikes. At age 70 my longest hikes could still be 20 miles and 6000' of gain but on average I probably hike 12 miles and 3000'.

Click to expand...

First of all those long hikes from Gary sound impressive!!

I made a similar decision to use m43 equipment for hiking in and around the mountains, while keeping my Nikon DSLR system for other uses.

Here's some sort of technical thoughts on that,...

My Olympus/Panasonic kit with the OMD EM1 Mk ii and 3 lenses weighs in at about 1.9kg so it’s not the tiny lightweight system people seem to often associate with m43. Good glass does still have its weight, no matter what body it is used with. I have 3 excellent high quality, fairly bright lenses that have all had glowing reviews.

8-18 Panasonic Leica F2.8-4
12-40 Olympus pro F2.8
50-200 Panasonic Leica F2.8-4

These 3 lenses, with their x2 crop factor, cover a Focal length of 16-400mm in FF terms and lately I have them all with me on most hikes. The weight and bulk of my Nikon APS-C system with similar high quality lenses is more than that and more than I’d want to carry all the time. I still do use and enjoy my Nikon system, but don’t take it anymore on the longer hikes. “Upgrading” to FF has also been tempting over the years, but then it would be even heavier, mainly because of the lenses.

So what am I missing with my m43 system?

First, Resolution. Only 20M Pixels on the OMD EM1 Mkii instead of 24 with my Nikon, but that is not usually an issue,
I find with those 20M Pixels I can print large like 50 x 80cm or 70 x 100 cm and still show very good detail. FF with about 50MPixels would be nice, but to do that resolution justice you’d sometimes need a tripod, and also have to hope the subject isn’t moving much. That is again all extra weight ☹
... and I could always make a panorama shot to get 100’s of millions of pixels if I need them.

Next is Dynamic Range if I can ,I use base ISO (100) with my Nikon D7100. That is obviously preferable because that is where you get max DR. however, sometimes, at the desired aperture for a shot, you’ll need to up the ISO to get a fast enough SS to avoid motion blur. But then ,of course, as the ISO is raised the DR is reduced.

Now the OMD EM1 Mk ii’s Base ISO is only 200.
Consider this: If I were to set my Nikon to ISO 200 then the OMD actually has a bit more DR at this setting and it also has a massive 1.2 stops of headroom, when it comes to highlight recovery. Of course, usually, I can lower the ISO to 100 on the Nikon but that is not always possible if I want to avoid motion blur.

So yes, the Nikon does have more DR, but not always.

The real problem comes when the scene in front of you has a very high DR. Not even the best FF cameras can cope perfectly with such very high DR scenes. So in such cases I use a bracketed exposure shot with 3 images at say -2, 0 and +2 stops and then process with Photomatrix software. This gives me +4 stops of DR in the resulting image. That's not always the best solution but it often works very well to increase the captured DR and there's no need to process in that often seen “HDR look”

Noise
I think there should really be no debate here. A good FF system can achieve more total light and will usually have less noise than a good m43 system. For me that means I must be very careful to minimise the noise as much as possible when shooting, so that it doesn’t become a problem. So, I always use ETTR, which is aided by the live histogram on the OMD EM1. And ,if I think I’m later going to have to raise some shadow areas a lot, I’ll often take a bracketed 3 shot exposure shot, which can give several stops of noise advantage for those shadows. It goes without saying that using RAW is a must.
These are, of course, techniques, which would work for any system but I find it more important and usually quite adequate when using m43.

Shooting in the dark? On the longer hikes it’s usually a good idea to get back to the car before it gets too dark

Depth of field
Of course I’ll use my Nikon system and some fast glass to get those nice thin DOF shots when I need them, but on a hike, when taking mainly landscape photography, its more often about getting a large enough DOF than getting razor thin DOF shots. I'll still use fast zooms with the m43 camera because the quality of such lenses is often better.

Most posters have mentioned that bigger is better, but remember that m43 does also have a high end and this system with high quality lenses to cover a "16-400" mm equivalent focal length still fits in a smaller bag and weighs less than most

The EOS R is a pretty underwhelming full frame mirrorless offering. It's got fewer features and is priced higher than comparable FF ML cameras. The photo IQ does look good, though. The lack of IBIS is pretty controversial but, for those that are used to IBIS, it's a huge negative. Especially for travel and hiking - IBIS means you can get by without a tripod for a lot of, if not most, shots. If you don't usually carry a tripod, it significantly widens out your shooting "envelope". Both the Sony and Nikon Zs have 5 stops of IBIS which means significantly slower shutter speed. Also, it's up to you how much importance you put on the Canon lenses. Personally, I'm skeptical of adapted lenses even though Canon seems to have done a decent job on the adapter. Frankly, I'd look at the Nikon Z7 or Z6 . But at present, Sony has a huge edge in lenses. Note that you won't be dropping that much weight with either the Sony, Nikon or Canon - the lenses don't lose much at all. You will save some on body size, though.

I agree with Gary, M43 gear makes travel easier. It's smaller and lighter. That's all I take on trips. And with good IBIS, I almost always leave the tripod at home. It will also cost less. A high end body and excellent travel lens can cost less than a FF ML body alone. Olympus EM1.2 + 12-40mm lens (same field of view as a 24-80mm lens) is $2K. Personally, I'd go for the 12-100mm f/4 lens with that body, $3K total. You can even find a very good camera+lens for less than $1K - Panasonic G85+12-60 kit lens is $800. A screaming good deal. M43 IQ is a bit lower but not to the point that vast majority of people can tell. Only in cases where DR is an issue and even then not that much. Lots of the winners in the DPR challenges were shot with M43 gear.

landscaper1 said:

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

I think I am optimizing for: Weight/size, IQ, and dynamic range.

When we finish our photos, we love to do photo books & print large canvases for our home. So I think maintaining the image quality of the 6D would be a minimal bar. It'd be a nice bonus if any quality improved (for the larger canvases in particular).

Click to expand...

Scarlet, much depends on how you define "large canvases." What size are those, exactly? What percentage of the time do you make those large canvases?

Click to expand...

I'd say on the order of 30x40. We don't order them too often, but they're the main decoration in our house, so they're pretty important to get right

landscaper1 said:

It also depends on how much sense it makes for you to spend thousands of dollars only to save "a gram or two" (0.035 to 0.07 ounces).

Click to expand...

Technically depending on what camera/lens configuration, we're really talking about 500 grams or something. Lots of "depends" involved, but I've looked at combinations that save real amounts of weight.

landscaper1 said:

As for expanding dynamic range (DR), have you considered that might be more important than print size? With a small enough camera body and a small lightweight travel tripod you can shoot 3 exposures of scenes at different apertures to be combined in HDR.

Click to expand...

Absolutely I think it's likely that DR might be more important than print size. At least more than the specific pixel count. Although per your question, I assume for bracketed photos, we'd need to use a tripod? I assume there isn't a simple solution to hand-held bracketed exposures? It would be a pretty big change in our process if we needed to start setting up tripod shots for everything which has a wide dynamic range.

landscaper1 said:

For the record, while I prefer shooting with 5DSr and the 24-70/4L, when I'm hiking any distance I rely on a Sony RX-10 (24-200/2.8 lens) and a travel tripod. No, the images aren't as sharp as any full frame can produce, but I find the versatility more than makes up for it in bringing back images I otherwise wouldn't have made.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we've carefully considered tradeoffs, and so far we're not ok trading off the sharpness for lightweight/convenience. I'm sure if we never went full frame, we'd be thrilled with APS-C quality (or 4/3rds), but now that we're on full frame, it's hard to drop back down. We hiked for 100+ miles with a full frame + 24-70 f2.8L + 17-55 f4L. I'd love to drop weight, but not at the expense of quality

Gary from Seattle said:

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

Click to expand...

You sound like the ideal candidate for m4/3 mirrorless. Four years ago, for the purpose of hiking, I switched over to the Olympus EM-1 and a set of micro4/3 lenses. The weight saving comes mostly in the lenses as with a smaller (but still great 16MB sensor) the diameter of the lenses is much smaller for comparable lenses than in FF or FF mirrorless. Although I've done alpine climbing/hiking and photography since the 1970's I had come to gradually carry my heavy gear less and less and also found some shots lacking critical sharpness. So, I switched gear and now carry at least the one superb Olympus 12-40 on all scenic hikes. At age 70 my longest hikes could still be 20 miles and 6000' of gain but on average I probably hike 12 miles and 3000'.

Click to expand...

