Im looooong time sony A7III user (my fav lenses 70-200 gm2 and 16-35gm). But lets be honest it getting cumbersome during traveling. I really eyeballing new OM-3 but im afraid I will miss FF quality. Would appreciate some input from people who has similar setup as me and tried Asp-c OM system.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A7III shooter thinking about OM-3 for traveling to Madeira...
- Thread starter lukx
- Start date
Well, it mostly depends on what you consider "FF quality". If you're shooting wide open all the time and love the subject separation, yes, you'll miss that. If you shoot a lot in dark settings with high ISO values, you'll probably also miss your A7III files. If you like high contrast scenes, the FF gear has an advantage as well.
With the OM-3, you can enjoy LiveND, Live Composite, hand-held high-resolution, and the like. Plus the new creative modes, which are up to you to design.
For the most parts, including sunset and sunrise, capturing beautiful moments, and the like, it honestly doesn't really matter if you use FF or m43. My wife shoots the OM-1, I myself use the A7RV and the RX1RII, and I do all the post. Meaning I work with files from both systems side by side all the time. Yes, there are differences in dynamic range and noise levels, but they aren't world shattering. I do enjoy my Sony gear, and I do enjoy the images it can create, and I love the flexibility the RAWs offer in post. But every now and then I like to grab my wife's OM-1 and head out with it, because it's fun to shoot and delivers beautiful images just as well.
Point in case: Lofoten in Norway, last year. OM-1 with 17mm Pro lens and A7RV with 35GM. Sure, I can print one of them considerably larger than the other, but other than that I can't see a clear winner.
--
Flickr photostream: https://flickr.com/photos/198185181@N03/
With the OM-3, you can enjoy LiveND, Live Composite, hand-held high-resolution, and the like. Plus the new creative modes, which are up to you to design.
For the most parts, including sunset and sunrise, capturing beautiful moments, and the like, it honestly doesn't really matter if you use FF or m43. My wife shoots the OM-1, I myself use the A7RV and the RX1RII, and I do all the post. Meaning I work with files from both systems side by side all the time. Yes, there are differences in dynamic range and noise levels, but they aren't world shattering. I do enjoy my Sony gear, and I do enjoy the images it can create, and I love the flexibility the RAWs offer in post. But every now and then I like to grab my wife's OM-1 and head out with it, because it's fun to shoot and delivers beautiful images just as well.
Point in case: Lofoten in Norway, last year. OM-1 with 17mm Pro lens and A7RV with 35GM. Sure, I can print one of them considerably larger than the other, but other than that I can't see a clear winner.
--
Flickr photostream: https://flickr.com/photos/198185181@N03/
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
Hi, I have an Olympus E-M5 mark II that I use as my travel camera, and I use a Nikon Z6 as my main camera otherwise, so I guess pretty close when ti comes to size, sensor performance etc (the E-M5ii is not as good as the OM-3 but I don't think it matters too much)
First of all : downloard some RAW files from either the OM-1, OM-1ii or OM-3 : that's the only way you can know if the image quality is enough for your needs. As far as I'm concerned, I think the MFT sensor delivers good enough images for my travel needs, but that's personal, and not something I can say in your stead. Everybody is different, and as such, we have different usecases for our cameras. I'm fine with a 16MP older MFT sensor, but some people won't be satisfied until they have a high resolution full frame sensor. It all depends on you.
On the subject of the difference in performance, there is of course an evident gap between micro four thirds and full frame sensors. You have the depth of field of course (also a matter of preference, and overblown argument in my opinion), but most importantly you have the noise levels and dynamic range.
If I compare my full frame to my MFT camera, the versatility of the full frame is obvious. I can capture scenes with a wider DR without having to resort to bracketing, I can push the ISO much further in low light and still get usable results (on my Z6, I'm comfortable pushing to about 25600/32000 when I'd stop between 4000 / 5000 on my E-M5II. That's not a small difference). If you like to post process your files by lifting up shadows a lot, a MFT sensor will give you much more trouble than a fullf rame one. If you don't, or use AI denoizing, then the difference can be much smaller. Again, that's all for you to decide (that's why I recommend you download MFT RAW files to see for yourself).
