Regrets (or not) on jumping ship from Olympus M4/3

bobn2 · Oct 26, 2022

River Photography said:
Member said:

Well, this is where I'm coming from:

Maybe a bit more DOF would have helped!

The bag on the right holds all of the kit in front of it, which goes from equivalent FLs of 24-200 with a fast (ish) normal. It doesn't do as much as the one on the left can, but it's a load more convenient hanging from my belt when I'm on my bike.

Click to expand...

I would go with the sony rx100vii , the lumix is huge ;-) and you can fit it in your pocket

I used to use a 1" compact zoom but I found it too restricting in too many ways. The GX80 is for me a much better balance between compactness and capability.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

abe4652 · Oct 27, 2022

bobn2 said:
abe4652 said:

bobn2 said:

Nigvo said:

River Photography said:

MercedRiver said:

Comparison of micro four-thirds and medium format.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66530441

Click to expand...

same not even going to open the link. shot m43 for 5 years and FF + apsc the last 2.

I know what i see.the most important factor i now realise is just not image quality but auto focus accuracy. and until buying the latest a74 2 months ago you dont really understand how important AF is.

Rp

Click to expand...

Those of us who used M43 for a long while and failed to see that it was falling behind, as others caught up and overtook M43 with lightweight affordable FF are perhaps the harshest critics of the format.

I see it as a good system for extreme long lens work and with little unobtrusive lightweight bodies and lenses, a good option for street photography. But the big middle where most of us are, is now better served with FF. Period.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that this conversation isn't happening on the micro Four Thirds forum, where it would actually be of interest. I can't see that here on the open forum it will be of great interest to many. Perhaps it started there and has been moved. That at least allows some former and current mFT users to comment, who would otherwise be shut out of the conversation. I see a lot of old friends from that forum here, often under new IDs.

For myself, I remain a dual system user, with Panasonic mFT and Nikon FF. No amount of denialism will cover the fact that mFT covers a more restricted shooting envelope than FF, but within its own envelope is difficult to beat for compactness, convenience and ability to be taken almost everywhere.

Click to expand...

When a Sony FF camera with 61 mp FF can come very close to the telephoto effect of m43 at 26mp, with a camera body no bigger than current high end m43, yet the ability to switch (with one little tap) to FF 61mp instead of 20mp m43, the difference has become not so important.

Click to expand...

Well, this is where I'm coming from:

Maybe a bit more DOF would have helped!

The bag on the right holds all of the kit in front of it, which goes from equivalent FLs of 24-200 with a fast (ish) normal. It doesn't do as much as the one on the left can, but it's a load more convenient hanging from my belt when I'm on my bike.

Maybe don't use one of the largest dslrs to compare to one of the smallest m43 cameras.

Try matching the OM1 (20.4mp) to Sony A7R4 (61mp):

1) A7R4: 5.1 x 3.8 x 3.1 in. (129 x 96 x 78 mm)

2) OM1: 5.3 x 3.6 x 2.9 in. (135 x 92 x 73 mm)

Yep. Vast difference.

amit190 · Oct 27, 2022

DGrinb said:
Oh.. I would be more than glad to obtain some interesting stuff... like Fuji because of colour, some FF because of low noise and depth of field, Leica because it's fun and even medium format to print some posters.

The new AF ane eye AF in several models is just amazing .Once you get use to it -you can never go back.

DGrinb said:
But, I have to keep my wife happy as well and justify all that, because it's a hobby and doesn't earn me money )

Though my E-M1 is so old that really there is not sense to sell it, maybe lens only.

bobn2 · Oct 27, 2022

abe4652 said:
bobn2 said:

abe4652 said:

a
When a Sony FF camera with 61 mp FF can come very close to the telephoto effect of m43 at 26mp, with a camera body no bigger than current high end m43, yet the ability to switch (with one little tap) to FF 61mp instead of 20mp m43, the difference has become not so important.

Click to expand...

Well, this is where I'm coming from:

Maybe a bit more DOF would have helped!