On paper, I totally agree regarding the 4/3rds. We bought a Olympus OM-D E-M5 in 2013 for this exact purpose, to see if we would find the 4/3rds quality acceptable enough that we could leave the full frame at home. I used that while my wife used our full frame. Sadly, we threw out pretty much every photo from the Olympus, because in any situation of duplicate photos, we liked the full frame quality better. We ended up selling the Olympus. I'm not sure how to get around the quality gap. Now I'm super curious if I was doing something wrong, or evaluating the photos wrong. Critical question: If I'm printing small enough (call it less than 20" to a side), is there a claim that the image quality shouldn't be noticeable? Because when we looked at our photos, the dynamic range seemed clearly different, the sharpness seemed different, the color quality seemed different. We only shoot RAW, and still couldn't recover the Olympus photos to the point we'd use them.

Gary from Seattle said:

You will find IQ to be surprisingly good but give up a stop or two in dynamic range. I don't find this to be very limiting from my experience despite the fact that I also shoot almost exclusively jpegs with the Olympus; only saving as RAW images particularly problematic images that are also high quality.

Click to expand...

That's my core question/concern. We noticed when dual shooting that the full frame had significantly better quality than the 4/3rds. I'd love if that wasn't the case

Gary from Seattle said:

Gary from Seattle said:

Finally, dynamic range. Since we're hiking & taking photos (rather than taking photos & hiking), we often end up at beautiful spots at mid-day. We often have blown out highlights (or darks), because the lighting isn't optimal. My thought is that dynamic range might slightly expand the number of photos we could pull darks/lights out of, which otherwise would be too ugly to use

Click to expand...

In my view the vast majority of high dynamic range images are not the best of images. That said, I find with my camera that I can hold detail even in a jpeg in bright clouds and still have detail that replicates what the scene appeared to my eyes in shadow areas. I don't go for the surreal boosting of shadows to several stops beyond reality.

Click to expand...

We don't edit to the point of crazy, but on a bright day with bright white clouds with a shadowy tree covered area, it's really tough getting details within the shadows (or clouds) with a single photo. And I haven't figured out hand held bracketed shots, unless that's a thing I'm screwing up on

Kogel said:

Scarletink said:

If the above makes sense, I was primarily deciding between the Canon EOS R (to keep the same lens system), and the Sony A7 iii.

Click to expand...

Check cameras and lenses for your application. There is always a tradeoff between image quality and manageable size.

Using an adapter (to keep old lenses) will increase size and weight compared to a lens designed for mirrorless cameras.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I assume if we did go with Canon, we'd end up with R lenses, because adapters is a temporary adjustment, not a permanent solution.

wb2trf said:

wb2trf said:

If all of the above makes sense and that data is correct, I think the Sony A7 iii might be the best option for us.

I'd love to know if my assumptions & use cases & end decision make sense, or if I'm overlooking something

Click to expand...

Overall however I'd say the earlier response that recommends considering 4/3 makes sense to think about. Your audience will never ever see any difference. Although I've never shot 4/3, I did stop carrying the A7R and switched to Sony A6x APS-C because the camera and lenses are much lighter and smaller. I can never see any real difference, certainly not in a print.
Bottom line: IQ of all current cameras is great, even down to 4/3, probably, and certainly down to APS-C. Don't decide between these two FF based on IQ, is my advice. Stabilization is a possible factor as is lens choice, assuming you will want to get to native sooner than you now imagine.

Click to expand...

When you say the audience will never see a difference, see my other replies about my historic experience with my Olympus OM-D E-M5. I'd absolutely love to switch to a smaller body. I could see trading off the option of 4 foot wide prints, if I could drop a couple pounds of gear However, I saw a very easy & clear difference in quality for full frame vs 4/3rds. Even with raw, even without zooming in.

I don't know if I was doing something wrong, or if I was comparing IQ wrong somehow. I'd love to go with a small APS-C if the IQ was there, and DR was good enough, I just can't "drop" in quality compared to our 6D.

Scarletink said:

landscaper1 said:

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

I think I am optimizing for: Weight/size, IQ, and dynamic range.

When we finish our photos, we love to do photo books & print large canvases for our home. So I think maintaining the image quality of the 6D would be a minimal bar. It'd be a nice bonus if any quality improved (for the larger canvases in particular).

Click to expand...

Scarlet, much depends on how you define "large canvases." What size are those, exactly? What percentage of the time do you make those large canvases?

Click to expand...