As for the really big strength of MFT, and why this is my preferred system for travel : the size !
There is no denying that this is a very small camera and lens system, especially compared to full frame. I'm able to pack in a small 2,5L bag what would take a 20L bag with full frame equipment. This is not a small difference at all, and the image quality compromises are to me much more than acceptable enough considering the camera package is much smaller, lighter, less conspicuous, and more often than not, more versatile, with the ability to carry around more lenses than you would with your full frame setup.
When I'm hiking with my E-M5, I can carry the camera + 14mm f/2.5 + 20mm f/1.7 + 45mm f/1.8 + 35-100 f/4-5.6 in the same space that my Z6 + 1 lens would take. That means that with my MFT kit, I can simply take my 6L sling, I have my whole kit + I can carry a water bottle inside the bag as well as some food. If I was taking the same bag but carrying my full frame kit, the whole 6L bag would be occupied with camera gear, exit the water and food (and so I need a larger backpack, not a small sling).
If I was to give my honest opinion : no, the image quality isn't as good but the size and weight gains are worth it when it comes to travel and hiking.
The OM-3 is an extremely good camera when it comes to action too, so for a travel, it would be able to capture pretty much everything, no matter if that's a bird skimming along the coast or some people in a busy street.
First of all : downloard some RAW files from either the OM-1, OM-1ii or OM-3 : that's the only way you can know if the image quality is enough for your needs. As far as I'm concerned, I think the MFT sensor delivers good enough images for my travel needs, but that's personal, and not something I can say in your stead. Everybody is different, and as such, we have different usecases for our cameras. I'm fine with a 16MP older MFT sensor, but some people won't be satisfied until they have a high resolution full frame sensor. It all depends on you.
On the subject of the difference in performance, there is of course an evident gap between micro four thirds and full frame sensors. You have the depth of field of course (also a matter of preference, and overblown argument in my opinion), but most importantly you have the noise levels and dynamic range.
If I compare my full frame to my MFT camera, the versatility of the full frame is obvious. I can capture scenes with a wider DR without having to resort to bracketing, I can push the ISO much further in low light and still get usable results (on my Z6, I'm comfortable pushing to about 25600/32000 when I'd stop between 4000 / 5000 on my E-M5II. That's not a small difference). If you like to post process your files by lifting up shadows a lot, a MFT sensor will give you much more trouble than a fullf rame one. If you don't, or use AI denoizing, then the difference can be much smaller. Again, that's all for you to decide (that's why I recommend you download MFT RAW files to see for yourself).
As for the really big strength of MFT, and why this is my preferred system for travel : the size !
There is no denying that this is a very small camera and lens system, especially compared to full frame. I'm able to pack in a small 2,5L bag what would take a 20L bag with full frame equipment. This is not a small difference at all, and the image quality compromises are to me much more than acceptable enough considering the camera package is much smaller, lighter, less conspicuous, and more often than not, more versatile, with the ability to carry around more lenses than you would with your full frame setup.
When I'm hiking with my E-M5, I can carry the camera + 14mm f/2.5 + 20mm f/1.7 + 45mm f/1.8 + 35-100 f/4-5.6 in the same space that my Z6 + 1 lens would take. That means that with my MFT kit, I can simply take my 6L sling, I have my whole kit + I can carry a water bottle inside the bag as well as some food. If I was taking the same bag but carrying my full frame kit, the whole 6L bag would be occupied with camera gear, exit the water and food (and so I need a larger backpack, not a small sling).
If I was to give my honest opinion : no, the image quality isn't as good but the size and weight gains are worth it when it comes to travel and hiking.
The OM-3 is an extremely good camera when it comes to action too, so for a travel, it would be able to capture pretty much everything, no matter if that's a bird skimming along the coast or some people in a busy street.
I have shot MFT and FE both for years. Typically, the FE is for landscape on a tripod and the MFT for everything else. The big difference between older FE bodies and any Olympus/OM body (all the way up to the A7Riv) is that MFT has much better IBIS. That means it works better in low light unless you are shooting action.