The bag on the right holds all of the kit in front of it, which goes from equivalent FLs of 24-200 with a fast (ish) normal. It doesn't do as much as the one on the left can, but it's a load more convenient hanging from my belt when I'm on my bike.

Click to expand...

Maybe don't use one of the largest dslrs to compare to one of the smallest m43

cameras.

I haven't. No DSLRs there at all.

abe4652 said:
Try matching the OM1 (20.4mp) to Sony A7R4 (61mp):

1) A7R4: 5.1 x 3.8 x 3.1 in. (129 x 96 x 78 mm)

2) OM1: 5.3 x 3.6 x 2.9 in. (135 x 92 x 73 mm)

Yep. Vast difference.

But that wasn't the point that I was making, was it? The point that I was making is that I can get a complete outfit of a camera and three lenses in the same space as an admittedly large FF camera. I couldn't do that with an A7R4 or, for that matter, an OM-1.

I'm not really interested in abstract comparisons for the sake of it, I'm interested in what a particular system will give me, and in this case, it's the ability to put a complete outfit in that little bag. Of course to do that I had to select the lenses and camera to suit. Had I chosen the EMIX and f/1.2 primes, no chance.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Aberaeron · Oct 27, 2022

DGrinb said:
Hi Community,

I guess this thread is dedicated to people who are/were using M4/3 systems, especially Olympus or OM System.

I'm still using my lovely Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 1 (yes, 1). I love it very much for several reasons, like compactness, portability, image quality on low ISO and overall system price. It was revolutionary mirrorless at that time (2013) and I switched to it from Canon 40D with no regrets.

Since then the technology made several leaps in mirrorless world and I feel a lot behind.

Therefore, I'm torn between staying with OM System by obtaining OM-1 or jumping ship to APS-C or FF.

My main concerns are: speed/autofocus function (for airshows), high ISO noise, portability, price, tilt screen (I like it more than flip).

So, if anyone shares their regrets/no regrets while staying or leaving the M4/3 it would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Dave

I have several M4/3 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic plus two full frame cameras. It’s not an either/or for me. My most capable M4/3 is the E-M1 MkII and I know that the OM-1 is a significant improvement on this. Frankly I have no need for better other than ‘want’, hence the Sony A7III and Leica Q2.

They all do the job but with rather different strong and weak points, which they all have. I just like the variety of experiences. However I will say that my A7III has a significant advantage at low light-high ISO for low noise and in your case, you may prefer its tilt screen, but having said that the resolution of both screen and EVF is not the best and the more expensive Sony models and some rivals are better in that respect

Aberaeron · Oct 27, 2022

River Photography said:
abe4652 said:

Compare the size of the OM-1 to the Sony A7r4A.

20mp on m43 vs. 60mp on FF.

I don't care how much fancy electronics in the OM-1. Or the ability to hand-hold for a zillion seconds. Or shoot a zillion FPS.

There's no comparison.

Click to expand...

id buy the a74 over the a7r4 which i did ;-) to the op sony has cheap 3rd party lens that are vey nice . AF is amazing

Rp

I think if I was starting from scratch I would buy the A7 IV and a few Sigma primes plus one modest telephoto and if I wanted a really long telephoto, rather than buy a very expensive full frame lens I would buy either a Panasonic 1000 or Sony RX10 bridge camera for about the same price as that full frame telephoto lens

Aberaeron · Oct 27, 2022

Nigvo said:
Thats not the point. The technical quality of a well exposed FF image is superior to a M43 image. Period.

I just find it annoying when M43 users say there is little difference between the formats.

Unless one looks at an image ‘technically’ there just isn’t much difference until the light gets low, and then there are often other factors to consider.

I do shoot using full frame cameras for a bit less than half my exposures using a Sony A7III and Leica Q2, having 24 and 47 mp respectively.

Am I concerned with ‘technical quality’? Only in very limited circumstances, mainly in low light. The Sony wins here by quite a noticeable margin but the Leica is no better than my Olympus E-M1 MkII here.

What overwhelming technical quality advantage do you see in general between modern cameras of different formats, and considering that all camera brands and models are truly technically different from each other?

Aberaeron · Oct 27, 2022

Nigvo said:
MercedRiver said:

Here is an interesting article from The Online Photographer regarding IQ of FF vs other formats. https://theonlinephotographer.typep.../07/the-best-camera-and-the-best-bargain.html

I primarily use a FF camera for landscape work. That being said, I will take my Olympus em5iii on backcountry trips and when I want something unobtrusive when traveling. M4/3 can also provide one with a relatively lightweight option for telephoto and macro work. There is so much more to a good photograph (ie print) than nuances of sensors. Also important is quality of light, composition, correct exposure, and post processing skills. There is a good discussion in on the Medium Format forum about the medium format look.

Click to expand...

At a certain point he compares the OM1 + 12-100 with the Z5 + 24-100. He concludes that the OM has no weight or bulk advantage over the Z5. I made the same comparison before this article was written with the Z7, with much the same results.

Unless you are working with lenses over 200mm, there is no point in buying into the M43 system anymore as the weight and bulk advantage are not there anymore.

I agree. If you are looking at new bodies approaching the £$2000 point, you might as well buy a full frame camera these days. I have a Sony A7III with a few primes that are quite compact and the body is hardly bigger than my E-M1 MkII.

The price point of new items may be an issue as well as existing M4/3 users utilising their existing lens collection. Having said the above, I would not feel like buying something inferior if I bought a M4/3 camera today. My latest camera, bought after the A7III, is the E-M1 MkII, bought because it is a superb camera and the stock was being run down at the time, so I got a bargain. One I actually use more than the Sony and Leica combined. That doesn’t detract anything from what you posted or my fist paragraph above.

bobn2 · Oct 27, 2022

Aberaeron said:
Nigvo said:

Thats not the point. The technical quality of a well exposed FF image is superior to a M43 image. Period.

I just find it annoying when M43 users say there is little difference between the formats.

Click to expand...

Unless one looks at an image ‘technically’ there just isn’t much difference until the light gets low, and then there are often other factors to consider.

That depends on what you do. If you don't take advantage of the situations where FF can collect more light (that is, narrower DOF than mFT can manage or extended exposure rimes at low ISO settings) then there isn't much difference, but of you do, there is.

Aberaeron · Oct 27, 2022

bobn2 said:
Aberaeron said:

Nigvo said:

Thats not the point. The technical quality of a well exposed FF image is superior to a M43 image. Period.

I just find it annoying when M43 users say there is little difference between the formats.

Click to expand...

Unless one looks at an image ‘technically’ there just isn’t much difference until the light gets low, and then there are often other factors to consider.

Click to expand...

That depends on what you do. If you don't take advantage of the situations where FF can collect more light (that is, narrower DOF than mFT can manage or extended exposure rimes at low ISO settings) then there isn't much difference, but of you do, there is.

The longer the exposure time, the less advantage full frame has over M4/3 in my experience. Olympus has especially good extended exposure features including ‘live composite’. M4/3 also have long exposure noise reduction features, which does double the time taken, which may sometimes be an issue.

Given a suitable lens, M4/3 gives me as much shallow depth of field as I require. Yes you can go narrower with the fastest full frame lenses but that can be as much a disadvantage as an advantage, depending on your taste and what you are trying to do.

It’s swings and roundabouts for me. I use both and try to choose which outfit will work best for the scenes and circumstances I’m likely to encounter. Whichever format and lens[es] I choose, sometimes it isn’t the right one. In which case I do the best I can with what I’ve got at hand.

Search

Regrets (or not) on jumping ship from Olympus M4/3

bobn2

Forum Pro

abe4652

Veteran Member

amit190

Leading Member

bobn2

Forum Pro

Aberaeron

Forum Pro

Aberaeron

Forum Pro

Aberaeron

Forum Pro

Aberaeron

Forum Pro

bobn2

Forum Pro

Aberaeron

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts