For those with two systems....

lokatz said:

jalywol said:

ahaslett said:

...

The FE lens catalogue is larger than the MFT one, although on average the lenses are larger and more expensive. You do get something for the added cost and weight though. There are more normal to WA options in FE mount, including some that compare well on size.

Click to expand...

Well, that gets back to the FF size dilemma. Even with smaller bodies, once you get up into a little bit longer lens, you get big and clunky. For wides? Yeah, you are good, but not for the long FLs.

Click to expand...

You both have a point here - to a degree. I feel you're still missing something:

If you've never tried lenses such as Laowa's 6mm and 7.5mm f/2 ones, check these out. They are ridiculously small, solidly built and VERY good, with next to no rectilinear distortion.

Ok, those are weird ones, as they combine manual focus with camera-controlled aperture, but they underline the MFT value proposition with options FF struggles to cope with. The 6mm lens weighs 199g, the 7.5mm 170g. How's your equivalent FF lens compare? ;-)

Click to expand...

Is this a trick question? Laowa's own FF 11/4.5 is only 55g more than the 6/2, it's like 6mm longer physically, and that extra mm in FL is significant... They've got a similarly small 14/2.

Laowa's FF UWA lends catalog is so much larger than that tho, Andrew and jaly are right IMO, under tele FLs the overlap between formats is quite significant and FF tends to have a larger variety of wides and UWAs. From 75mm onward both formats kinda veer in different directions. This isn't a pro or con for either, it just is. That's why I'm still shooting both, across other systems there's only a few instances of teles anywhere near equivalent to some of the M4/3 stuff.

Impulses said:

lokatz said:

jalywol said:

ahaslett said:

...

The FE lens catalogue is larger than the MFT one, although on average the lenses are larger and more expensive. You do get something for the added cost and weight though. There are more normal to WA options in FE mount, including some that compare well on size.

Click to expand...

Well, that gets back to the FF size dilemma. Even with smaller bodies, once you get up into a little bit longer lens, you get big and clunky. For wides? Yeah, you are good, but not for the long FLs.

Click to expand...

You both have a point here - to a degree. I feel you're still missing something:

If you've never tried lenses such as Laowa's 6mm and 7.5mm f/2 ones, check these out. They are ridiculously small, solidly built and VERY good, with next to no rectilinear distortion.

Ok, those are weird ones, as they combine manual focus with camera-controlled aperture, but they underline the MFT value proposition with options FF struggles to cope with. The 6mm lens weighs 199g, the 7.5mm 170g. How's your equivalent FF lens compare? ;-)

Click to expand...

Is this a trick question? Laowa's own FF 11/4.5 is only 55g more than the 6/2, it's like 6mm longer physically, and that extra mm in FL is significant... They've got a similarly small 14/2.

Laowa's FF UWA lends catalog is so much larger than that tho, Andrew and jaly are right IMO, under tele FLs the overlap between formats is quite significant and FF tends to have a larger variety of wides. From 75mm onward both formats kinda veer in different directions. This isn't a pro or con for either, it just is.

Click to expand...

This spreadsheet can be sorted by any column. It's a work in progress but should help with these kinds of questions about lens weight.

https://merely.xyz/lenses/

I count 26 FE lenses under 300g, excluding Laowas and Voigts. The CV 15/4.5 makes it, as will a handful of Laowas.

Andrew

I commented about how I use my two systems, then read thru the thread while leaving a couple other comments... After taking it all in I'm kinda surprised how much of this discussion is still about things like noise and lens size tbh, yeah base ISO on FF is cleaner and FF teles are smaller but a lot of those discussions even seemed to center around shooting in decent light with non-tele FLs.

For me the overlap on UWA thru short tele primes and UWA zooms is so significant that I couldn't really say I'd pick one system over the other based on that, and while I like the proceeding leeway of my FF files it wasn't as attractive as the cropping leeway... I think the more surprising part is how little of the discussion has been about more practical matters, like IBIS and AF.

Sure, these aren't things that are necessarily tied to the format discussion but they are tied to the systems and that's what the thread title asked about. Are a lot of M4/3 shooters not shooting action or kids? Did everyone doing so move to an OM-1? (being just a little bit snarky here, sorry) Similarly, IBIS on other systems is just now approaching M4/3 standards, no one's taking hand held video at family gatherings etc.?

I dunno, I'm just struck about how little mention I saw of those things across the whole discussion. Small fast wides coming out after 2019 made me take notice of E mount and start considering it, and the cropping/processing leeway was interesting, but it was the still disappointing tracking on my E-M5 III that made me look elsewhere more...