More recently, I got an A7CR and that has quite useful IBIS but still nowhere near an OM1 or OM3.
Your A7iii has 24Mpix and a weak AA filter. With a decent MFT lens, you ought to get very slightly sharper images with the OM3. Probably depends very much on which lens you compare with which.
That leaves subject isolation and dynamic range as the advantages of your A7iii. If f2.8 on the A7iii gives enough subject separation, there are several f1.4 MFT primes.
You have a big choice of UWA, normal and short tele zooms including some that are up to mk iii.
I am a RAW shooter, so the jpeg tricks of the OM3 are of limited interest, but they are very significant if you shoot jpeg. The computational photography works really well because of the fast sensor readout (on my OM1). HDR, LiveND and Handheld HiRes are all useful and compensate for DR to some extent. The OM3 has in-camera AI noise reduction. It’s not quite as good as DeepPrime, but pretty close.
If you are a RAW shooter, set a Custom UniWB, use neutral JPEG settings, shoot to histogram and maximise exposure. You need to do some test shooting to find the jpeg to RAW exposure headroom. The free Workspace uses AI noise reduction on OM3 RAWs and does a good job with detail in handheld hi-res pseudo-RAWs.
Subject detection on the OM3 is going to be a big positive surprise. Afterwards, you will want an A7Cii or maybe not!
TL
R I’d always choose my OM1 or OM5 over an A7iii for travelling to Madeira. Choosing between my A7CR and an OM3 would be harder. I have plenty of lenses, so that’s not the issue.
Andrew
More recently, I got an A7CR and that has quite useful IBIS but still nowhere near an OM1 or OM3.
Your A7iii has 24Mpix and a weak AA filter. With a decent MFT lens, you ought to get very slightly sharper images with the OM3. Probably depends very much on which lens you compare with which.
That leaves subject isolation and dynamic range as the advantages of your A7iii. If f2.8 on the A7iii gives enough subject separation, there are several f1.4 MFT primes.
You have a big choice of UWA, normal and short tele zooms including some that are up to mk iii.
I am a RAW shooter, so the jpeg tricks of the OM3 are of limited interest, but they are very significant if you shoot jpeg. The computational photography works really well because of the fast sensor readout (on my OM1). HDR, LiveND and Handheld HiRes are all useful and compensate for DR to some extent. The OM3 has in-camera AI noise reduction. It’s not quite as good as DeepPrime, but pretty close.
If you are a RAW shooter, set a Custom UniWB, use neutral JPEG settings, shoot to histogram and maximise exposure. You need to do some test shooting to find the jpeg to RAW exposure headroom. The free Workspace uses AI noise reduction on OM3 RAWs and does a good job with detail in handheld hi-res pseudo-RAWs.
Subject detection on the OM3 is going to be a big positive surprise. Afterwards, you will want an A7Cii or maybe not!
TL
R I’d always choose my OM1 or OM5 over an A7iii for travelling to Madeira. Choosing between my A7CR and an OM3 would be harder. I have plenty of lenses, so that’s not the issue.Andrew
luxborealis
Well-known member
From a quality perspective, the change from 24mp to 20mp is a non-issue for so many reasons. I went from 36mp FF Nikon to 20mp OM and have not looked back. Printing up to 16x20” is a no-brainer. And, more importantly, travel has become sooooo much easier.
In a small LowePro AW sling bag that weighs less than 10lbs, I have my OM-1 with 3 zooms covering every focal length from 16mm to 800mm FF equivalent. On flights, the bag counts as my ‘personal bag’, so I still get a carry-on, and all my gear is right there with me. Often, I throw in a small belt pack that carries the camera body and my two shorter lenses.
The 8-25mm PRO zoom (16mm to 50mm FF equivalent) is a brilliant landscape lens, as is the 12-100mm (24-200mm) PRO —sharp through the whole range. And I love my 100-400 (200-800 FF equivalent) and use it from wildlife & birds. Read more here.