I'd say on the order of 30x40. We don't order them too often, but they're the main decoration in our house, so they're pretty important to get right

Scarletink said:

It also depends on how much sense it makes for you to spend thousands of dollars only to save "a gram or two" (0.035 to 0.07 ounces).

Click to expand...

Technically depending on what camera/lens configuration, we're really talking about 500 grams or something. Lots of "depends" involved, but I've looked at combinations that save real amounts of weight.

Scarletink said:

As for expanding dynamic range (DR), have you considered that might be more important than print size? With a small enough camera body and a small lightweight travel tripod you can shoot 3 exposures of scenes at different apertures to be combined in HDR.

Click to expand...

Absolutely I think it's likely that DR might be more important than print size. At least more than the specific pixel count. Although per your question, I assume for bracketed photos, we'd need to use a tripod? I assume there isn't a simple solution to hand-held bracketed exposures? It would be a pretty big change in our process if we needed to start setting up tripod shots for everything which has a wide dynamic range.

Click to expand...

If the camera takes say 3 hand held bracketed shots with a high fps rate, then the Photomatrix software (other software too) is more than capable of merging them into one higher DR shot and allows processing to taste. With a good Image stabiliser no tripod is necessary. (unless making very long exposures)

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

For the record, while I prefer shooting with 5DSr and the 24-70/4L, when I'm hiking any distance I rely on a Sony RX-10 (24-200/2.8 lens) and a travel tripod. No, the images aren't as sharp as any full frame can produce, but I find the versatility more than makes up for it in bringing back images I otherwise wouldn't have made.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we've carefully considered tradeoffs, and so far we're not ok trading off the sharpness for lightweight/convenience. I'm sure if we never went full frame, we'd be thrilled with APS-C quality (or 4/3rds), but now that we're on full frame, it's hard to drop back down. We hiked for 100+ miles with a full frame + 24-70 f2.8L + 17-55 f4L. I'd love to drop weight, but not at the expense of quality

Click to expand...

fireplace33 said:

Noise
I think there should really be no debate here. A good FF system can achieve more total light and will usually have less noise than a good m43 system. For me that means I must be very careful to minimise the noise as much as possible when shooting, so that it doesn’t become a problem. So, I always use ETTR, which is aided by the live histogram on the OMD EM1. And ,if I think I’m later going to have to raise some shadow areas a lot, I’ll often take a bracketed 3 shot exposure shot, which can give several stops of noise advantage for those shadows. It goes without saying that using RAW is a must.

Click to expand...

For bracketed 3 shot exposure, I assume that means you're carrying a tripod? We regularly hike 15-20 miles a day, and setting up a tripod would be an awkward change in process. Not impossible, just wondering if there's a way to do multi-photo shots without a tripod

fireplace33 said:

Shooting in the dark? On the longer hikes it’s usually a good idea to get back to the car before it gets too dark

Click to expand...

Well, we do backpacking photography, so we're usually in the woods at night

fireplace33 said:

Of course I’ll use my Nikon system and some fast glass to get those nice thin DOF shots when I need them, but on a hike, when taking mainly landscape photography, its more often about getting a large enough DOF than getting razor thin DOF shots. I'll still use fast zooms with the m43 camera because the quality of such lenses is often

better.

Click to expand...

Thin DOF isn't as necessary for us, as we're doing mostly landscape photography. If anything, we're looking for fat DOF even on portraits, since we want the volcano/mountain/ocean in the background to be clear

fireplace33 said:

Most posters have mentioned that bigger is better, but remember that m43 does also have a high end and this system with high quality lenses to cover a "16-400" mm equivalent focal length still fits in a smaller bag and weighs less than most

Click to expand...

I love the idea of m43 (as mentioned in my previous reviews), I'm just worried about some form of IQ where we'd be unhappy with the finished photos.

Scarletink said:

fireplace33 said:

Noise
I think there should really be no debate here. A good FF system can achieve more total light and will usually have less noise than a good m43 system. For me that means I must be very careful to minimise the noise as much as possible when shooting, so that it doesn’t become a problem. So, I always use ETTR, which is aided by the live histogram on the OMD EM1. And ,if I think I’m later going to have to raise some shadow areas a lot, I’ll often take a bracketed 3 shot exposure shot, which can give several stops of noise advantage for those shadows. It goes without saying that using RAW is a must.

Click to expand...