I was kinda vague on use cases in my own comment and made it more about the gear so maybe I'm part of the ambiguity I'm poking at, but there's no FF tele combo as inconspicuous as my GX850+75/1.8 and there's no way I could shoot kids in motion with my M4/3 bodies as easily as I can with my Sony.

ahaslett said:

Impulses said:

lokatz said:

jalywol said:

ahaslett said:

...

The FE lens catalogue is larger than the MFT one, although on average the lenses are larger and more expensive. You do get something for the added cost and weight though. There are more normal to WA options in FE mount, including some that compare well on size.

Click to expand...

Well, that gets back to the FF size dilemma. Even with smaller bodies, once you get up into a little bit longer lens, you get big and clunky. For wides? Yeah, you are good, but not for the long FLs.

Click to expand...

You both have a point here - to a degree. I feel you're still missing something:

If you've never tried lenses such as Laowa's 6mm and 7.5mm f/2 ones, check these out. They are ridiculously small, solidly built and VERY good, with next to no rectilinear distortion.

Ok, those are weird ones, as they combine manual focus with camera-controlled aperture, but they underline the MFT value proposition with options FF struggles to cope with. The 6mm lens weighs 199g, the 7.5mm 170g. How's your equivalent FF lens compare? ;-)

Click to expand...

Is this a trick question? Laowa's own FF 11/4.5 is only 55g more than the 6/2, it's like 6mm longer physically, and that extra mm in FL is significant... They've got a similarly small 14/2.

Laowa's FF UWA lends catalog is so much larger than that tho, Andrew and jaly are right IMO, under tele FLs the overlap between formats is quite significant and FF tends to have a larger variety of wides. From 75mm onward both formats kinda veer in different directions. This isn't a pro or con for either, it just is.

Click to expand...

This spreadsheet can be sorted by any column. It's a work in progress but should help with these kinds of questions about lens weight.

https://merely.xyz/lenses/

I count 26 FE lenses under 300g, excluding Laowas and Voigts. The CV 15/4.5 makes it, as will a handful of Laowas.

Andrew

Click to expand...

I don't think he's added any CVs at all yet? So there's potentially even more, no Viltrox or Loxias either for that matter.

Interceptor121 said:

ahaslett said:

lokatz said:

jalywol said:

ahaslett said:

...

The FE lens catalogue is larger than the MFT one, although on average the lenses are larger and more expensive. You do get something for the added cost and weight though. There are more normal to WA options in FE mount, including some that compare well on size.

Click to expand...

Well, that gets back to the FF size dilemma. Even with smaller bodies, once you get up into a little bit longer lens, you get big and clunky. For wides? Yeah, you are good, but not for the long FLs.

Click to expand...

You both have a point here - to a degree. I feel you're still missing something:

If you've never tried lenses such as Laowa's 6mm and 7.5mm f/2 ones, check these out. They are ridiculously small, solidly built and VERY good, with next to no rectilinear distortion.

Ok, those are weird ones, as they combine manual focus with camera-controlled aperture, but they underline the MFT value proposition with options FF struggles to cope with. The 6mm lens weighs 199g, the 7.5mm 170g. How's your equivalent FF lens compare? ;-)

Click to expand...

The Laowa 10/2 is a favourite lens. Similar character as the Loxia 21/2.8, but smaller and cheaper. IQ isn’t as good as the Loxia.

Laowa do a lot more E mount lenses than MFT. The 15/4 macro is closest to your 7.5/2, but there is a 15/2, which is obviously heavier than your 7.5/2 because of the larger aperture. The macro has close focus of course.

I count 28 FE prime lenses in the FL range 12-21mm. The star is the Sony 20/1.8 G at 373g. The Laowa 14/4 is 228g and the CV 15/4.5 is 298g.

I’m moderately familiar with both lens catalogues. I chose the 10/2 over the 9/1.7 for my own reasons, for example. If you look back at the full post you part quoted, it seems to match the specific lenses just mentioned.

Until Canon and Sony started making small FF bodies, there was less incentive to make smaller lenses. I’m sure we will see at least a few more in future. Sony are concentrating on making smaller versions of big, expensive and high IQ lenses, not very small lenses per se. They are moving to excellent f4 zooms and some f2.5 primes. The 50/2.5 G is 174g. The older ZA 35/2.8 is less good optically but only 120g.

