I just have to praise the micro43 system!....

Aberaeron wrote:

Isabel Cutler wrote:

Aberaeron wrote:

Isabel Cutler wrote:

There is much to be said for a bridge camera for the price of a good zoom lens. I had thought of it myself but bought a Panasonic 100-300 instead, which is probably my least used lens, although useful at times. My most used lenses are the 10x zoom on both M4/3 and A7. The Sony lens alone feels as if it weighs more the the E-M10 and 14-140.

Two areas where I find the Sony better. Dynamic range and low light-high iso without flash. There’s the fabulous focus system as well of course. To offset those there is the weight and lens size difference and the loss of features like in-camera panoramic, live composite and in-camera raw editing, 4k photo modes and other features, depending on brand and model. If I wasn’t so much into photography and the equipment that makes it possible, and was less able to afford it, the Sony full frame would never have been bought. No regrets though, because each has its place and I love learning and using them all. Got enough learning to do now to last me until at least the next five years, probably longer.

I didn't like the 100-300. Sold it.

Bought the Panasonic 100-400 which has fabulous image quality but is a bear to use on a small micro43 camera - heavy and unbalanced on my bodies. I have thought of selling it many times, but its IQ just makes me keep it.

Isabel

The manual focus ring is too stiff on the 100-300 but for the rare time I use it, it does the job. Certainly instead of either a Panasonic 1000 or Sony rx10.
I would probably use the longer focal length more often if it was on a bridge camera, but for 600mm+ equivalent focal length, the bridge camera would be a small sensor type.

I wonder how much of a benefit you would see from that? I did a like for like comparison between an A7ii with 24-240, a G80 with a 14-140 and a 1/2.3" TZ90, with these 24 scenes.

I was curious to know how the G80 and A7ii would compare to the TZ90 as general purpose walkaround setups. Obviously the size and weight is hugely different, but that wasn't unmanageable and I wondered if improved image quality from the G80 or A7ii would be worth the inconvenience compared to the highly convenient, pocketable and inconspicuous TZ90. I included some scenes which went beyond the reach of the G80 and A7ii setups, which would therefore require cropping, including four which used the maximum 720mm equivalent reach of the TZ90.

I looked at outputs at 1300 pixels high (my usual output size for viewing on screen), 4K size (2160 high) and 3400 high (1:1 in landscape mode for the 16 mpix G80, the TZ90 being 20 mpix and the A7ii 24 mpix).

My recollection is that I thought the A7ii did best for all 24 at 1300 pixels high and 2160 pixels high, including the 720mm equivalent shots for which the A7ii was down to 1490 pixels high and had to be upsized back to 2160. The G80 images had to be upsized even more, from 1360 pixels high. It was only at 3400 high that the TZ90 was best for these long shots.

Incidentally, the upsizing was done in Lightroom. I did try Gigapixel AI and I got terrific results for the 720 equivalent paddle boat swan in the top row, but it made a horrible mess of some details in the 720 equivalent boat scene at the bottom right and that rather put me off Gigapixel AI, but perhaps I over-reacted to one bad result. The G80 didn't upsize nearly as well as the A7ii, but given that it is 16 mpix compared to 24 mpix I suppose that isn't surprising.

FWIW the images, at all three sizes, are in this album at Flickr.