For bracketed 3 shot exposure, I assume that means you're carrying a tripod? We regularly hike 15-20 miles a day, and setting up a tripod would be an awkward change in process. Not impossible, just wondering if there's a way to do multi-photo shots without a tripod

Click to expand...

I own 2 tripods and will take them with me on the rare occasions when I do long exposures e.g. to get that silky water look. But on "normal" hikes and certainly on the longer ones, I no longer have a tripod. Just too heavy!
The IBIS in the OMD- EM1 Mk ii is so good you hardly ever need a tripod.
For hand held bracketed shots, just as long as you hold the camera reasonably still, you can still merge them succesfully with software like photomatrix and many other software products.

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

Shooting in the dark? On the longer hikes it’s usually a good idea to get back to the car before it gets too dark

Click to expand...

Well, we do backpacking photography, so we're usually in the woods at night

Click to expand...

The hunters too ! ;-)

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

Of course I’ll use my Nikon system and some fast glass to get those nice thin DOF shots when I need them, but on a hike, when taking mainly landscape photography, its more often about getting a large enough DOF than getting razor thin DOF shots. I'll still use fast zooms with the m43 camera because the quality of such lenses is often

better.

Click to expand...

Thin DOF isn't as necessary for us, as we're doing mostly landscape photography. If anything, we're looking for fat DOF even on portraits, since we want the volcano/mountain/ocean in the background to be clear

Scarletink said:

Most posters have mentioned that bigger is better, but remember that m43 does also have a high end and this system with high quality lenses to cover a "16-400" mm equivalent focal length still fits in a smaller bag and weighs less than most

Click to expand...

I love the idea of m43 (as mentioned in my previous reviews), I'm just worried about some form of IQ where we'd be unhappy with the finished photos.

Click to expand...

I noticed quite a jump up in IQ from the OMD-EM5 to the OMD-EM1 ii
p.s. When I've photographed the occasional wedding I'll take my Nikon gear, one reason is because it's bigger and people tend to think that bigger must mean better and thus more professional ;-)

--
www.fireplace-photography.com

Scarletink said:

Gary from Seattle said:

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

Click to expand...

You sound like the ideal candidate for m4/3 mirrorless. Four years ago, for the purpose of hiking, I switched over to the Olympus EM-1 and a set of micro4/3 lenses. The weight saving comes mostly in the lenses as with a smaller (but still great 16MB sensor) the diameter of the lenses is much smaller for comparable lenses than in FF or FF mirrorless. Although I've done alpine climbing/hiking and photography since the 1970's I had come to gradually carry my heavy gear less and less and also found some shots lacking critical sharpness. So, I switched gear and now carry at least the one superb Olympus 12-40 on all scenic hikes. At age 70 my longest hikes could still be 20 miles and 6000' of gain but on average I probably hike 12 miles and 3000'.

Click to expand...

On paper, I totally agree regarding the 4/3rds. We bought a Olympus OM-D E-M5 in 2013 for this exact purpose, to see if we would find the 4/3rds quality acceptable enough that we could leave the full frame at home. I used that while my wife used our full frame. Sadly, we threw out pretty much every photo from the Olympus, because in any situation of duplicate photos, we liked the full frame quality better. We ended up selling the Olympus. I'm not sure how to get around the quality gap. Now I'm super curious if I was doing something wrong, or evaluating the photos wrong. Critical question: If I'm printing small enough (call it less than 20" to a side), is there a claim that the image quality shouldn't be noticeable? Because when we looked at our photos, the dynamic range seemed clearly different, the sharpness seemed different, the color quality seemed different. We only shoot RAW, and still couldn't recover the Olympus photos to the point we'd use them.

Click to expand...

I've yet to print an m4/3 image because I have some 23 images on display in my home and those were among my best images from over 20 years of shooting with the Nikon FE and the Nikon 55 mm 2.8 macro, Nikon 105 mm 2.8 micro and 180mm 2.8 EDIF, all of which were Nikon's very best lenses in the pre-digital universe. But, like I said, I view my jpeg (mostly) images on a 27" IMAC monitor and the detail to me holds up down to 8-9" from the monitor, at which point I can make out lack of detail. But, I question the logic of getting closer than 8-9" anyway because you can't at that distance "see the forest for the trees." In other words, pixel peeping at that point is a fools errand. To further the point, of my 23 Nikon prints between 11x17 and 20x24, I never actually view them from closer than about 2'.

Having over 45 years experience in the out of doors and just a bit less than that as a good landscape and nature photographer, I have a good eye for what looks properly exposed and realistic in an image. I can say that my Olympus EM-1 images are as faithful to colors and contrast as were my best 2000 Nikon images (many Velvia slides). And, of course, the detail is much better than in my film prints (and slides). I simply adjust 98% of my images (LSF jpegs) with Blackpoint, minor Shadow, Highlights and sometimes Exposure adjustments in a minute or two. Saturation can not be raised more than 3 points (6-7 points for backlit images) without looking unrealistic. Perhaps I have a couple of hundred saved RAW images.

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

You will find IQ to be surprisingly good but give up a stop or two in dynamic range. I don't find this to be very limiting from my experience despite the fact that I also shoot almost exclusively jpegs with the Olympus; only saving as RAW images particularly problematic images that are also high quality.

Click to expand...

That's my core question/concern. We noticed when dual shooting that the full frame had significantly better quality than the 4/3rds. I'd love if that wasn't the case

Click to expand...

The new cameras are somewhat better and now have a better 20 MP sensor that has more DR and less noise than for instance the 16 MP sensor in my four year old EM-1 I. I'd have to ask you what lenses you used on your EM-5? Lenses are going to make a bigger difference in IQ than the camera would make. Don't expect top tier quality with less than top tier lenses. I expect the same level of sharpness across the frame. That is more important visually than the absolute sharpness of IQ resolution.

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

Finally, dynamic range. Since we're hiking & taking photos (rather than taking photos & hiking), we often end up at beautiful spots at mid-day. We often have blown out highlights (or darks), because the lighting isn't optimal. My thought is that dynamic range might slightly expand the number of photos we could pull darks/lights out of, which otherwise would be too ugly to use

Click to expand...

In my view the vast majority of high dynamic range images are not the best of images. That said, I find with my camera that I can hold detail even in a jpeg in bright clouds and still have detail that replicates what the scene appeared to my eyes in shadow areas. I don't go for the surreal boosting of shadows to several stops beyond reality.

Click to expand...

We don't edit to the point of crazy, but on a bright day with bright white clouds with a shadowy tree covered area, it's really tough getting details within the shadows (or clouds) with a single photo.

Click to expand...

I showed one example of a high DR image (lowest quality jpeg). To my eye, the bright clouds on the horizon held detail and the shadow area of the image is about what it would have appeared to be - in other words I brought out all the shadow detail I wanted in the image. I wanted realism.

Scarletink said:

And I haven't figured out hand held bracketed shots, unless that's a thing I'm screwing up on

Click to expand...

I also backpack and with the small and low torque (relatively) lenses of m4/3, my tripod only weighs 2 pounds. A few times of the year I shoot MW, or sometimes Aurora images, favoring my 8mm F1.8 FE for those images because of the immense sky sweep and the pinpoint stars with that lens. My particular 4 year old EM -1 I body has the worst sensor in terms of noise for dark skies (of Olympus top tier bodies) but is still acceptable to me when viewed at about 14" on my monitor. The newest EM-1 II and the EM-5 II have about 1/4th the noise on exposures longer than 15 seconds. My normal night sky image with the 8mm FE is F1.8, ISO 1600, and 25 seconds. The fact that this is the weak point of my camera system means simply that on the very small proportion of night sky images I take with my EM-1 I that I leave a little on the table, but not enough to warrant buying a new body (which would be larger, anyway). For 99.9% of my images this is not bothersome. Besides, those night sky images are pretty redundant.




Full moon rising on a starry night

Scarletink said:

landscaper1 said:

Scarlet, much depends on how you define "large canvases." What size are those, exactly? What percentage of the time do you make those large canvases?

Click to expand...

I'd say on the order of 30x40. We don't order them too often, but they're the main decoration in our house, so they're pretty important to get right

Click to expand...

Then, IMHO, you have to shoot with, at a minimum, APS-C. Anything less, and you will see the difference.

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

As for expanding dynamic range (DR), have you considered that might be more important than print size? With a small enough camera body and a small lightweight travel tripod you can shoot 3 exposures of scenes at different apertures to be combined in HDR.

Click to expand...

Absolutely I think it's likely that DR might be more important than print size. At least more than the specific pixel count. Although per your question, I assume for bracketed photos, we'd need to use a tripod? I assume there isn't a simple solution to hand-held bracketed exposures? It would be a pretty big change in our process if we needed to start setting up tripod shots for everything which has a wide dynamic range.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about using a tripod for every shot? Besides, there are some very lightweight and very compact tripods available.

Scarletink said:

Scarletink said:

For the record, while I prefer shooting with 5DSr and the 24-70/4L, when I'm hiking any distance I rely on a Sony RX-10 (24-200/2.8 lens) and a travel tripod. No, the images aren't as sharp as any full frame can produce, but I find the versatility more than makes up for it in bringing back images I otherwise wouldn't have made.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we've carefully considered tradeoffs, and so far we're not ok trading off the sharpness for lightweight/convenience. I'm sure if we never went full frame, we'd be thrilled with APS-C quality (or 4/3rds), but now that we're on full frame, it's hard to drop back down. We hiked for 100+ miles with a full frame + 24-70 f2.8L + 17-55 f4L. I'd love to drop weight, but not at the expense of quality

Click to expand...

For the record, you should remember than some pros were making bigger enlargements than 30x40 back when a top of the line DSLR only had an awesome 8 megapixels. You might be amazed at what skillful use of a smaller format camera can accomplish.

Bottom line? If you're convinced that nothing less than full frame will do, then I don't believe you're really serious about reducing your load when hiking. Yes, you can make some minor weight reductions, but I don't believe you can do so without, IMO, disproportionate cost, and I suspect only incremental IQ gains.

Best wishes and good luck.

How about a Ricoh GR? You won't find anything smaller or lighter with a relatively large sensor and excellent lens. The version 3 is out in early 2019, and there's a small and useful wide angle lens you can stick on for landscape shots.

Scarletink said:

We currently have a Canon 6D. Our most common use of the camera is bringing it with us on vacations, and hiking. Even our vacations are heavy on hiking. We're also always careful to pack lightweight, as we will travel from place to place. We often use the 24-70 2.4L lens as the main carry.

I think I am optimizing for: Weight/size, IQ, and dynamic range.

I think weight/size makes sense & is clear, because of vacations & hiking. Awfully nice if we can drop a gram or two.

When we finish our photos, we love to do photo books & print large canvases for our home. So I think maintaining the image quality of the 6D would be a minimal bar. It'd be a nice bonus if any quality improved (for the larger canvases in particular).

Finally, dynamic range. Since we're hiking & taking photos (rather than taking photos & hiking), we often end up at beautiful spots at mid-day. We often have blown out highlights (or darks), because the lighting isn't optimal. My thought is that dynamic range might slightly expand the number of photos we could pull darks/lights out of, which otherwise would be too ugly to use

The above make sense?

If the above makes sense, I was primarily deciding between the Canon EOS R (to keep the same lens system), and the Sony A7 iii. I also considered the Sony A7R iii, but 1) I think the extra pixels aren't necessarily needed for our printing needs, and 2) I've heard a few things about DR & autofocus & battery life that make me think the A7 iii (If I don't need the pixels) might be better. Not to mention the money saved. The Sony has the added advantage of 2 card slots (be nice to have backup on once in a lifetime trips), and stabilization, since we never carry tripods.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 6D,Canon EOS R,Sony ILCE-7M3

If you believe Photons to photos, it looks like the Sony is a step above the DR of the Canon EOS R. Am I reading this right, and is it believable? If all of the above makes sense and that data is correct, I think the Sony A7 iii might be the best option for us.

I'd love to know if my assumptions & use cases & end decision make sense, or if I'm overlooking something

Click to expand...

I seem to do the same kind of photography as you, and I recently moved to the Sony A7R3. This is a great camera, but I wouldn't go with the huge 24-70/2.8 - which takes away from any size advantages - but rather the 24-105, which is exceptionally sharp. That being said, not sure why you wouldn't consider the Z7 w/24-70. The sensor is proven and the lens is getting excellent reviews (and is very small).

I'm having the same problem, and went for micro43's. However I need to admit, despite of all charts etc, that the colours and micro-contrast of the Canon is just exceptional and very pleasing to me. I can not find that in the lighter system I have selected, I have a feeling it is bit grey and/or blue and flat.. So in the end I'm cursing when hiking that it is so bulky and heavy, but later at home I'm glad that the output I brought is perfect