Andrew

PS my FE primes are mostly MF, apart from the 35mm, 55mm and 90mm macro. My MFT primes are more AF, apart from the Samyang 7.5mm and Laowa 10/2.

Click to expand...

I have owned the entire range of Panasonic PL lenses plus Sigma 56 Olympus 60 and 75

When it comes to primes there is not much reason to favour MFT for two reasons

1. Unless your MFT lens is really tiny for example 9/1.7 15/1.7 or 25/1.4 you can easily match an expensive MFT prime with an inexpensive Sony E-Mount prime that technically is perhaps a simpler product but does the job effectively better and it is not big at all. personally a really tiny lens was never a deciding factor but this is subjective

Click to expand...

The PL9/1.7 & PL25/1.4 aren't even particularly tiny tbh, virtually the same size as the Samyang 18/2.8 & 45/1.8 (and larger than the Sony 50/2.5 G), although the PL9 does have a MFD edge and the PL25 has unusually nice rendering for a prime that small/fast. The PL15/1.7 or the pancakes or something like the 42.5/1.7 are closer to what I'd call really tiny for their FL...

There's the 24/2.8 G & 24/3.5 DN at a similar size (to that of the PL15 or much pricier 12/2), but there's few to no 28s these days so the PL15 would be trickier to match, I guess the Nikon Z 28/2.8 might be close. The smallest FF short teles I know of are the SY 75/1.8 & Sigma 90/2.8 DN which are closer to the size of an Oly 75/1.8 or a 56/1.4 DN, one could argue the cropping leeway on higher res bodies makes them more flexible but they're still larger than a 45/1.8 or 42.5/1.7.

I'm not making a case in either direction here btw, just pointing out examples... For me for all intents and purposes my FF primes remained at about the same size as my M4/3 primes, maybe a bit heavier in one instance (17/1.2 vs 35/1.4) but usually cheaper in favor of FF, and the SY 75/1.8 can in theory replace two M4/3 primes. (in practice there's a few reasons why I'd still favor the Oly 75/1.8 as you suggested that's subjective)

Interceptor121 said:

2. In addition due to the larger format you have access to constant f/2.8 zooms while you do not have f/1.4 zoooms in MFT. Some of those lenses are not too bulky nor expensive see Tamron 17-28 28-75 70-180 2.8. Those replace a bunch of MFT primes or match MFT lenses that are great but expensive like the PL 10-25 25-50

Click to expand...

Heh, I always thought that, and it's certainly one way to skin the cat... My 17-28/2.8 is more versatile as a walkabout lens than my PL8-18 was, OTOH I did end up with way more primes on FF than on M4/3... Probably cause I've never been partial to 24/28-xx zooms.

Impulses said:

I commented about how I use my two systems, then read thru the thread while leaving a couple other comments... After taking it all in I'm kinda surprised how much of this discussion is still about things like noise and lens size tbh, yeah base ISO on FF is cleaner and FF teles are smaller but a lot of those discussions even seemed to center around shooting in decent light with non-tele FLs.

For me the overlap on UWA thru short tele primes and UWA zooms is so significant that I couldn't really say I'd pick one system over the other based on that, and while I like the proceeding leeway of my FF files it wasn't as attractive as the cropping leeway... I think the more surprising part is how little of the discussion has been about more practical matters, like IBIS and AF.

Sure, these aren't things that are necessarily tied to the format discussion but they are tied to the systems and that's what the thread title asked about. Are a lot of M4/3 shooters not shooting action or kids? Did everyone doing so move to an OM-1? (being just a little bit snarky here, sorry) Similarly, IBIS on other systems is just now approaching M4/3 standards, no one's taking hand held video at family gatherings etc.?

I dunno, I'm just struck about how little mention I saw of those things across the whole discussion. Small fast wides coming out after 2019 made me take notice of E mount and start considering it, and the cropping/processing leeway was interesting, but it was the still disappointing tracking on my E-M5 III that made me look elsewhere more...

I was kinda vague on use cases in my own comment and made it more about the gear so maybe I'm part of the ambiguity I'm poking at, but there's no FF tele combo as inconspicuous as my GX850+75/1.8 and there's no way I could shoot kids in motion with my M4/3 bodies as easily as I can with my Sony.

Click to expand...

Funny because there's no way I can shoot kids in motion (BIF, sports, action, etc.) with my Nikon FF (Z6) as well/easily as I can with the OM1. I've only briefly has sony APS-C cameras, but I think their AF is pretty good too.

Impulses said:

I went thru a very very similar shift tho for different and unrelated reasons... The small teles are the part of M4/3 that I haven't been able to let go. I'm curious how the ZS100 compares to the 35-100 f4-5.6?

Click to expand...

The 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6 are of course a bit better than the ZS100 (or the wide zoom RX100 versions). And much of that is just down to consistency. It seems like all of these wee little superzooms have at least a few focal lengths they are a bit wonky at - like one side softer than the other. But of course one has to make compromises to get so small and there are limits to manufacturing tolerances. I'd always recommend getting something like the ZS100 or RX100 from a place with a forgiving return policy because the odds of getting a lens with issues is high.

Impulses said:

I recently rented an RX100 VII for a concert and was super impressed, can't quite justify it's price for occasional use tho...

Click to expand...

I had the original RX100 and that was already impressive!

One nice thing about the ZS100 is the familiar interface - it is pretty much like a GM. In fact, funny aside about that. I was extremely frustrated that the GM1 did not have time lapse because I often do self or family portraits on hikes where it is very hard, if not impossible, to get in position in less than ten seconds. In those situations I usually just set up a time lapse and walk calmly into position with most cameras. So I was thrilled to see the ZS100 did have time lapse. Well I get the ZS100 and I'm really mad because turns out it doesn't have time lapse and that was a big reason I got it. After grumbling and trying to find where I went wrong thinking it did I finally found the time lapse function in the menu. I was just stupid and blind not finding where it was. And then, after some thought, I went and checked the GM1 and it of course does have time lapse in the same place in the menu!

I had been running like a madman over rough terrain, tripping and laying flat out much to my daughter's amusement more than once, trying to beat the 10 second timer literally for years and there had been time lapse there in the menu the whole dang time!

Impulses said:

Even an old 135/3.5 delivers pretty impressive results on my high res body vs the GX850 + 35-100 (at a similar weight for that lens + adapter vs the M4/3 combo). I'm just trying to figure out how to downsize, or what my M4/3 exit strategy would be if my GX850 dies and there's literally no more small bodies to be had, tho I'm likely keeping it and the Oly 75/1.8 until the wheels fall off.

Click to expand...

Oh the Oly 75/1.8 is so nice!

Impulses said:

It's the 35-100/2.8 I'm not as clear on, it's great for some purposes (landscapes, events), and I can't match that form factor with anything else on any other ILC, but I've been using it less and less after getting the Oly 75/1.8 and now 75 & 135mm FF options. I keep avoiding the xx-200 superzoom on FF but I guess that's one option...

Click to expand...

People rightly sing the praises of the Olympus 12-100/4 PRO. The Nikon Z 24-200/4-6.3 is actually nearly as good and of course "equivalently" faster while not being any larger or heavier. Its one flaw is a fair bit of purple fringe at the widest angle which is pretty much gone by 35mm. The superzooms have definitely been getting a lot better over the years, though really I think Olympus lead the way with the 12-100/4 which still outclasses most of them in any format.

Anyway, the Z7 plus 24-200 is a really impressive capability for landscape on the move that's pretty much the same size and weight as an m43 12-100/4 solution. But of course is still huge compared to a GM with 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6.

kenw said:

People rightly sing the praises of the Olympus 12-100/4 PRO. The Nikon Z 24-200/4-6.3 is actually nearly as good and of course "equivalently" faster while not being any larger or heavier. Its one flaw is a fair bit of purple fringe at the widest angle which is pretty much gone by 35mm. The superzooms have definitely been getting a lot better over the years, though really I think Olympus lead the way with the 12-100/4 which still outclasses most of them in any format.

Anyway, the Z7 plus 24-200 is a really impressive capability for landscape on the move that's pretty much the same size and weight as an m43 12-100/4 solution. But of course is still huge compared to a GM with 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6.

Click to expand...

The Z 24-200 is the only Z lens I have been disappointed in. My copy was soft and the CA was terrible. When the Z 24-120 was released I compared them side-by-side and subsequently dumped the Z 24-200. If I had to compare it to a M43 lens maybe the 12-200 or the 14-150 both of which cover more range, are lighter and smaller. The Olympus 12-100 compares favorably to the Z 24-120 but with a bonus 80mm and better stabilization.

kenw said:

Impulses said:

I went thru a very very similar shift tho for different and unrelated reasons... The small teles are the part of M4/3 that I haven't been able to let go. I'm curious how the ZS100 compares to the 35-100 f4-5.6?

Click to expand...

The 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6 are of course a bit better than the ZS100 (or the wide zoom RX100 versions). And much of that is just down to consistency. It seems like all of these wee little superzooms have at least a few focal lengths they are a bit wonky at - like one side softer than the other. But of course one has to make compromises to get so small and there are limits to manufacturing tolerances. I'd always recommend getting something like the ZS100 or RX100 from a place with a forgiving return policy because the odds of getting a lens with issues is high.

kenw said:

I recently rented an RX100 VII for a concert and was super impressed, can't quite justify it's price for occasional use tho...

Click to expand...

I had the original RX100 and that was already impressive!

One nice thing about the ZS100 is the familiar interface - it is pretty much like a GM. In fact, funny aside about that. I was extremely frustrated that the GM1 did not have time lapse because I often do self or family portraits on hikes where it is very hard, if not impossible, to get in position in less than ten seconds. In those situations I usually just set up a time lapse and walk calmly into position with most cameras. So I was thrilled to see the ZS100 did have time lapse. Well I get the ZS100 and I'm really mad because turns out it doesn't have time lapse and that was a big reason I got it. After grumbling and trying to find where I went wrong thinking it did I finally found the time lapse function in the menu. I was just stupid and blind not finding where it was. And then, after some thought, I went and checked the GM1 and it of course does have time lapse in the same place in the menu!

I had been running like a madman over rough terrain, tripping and laying flat out much to my daughter's amusement more than once, trying to beat the 10 second timer literally for years and there had been time lapse there in the menu the whole dang time!

Click to expand...

lol after reading just a few lines I'd already started to write a reply to let you know it did indeed have that, like every single Pana ILC body I've seen since the GF6 has had it, I always appreciated and it's kind of a shame the ZS doesn't. It'll even offer to build the time lapse movie in body I think, I recall using it during a holiday while my family opened presents to create a time lapse of that... I remember skipping the coupler or forgetting the AC adapter for it and just hoping the battery would hold.

Worked fine, I've not used it a ton since but I was really glad to have captured that memory. Funny thing is I meant to use my E-M5 II for other photos as the GM1 took the time lapse, but the lens release pin was acting up and I spent half the morning frustrated at it cause I couldn't get it to recognize a lens after I swapped... Eventually I figured out how to finagle it but it's still acting up and it's the only reason I haven't gifted that body away.

kenw said:

kenw said:

Even an old 135/3.5 delivers pretty impressive results on my high res body vs the GX850 + 35-100 (at a similar weight for that lens + adapter vs the M4/3 combo). I'm just trying to figure out how to downsize, or what my M4/3 exit strategy would be if my GX850 dies and there's literally no more small bodies to be had, tho I'm likely keeping it and the Oly 75/1.8 until the wheels fall off.

Click to expand...

Oh the Oly 75/1.8 is so nice!

kenw said:

It's the 35-100/2.8 I'm not as clear on, it's great for some purposes (landscapes, events), and I can't match that form factor with anything else on any other ILC, but I've been using it less and less after getting the Oly 75/1.8 and now 75 & 135mm FF options. I keep avoiding the xx-200 superzoom on FF but I guess that's one option...

Click to expand...

People rightly sing the praises of the Olympus 12-100/4 PRO. The Nikon Z 24-200/4-6.3 is actually nearly as good and of course "equivalently" faster while not being any larger or heavier. Its one flaw is a fair bit of purple fringe at the widest angle which is pretty much gone by 35mm. The superzooms have definitely been getting a lot better over the years, though really I think Olympus lead the way with the 12-100/4 which still outclasses most of them in any format.

Anyway, the Z7 plus 24-200 is a really impressive capability for landscape on the move that's pretty much the same size and weight as an m43 12-100/4 solution. But of course is still huge compared to a GM with 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6.

Click to expand...

NikonBiologist said:

Impulses said:

I commented about how I use my two systems, then read thru the thread while leaving a couple other comments... After taking it all in I'm kinda surprised how much of this discussion is still about things like noise and lens size tbh, yeah base ISO on FF is cleaner and FF teles are smaller but a lot of those discussions even seemed to center around shooting in decent light with non-tele FLs.

For me the overlap on UWA thru short tele primes and UWA zooms is so significant that I couldn't really say I'd pick one system over the other based on that, and while I like the proceeding leeway of my FF files it wasn't as attractive as the cropping leeway... I think the more surprising part is how little of the discussion has been about more practical matters, like IBIS and AF.

Sure, these aren't things that are necessarily tied to the format discussion but they are tied to the systems and that's what the thread title asked about. Are a lot of M4/3 shooters not shooting action or kids? Did everyone doing so move to an OM-1? (being just a little bit snarky here, sorry) Similarly, IBIS on other systems is just now approaching M4/3 standards, no one's taking hand held video at family gatherings etc.?

I dunno, I'm just struck about how little mention I saw of those things across the whole discussion. Small fast wides coming out after 2019 made me take notice of E mount and start considering it, and the cropping/processing leeway was interesting, but it was the still disappointing tracking on my E-M5 III that made me look elsewhere more...

I was kinda vague on use cases in my own comment and made it more about the gear so maybe I'm part of the ambiguity I'm poking at, but there's no FF tele combo as inconspicuous as my GX850+75/1.8 and there's no way I could shoot kids in motion with my M4/3 bodies as easily as I can with my Sony.

Click to expand...

Funny because there's no way I can shoot kids in motion (BIF, sports, action, etc.) with my Nikon FF (Z6) as well/easily as I can with the OM1.

Click to expand...

The Z6 didn't have a great rep for stellar tracking so I'm not surprised, I think some Nikon users are waiting with bated breath for that to filter down from the Z8/9.

NikonBiologist said:

I've only briefly has sony APS-C cameras, but I think their AF is pretty good too.

Click to expand...

A lot of M4/3 shooters didn't/don't want an OM-1 tho (that's why I made the snarky comment), and Oly has neglected to filter down their AF improvements very effectively... Instead we got live ND on a warmed over OM-5. On many other systems (RF, E, maybe X) those things end up on lower end bodies relatively quickly, eg the A7C got real time tracking even tho the A7 III didn't have it and the A7C II now has the AI subject recognition improvements even tho again the A7 IV missed out on them.

At least Pana put DFD on everything, even if depending on the body processing power that still lagged much of the competition's C-AF efforts... I think Pana's tracking is actually really decent so it should see a big improvement from OSPDAF, but are they making any small bodies ever again or just G/GH? If that's the road M4/3 is headed it's gonna severely limit use cases. For me better tracking was a revelation tbh, it makes composition so much easier when shooting action...

I don't even use S-AF anymore unless I'm using a tripod or something, I mostly just place my AF target and let it start tracking w/C-AF as I recompose and it just works. I knew I wasn't gonna get that on an E-M5 or a GX# anytime soon (didn't think that'd still be the case 3 years later tho!) so I went looking elsewhere.

Impulses said:

I was thinking of the Tamron 28-200 since I'm on E mount, but yeah there's a handful of superzooms that seem like a cut above past ones, I just haven't gotten past my mental block to give one a try heh.

Click to expand...

Even the best are still a compromise of course, but not nearly as bad as in the past!

AURA PA said:

kenw said:

People rightly sing the praises of the Olympus 12-100/4 PRO. The Nikon Z 24-200/4-6.3 is actually nearly as good and of course "equivalently" faster while not being any larger or heavier. Its one flaw is a fair bit of purple fringe at the widest angle which is pretty much gone by 35mm. The superzooms have definitely been getting a lot better over the years, though really I think Olympus lead the way with the 12-100/4 which still outclasses most of them in any format.

Anyway, the Z7 plus 24-200 is a really impressive capability for landscape on the move that's pretty much the same size and weight as an m43 12-100/4 solution. But of course is still huge compared to a GM with 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6.

Click to expand...

The Z 24-200 is the only Z lens I have been disappointed in. My copy was soft and the CA was terrible.

Click to expand...

That's a bummer. I pay attention to mine mostly around F/8 for landscape so the differences are likely not as great there. Only a bit softer corners than the 24-70/4S at the wide end and otherwise compares quite favorably.

The CA it has can be annoying for sure. Testing with filters I figured out that it is basically violet lateral CA. It can't be software corrected because the violet CA is so different from the blue CA and they of course are in the same RAW channel. There are a few Panasonic lenses that suffered a similar problem on older Olympus bodies but none of those were as extreme as the 24-200.

AURA PA said:

When the Z 24-120 was released I compared them side-by-side and subsequently dumped the Z 24-200.

Click to expand...

The 24-120 is a stunning lens and probably the best 5x zoom in any system. Definitely a different class than the 24-200, though it should be really!

AURA PA said:

If I had to compare it to a M43 lens maybe the 12-200 or the 14-150 both of which cover more range, are lighter and smaller.

Click to expand...

My 24-200 isn't nearly that bad at all, but again I'd give the nod to the 12-100/4 PRO as the better superzoom - it has more balanced performance and doesn't suffer from the violet CA at the widest end.

AURA PA said:

The Olympus 12-100 compares favorably to the Z 24-120 but with a bonus 80mm and better stabilization.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems not too far off but at least my 24-120 is quite a bit better than my 12-40/2.8 (which is also a bit better than the 12-100/4).

I'd slot the 12-200/14-150 the lowest, then the Z 24-200, then the 12-100/4 and then the Z 24-120/4S.

Olympus I think really hit the sweet spot with the 12-100/4.

NikonBiologist said:

Noise at base iso used to bug me too, even on apsc but then I realized looking at 200%, even 100% zoomed in is pretty silly. I’m entirely fine with om1 noise up to 10k as long as I have exposure right and use topaz.

Click to expand...

If I print at A2, the noise in things like areas of clear sky can be annoying. However, DXO’s NR works wonders in such cases!

Wingsfan said:

A perfectly fair question. I was shooting a test subject initially at low light in my house at night time. I tend not to pixel peep with my gear once I'm using it, but I do like to have an understanding of its limits both on the slow end with the shutter speed, and the high end with the ISO rating, so that I know where my upper and lower limits are going to be. So I always run through these types of tests whenever I get a new body or lens to compare it to the equipment I'm more familiar with.

I do sometimes shoot late into the evening when I would be pushing the limits of my m43 gear, and I found the RF system can handle that, especially with the is that performs nearly as well as the Olympus system does. And if I throw on a 35 F 1.8 on an r6, it's almost a revelation. We had traveled out to Newport not that long ago and I got some beautiful shots of the harbor and back into the town from the end of a pier at 9:00 p.m. well after the sun had fully set.

Click to expand...

just to clarify my understanding, you are saying the RF f1.8 lens pulled ahead of the m4/3 gear or that the m4/3 gear was comparative in low-light to using the RF 35mm f1.8?

Captive18 said:

Wingsfan said:

A perfectly fair question. I was shooting a test subject initially at low light in my house at night time. I tend not to pixel peep with my gear once I'm using it, but I do like to have an understanding of its limits both on the slow end with the shutter speed, and the high end with the ISO rating, so that I know where my upper and lower limits are going to be. So I always run through these types of tests whenever I get a new body or lens to compare it to the equipment I'm more familiar with.

I do sometimes shoot late into the evening when I would be pushing the limits of my m43 gear, and I found the RF system can handle that, especially with the is that performs nearly as well as the Olympus system does. And if I throw on a 35 F 1.8 on an r6, it's almost a revelation. We had traveled out to Newport not that long ago and I got some beautiful shots of the harbor and back into the town from the end of a pier at 9:00 p.m. well after the sun had fully set.

Click to expand...

just to clarify my understanding, you are saying the RF f1.8 lens pulled ahead of the m4/3 gear or that the m4/3 gear was comparative in low-light to using the RF 35mm f1.8?

Click to expand...

Factoring in the 35f1.8, and the very good high ISO capability of the r6, is what I was specifically referring to there. I know I could not have gotten such a shot with m43 ( I was at 51k iso @f1.8). And I know because I tried the following night. I'm still primarily an m43 shooter and probably will be for a while, but I do find the myself gravitating toward FF a little more.. I'm not here to start a you know what match with people who are fans of One format or the other, but there are definitely situations where one is better than the other. And since I don't generally do a lot of post, I try to get it right 00C.

This is truly one of the extreme cases where I would pick full frame over m43, although in most cases I don't see a significant difference in the systems for how I shoot.

Captive18 said:

For those with a FF and m4/3 system,

What do you use your m4/3 system for and what do you use your FF system for?

Click to expand...

When my FF 400/500mm prime on my Z9 and 1DX and A7R IV is not long enough and I need to do heavy cropping, that's the only time I use my E-M1X.

The highest resolution FF sports camera is typically 45-50MP at the moment, if I do 2X crop to my FF image, i will end up with a 12MP file, so the 20MP EM1X with 2X crop factor still gives me a lot better detail. of course at the cost of noise and DR, nothing is no free lunch. yeah noise is really painful to deal with in the MFT, even at very low ISO, but it's something i have to live with until the high resolution FF is available.

Also i don't feel like dropping $13,000 USD on a Canon 600mm F4, so the $3000 Olympus 300 F4 comes in really handy. not exactly same quality but close enough, at least it doesn't cost me $13K.

Those are pretty much the only time I touch my MFT system.

Wingsfan said:

Captive18 said:

Wingsfan said:

A perfectly fair question. I was shooting a test subject initially at low light in my house at night time. I tend not to pixel peep with my gear once I'm using it, but I do like to have an understanding of its limits both on the slow end with the shutter speed, and the high end with the ISO rating, so that I know where my upper and lower limits are going to be. So I always run through these types of tests whenever I get a new body or lens to compare it to the equipment I'm more familiar with.

I do sometimes shoot late into the evening when I would be pushing the limits of my m43 gear, and I found the RF system can handle that, especially with the is that performs nearly as well as the Olympus system does. And if I throw on a 35 F 1.8 on an r6, it's almost a revelation. We had traveled out to Newport not that long ago and I got some beautiful shots of the harbor and back into the town from the end of a pier at 9:00 p.m. well after the sun had fully set.

Click to expand...

just to clarify my understanding, you are saying the RF f1.8 lens pulled ahead of the m4/3 gear or that the m4/3 gear was comparative in low-light to using the RF 35mm f1.8?

Click to expand...

Factoring in the 35f1.8, and the very good high ISO capability of the r6, is what I was specifically referring to there. I know I could not have gotten such a shot with m43 ( I was at 51k iso @f1.8). And I know because I tried the following night. I'm still primarily an m43 shooter and probably will be for a while, but I do find the myself gravitating toward FF a little more.. I'm not here to start a you know what match with people who are fans of One format or the other, but there are definitely situations where one is better than the other. And since I don't generally do a lot of post, I try to get it right 00C.

This is truly one of the extreme cases where I would pick full frame over m43, although in most cases I don't see a significant difference in the systems for how I shoot.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying.

Dan_168 said:

Captive18 said:

For those with a FF and m4/3 system,

What do you use your m4/3 system for and what do you use your FF system for?

Click to expand...

When my FF 400/500mm prime on my Z9 and 1DX and A7R IV is not long enough and I need to do heavy cropping, that's the only time I use my E-M1X.

...but it's something i have to live with until the high resolution FF is available.

Also i don't feel like dropping $13,000 USD on a Canon 600mm F4, so the $3000 Olympus 300 F4 comes in really handy. not exactly same quality but close enough, at least it doesn't cost me $13K.

Click to expand...

- NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S (1.25kg) - $3k

efl 600mm in 19mp APS-C crop

- NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S Lens - $6.5k

efl 1200mm in 19mp APS-C crop

Dan_168 said:

Those are pretty much the only time I touch my MFT system.

Click to expand...

TransientEye said:

NikonBiologist said:

Noise at base iso used to bug me too, even on apsc but then I realized looking at 200%, even 100% zoomed in is pretty silly. I’m entirely fine with om1 noise up to 10k as long as I have exposure right and use topaz.

Click to expand...

If I print at A2, the noise in things like areas of clear sky can be annoying. However, DXO’s NR works wonders in such cases!

Click to expand...

That sounds like an exposure problem not a format problem. Shoot at ISO 100 if you like clean sky's. There is plenty of headroom.

SonyX said:

Dan_168 said:

Captive18 said:

For those with a FF and m4/3 system,

What do you use your m4/3 system for and what do you use your FF system for?

Click to expand...

When my FF 400/500mm prime on my Z9 and 1DX and A7R IV is not long enough and I need to do heavy cropping, that's the only time I use my E-M1X.

...but it's something i have to live with until the high resolution FF is available.

Also i don't feel like dropping $13,000 USD on a Canon 600mm F4, so the $3000 Olympus 300 F4 comes in really handy. not exactly same quality but close enough, at least it doesn't cost me $13K.

Click to expand...

- NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S (1.25kg) - $3k

efl 600mm in 19mp APS-C crop

- NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S Lens - $6.5k

efl 1200mm in 19mp APS-C crop

SonyX said:

Those are pretty much the only time I touch my MFT system.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah I know, I do not own the Z 400 and 800 yet, I do own the heavy monster olderer F mount 400 and a little newer 500 PF though, so the EM1X still filling gap at the moment with size advantage, after I get the new Nikon 400Z , I am pretty sure I won't touch the MFT again even I kind of like the body ergo of the EM1X, feels very similar to the 1Dx and Z9, but it really can't hold a candle to the far superiors Z9 in terms of subject recognition and tracking and IQ.