The only place you will see the difference is on-screen at 100%. As soon as an image is either downsized for sharing onscreen or on the web or printed, any noise you see at 100% becomes a non-issue. And, with Lightroom’s build in Enhanced Noise Reduction (or DxO or Topaz or ON1), even shots made at ISO 3200 or 6400 come out smooth and sharp. Read about noise reduction here.
Cheers,
Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com
In a small LowePro AW sling bag that weighs less than 10lbs, I have my OM-1 with 3 zooms covering every focal length from 16mm to 800mm FF equivalent. On flights, the bag counts as my ‘personal bag’, so I still get a carry-on, and all my gear is right there with me. Often, I throw in a small belt pack that carries the camera body and my two shorter lenses.
The 8-25mm PRO zoom (16mm to 50mm FF equivalent) is a brilliant landscape lens, as is the 12-100mm (24-200mm) PRO —sharp through the whole range. And I love my 100-400 (200-800 FF equivalent) and use it from wildlife & birds. Read more here.
The only place you will see the difference is on-screen at 100%. As soon as an image is either downsized for sharing onscreen or on the web or printed, any noise you see at 100% becomes a non-issue. And, with Lightroom’s build in Enhanced Noise Reduction (or DxO or Topaz or ON1), even shots made at ISO 3200 or 6400 come out smooth and sharp. Read about noise reduction here.
Cheers,
Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com
Thank you all for input. I bite the bullet and ordered OM-3 with 12-100 f4 Pro lens. There's no other way to find out just to try it I guessStill I fee a bit buyers remorse but hey one life....
Jacques Cornell
Forum Pro
I shot Micro Four Thirds exclusively 2014-2020 and love the system. Now I shoot Sony FE because my event work happens in very dim venues. Given that you already have Sony FE gear and are willing to accept less light gathering, I think you might be better off tweaking your Sony kit for portability by adding some lenses with smaller max apertures. First, consider Sony's 28-60/4.0-5.6. It's small, light, cheap, and sharp. Put it on an a7C-series body and you've got a nice, lightweight kit. For UWA, there's Sony's widely praised 16-35/4 PZ. For tele, you could save 200g with Tamron's 70-300/4.5-6.3.
My travel kit includes Tamron's 20-40/2.8 and 50-300/4.5-6.3 with an a7CR and a Godox TT350 flash.
--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
Last edited:
That's a great suggestion Jacques, but the difference between an OM5/OM3 and the A7iii for travel is IBIS. Works especially well for interiors and nighttime city and landscape shots. The OM3 will AF in far lower light at the same f-stop than an A7iii.
Or you can carry a tripod.
I took a golden hour shot with my A7Riv recently handheld and then shot over the marshes from a tripod. The damn handheld shot was soft, even though it was 1/f. Now, the A7CR would have been fine, just like yours...
A
IBIS was one of main reasons I decided to go OM-3 route as for years I was shooting mainly with tripod on my a7III and man I got sick of it to be honest
Since you already have FE lenses, is a discounted A7Cii on your options list? IBIS isn't quite as good as the OM3, but it's pretty good.IBIS was one of main reasons I decided to go OM-3 route as for years I was shooting mainly with tripod on my a7III and man I got sick of it to be honest
A
Please report back after you get them and let us know if you love that dual stabilization and how it handles. Most of all, if you even really miss the "Full Frame Quality".Thank you all for input. I bite the bullet and ordered OM-3 with 12-100 f4 Pro lens. There's no other way to find out just to try it I guess
JohnClif
Senior Member
Any difference in image quality will be at the margins and likely won't be discernable? If you're not making prints larger than 16"x24" (A2) or shooting faster than ISO 3200 then you won't see image quality differences... if you are then you can upscale using third party software or by using the OM-3's high res mode (on static subjects) and go to A1 and beyond. If you are showing these on a website, a screen, even a 4K big screen TV, you won't be able to tell the difference.
The only visual difference will be the increased depth of field with MFT for the same aperture, e.g., a 25/1.8 on the OM-3 will look like a 35/2.8 on APS-C or 50/4 on FF. Again, if you shoot less than 70mm (FF equivalent, which is 50mm on APS-C or 35mm 9n MFT) at f/2.8 and above there will be little to no perceptible DoF difference.
Where FF shines is with 70mm and below and at less than f/2.8 for that subject/background separation with shallow DoF. But, a 25/1.2 wIde open on a MFT camera is very close to a 50/1.8 on FF, DoF-wise... and they make inexpensive 25/0.95 manual focus lenses that have less DoF wide open than a 50/1.4 on FF.
I've traveled extensively to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia with a larger dSLR and lenses (Pentax K20D, 17-50/2.8, 50-150/2.8, 50/1.4), and my Oly E-M1 Mark III with 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8 with 1.4X teleconverter, 20/1.4. The Oly kit was much lighter and performed fantastically. I never wished for the Pentax with its heavy lenses, and there were photos I got with the Oly with its superb metering and autofocus that I couldn't have gotten with the K20D.
Honestly, you don't need a new camera, or lenses. What you have will work fine. Like most of us, you just want a new camera system. I myself would buy the OM-1 II over the OM-3 (the same camera, internally... if they put out a Pen F body with the same internals I'd be all over it), but it's your money, your life, and life is short and to be enjoyed. If the new system doesn't strain finances, go for it.
--
--
'Do you think a man can change his destiny?'
'I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.'
The only visual difference will be the increased depth of field with MFT for the same aperture, e.g., a 25/1.8 on the OM-3 will look like a 35/2.8 on APS-C or 50/4 on FF. Again, if you shoot less than 70mm (FF equivalent, which is 50mm on APS-C or 35mm 9n MFT) at f/2.8 and above there will be little to no perceptible DoF difference.
Where FF shines is with 70mm and below and at less than f/2.8 for that subject/background separation with shallow DoF. But, a 25/1.2 wIde open on a MFT camera is very close to a 50/1.8 on FF, DoF-wise... and they make inexpensive 25/0.95 manual focus lenses that have less DoF wide open than a 50/1.4 on FF.
I've traveled extensively to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia with a larger dSLR and lenses (Pentax K20D, 17-50/2.8, 50-150/2.8, 50/1.4), and my Oly E-M1 Mark III with 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8 with 1.4X teleconverter, 20/1.4. The Oly kit was much lighter and performed fantastically. I never wished for the Pentax with its heavy lenses, and there were photos I got with the Oly with its superb metering and autofocus that I couldn't have gotten with the K20D.
Honestly, you don't need a new camera, or lenses. What you have will work fine. Like most of us, you just want a new camera system. I myself would buy the OM-1 II over the OM-3 (the same camera, internally... if they put out a Pen F body with the same internals I'd be all over it), but it's your money, your life, and life is short and to be enjoyed. If the new system doesn't strain finances, go for it.
--
--
'Do you think a man can change his destiny?'
'I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.'
Last edited:
So far I'm really happy with OM-3Please report back after you get them and let us know if you love that dual stabilization and how it handles. Most of all, if you even really miss the "Full Frame Quality".Thank you all for input. I bite the bullet and ordered OM-3 with 12-100 f4 Pro lens. There's no other way to find out just to try it I guess
All the computational photography that OM-System offers are fantastic. It's real shame Sony is totally lacking such things.Here's few recent shots:
--
LukxCGI
www.lukx.com
Thanks for sharing those. You have a great eye.
Unless you were deliberately aiming for diffraction softening, f8 is a bit far for MFT. Depth of field goes with crop factor. So 25mm f5.6 on MFT is equivalent in most respects to 50mm f11 on FF. I rarely shoot MFT beyond f5.6 unless for macro, or I’m willing to accept the softening in return for composition. F6.3 is OK, f7.1 is a bit too far.
A
Unless you were deliberately aiming for diffraction softening, f8 is a bit far for MFT. Depth of field goes with crop factor. So 25mm f5.6 on MFT is equivalent in most respects to 50mm f11 on FF. I rarely shoot MFT beyond f5.6 unless for macro, or I’m willing to accept the softening in return for composition. F6.3 is OK, f7.1 is a bit too far.
A
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum