Oly OMD EM5 MK II vs Sony A7 II

[neil holmes]

Back again, I see....

The Oly 12-40mm F/2.8 is a significantly better lens than any of the Sony Zooms.

Care to show any shots from both of them (I am sure you must have both right?).

I use primes over zooms.....I will take the Canon 17mm F4 TS-E, the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 and the Canon 135 f2 L for my needs.....and when I DO want a zoom, the Sony FE kit lens on a FF camera gives great results for the price that I would still take over that 2.8 zoom on M4/3....others will differ.

If I used zooms, I would take the Sony Zeiss 24-70 over both the FE kit lens and 12-40 2.8 M4/3 zoom.

The Canon 135 also does double duty on my GX7 for a different angle of view...same with the nice little Canon 40 2.8 STM

Sony prime are great, but their zooms have small apertures and are garbage.

LOL, the only Sony zoom I have is better than my only M4/3 zoom....and even though it is slow, it is actually has greater DOF control at 28mm than the 2.8 Pro zooms.....and at its longest at 5.6 is no worse.

yes, the Pro zooms are sharper across the frame but I think that in the centre the cheap FE kit lens may well be sharper (as shown on DXO)....I don't use it much but it is a very nice lens to have and great value. The Sony Zeiss 24-70 f4 is sharper again (other than the centre maybe) and sharper across more of the frame than the FE kit lens. ......the FE kit lens rates as sharper in the centre than the Sony Zeiss zoom at DXOmark but is not as good away from the centre.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...A-OSS-on-Sony-A7R__1244_917_1233_793_1253_917

I think M4/3 kit lenses are nice to have as well and also good value but I will take the FE kit lens over an M4/3 kit lens any day and prefer the results from the FE kit lens (especially on an A7s in low light too) over the pro zoom and an M4/3 camera.

The Sony is a bit better in low light which is obvious, but when comparing with the good M43 F/2.8 zooms vs the lousy Sony F/4 zooms, they are near equal. (Some Sony owners will try to tell you otherwise.

I use both M4/3 and an A7 and an A7s.....the GX7 is not up to the A7 in low light and the A7s is better than anything.

Others like me will be more honest

When have you EVER been honest? Even your name suggests otherwise!

- read the reviews)

I think people by all means should read reviews and if possible try what they can for themselves......M4/3 can be very good....so can Sony. The DXOmark link above is a great place to start.

What will really kill you with Sony is lens prices. Currently the FE auto-focus lenses average around $1200 each. A prime that is only F/2.8 like the FE 35mm costs a whopping $800. The Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 is less than half its price, half its size, and gives you more than a stop of light when wide open.

MY three most expensive lenses are Canon, THEN comes a Sony 55 1.8 (one of the best AF lenses available for any system) then a few others and then the FE kit lens.

You could buy an A7 and a Sony 55 1.8 for less than the price of a E-M1 and 42.5 1.2....so it is all relative.

And if you want a long lens, forget about Sony. That's when they start to get HUGE and super pricey. With you OMD, you could get the Olympus 75mm F/1.8 whcih Sony has nothing close.

Well I would use my Canon mount 150 2.8 Sigma......which I also use on my GX7 but mainly my 135 f2 L Canon on both.

And if Sony did make a 150mm F/2.8 or even F/3.5 prime it would cost close to $2000 going by the high prices of the rest of their lenses.

My 150 was around $600.

My 55 was around $850 (Australian.....certainly a lot less than $1000 US for a fantastic lens.

My two Canon TS-Es were both a lot more.

My 135 was dearer than my 55.

My 85 1.2 FD L is good enough that I likely wont get a Zeiss Batis 85 1.8 or Mitakon 85 1.2 in E mount or EF 85 1.2 L ii all of which will work well for me on the Sony's.

Overall you will find you can get an EM5 II and several great lenses for under $2000. For the Sony expect to pay $4000 or more. Ouch.

Now that depends on what sort of kit you want......

You can put together a nice kit with ANY system.

Now, your turn......what kit are YOU using?

 

[Nex man]

The Oly 12-40mm F/2.8 is a significantly better lens than any of the Sony Zooms. Sony prime are great, but their zooms have small apertures and are garbage.

The Sony is a bit better in low light which is obvious, but when comparing with the good M43 F/2.8 zooms vs the lousy Sony F/4 zooms, they are near equal.

What will really kill you with Sony is lens prices. Currently the FE auto-focus lenses average around $1200 each. A prime that is only F/2.8 like the FE 35mm costs a whopping $800. The Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 is less than half its price, half its size, and gives you more than a stop of light when wide open.

The Panasonic would need to be F/1.4 to gather the same total light and have the same DOF control.This is why many comparisons here are so skewed as you are not comparing like to like.

I am sure you know that in the case of the A7ii and an EM1 the difference is much less than the theoretical 2 stops.

Do you agree?

If so then what you said is only true for DoF, and NOT true for everything else.

And if you want a long lens, forget about Sony. That's when they start to get HUGE and super pricey. With you OMD, you could get the Olympus 75mm F/1.8 whcih Sony has nothing close. And if Sony did make a 150mm F/2.8 or even F/3.5 prime it would cost close to $2000 going by the high prices of the rest of their lenses.

Overall you will find you can get an EM5 II and several great lenses for under $2000. For the Sony expect to pay $4000 or more. Ouch.

Or you could use one of the many adapters, even the AF adapters for Canon are getting better all the time...

I returned first a Commlite then a Metbones adapter because often they don't work at all, or absolute suck in lower lighting conditions. Other times they work, but they are NOT fast.

And you are comparing lens against lens, if you look at the actual system performance {lens + sensor} the Sony options will outperform the mFT options.

What you were comparing is almost exclusively resolution and DxO ignores the EM5II high resolution mode. Color contrast and other important factors in lenses are completely ignored in those tests.

Read the reviews. The Sony zooms suck. The 70-200mm F/4 is the worst performing lens of its kind on the market (both Canon and Nikon being better).

Sadly the price of the Sony A7RII body in particular is indeed a lot more expensive you do get a 42mp state of the art FF sensor.

That camera and the two F/4 zooms and an F/1.8 prime cost well over $8000!! Ask the OP if he is willing to pay that much and I bet he laughs at you.

 

[Nex man]

Back again, I see....

The Oly 12-40mm F/2.8 is a significantly better lens than any of the Sony Zooms.

I use primes over zooms.....

Because the Sony F/4 zooms are over priced and suck. The Olympus even works well as a near-macro lens and has a greater range.

Sony prime are great, but their zooms have small apertures and are garbage.

LOL, the only Sony zoom I have is better than my only M4/3 zoom....and even though it is slow, it is actually has greater DOF control at 28mm than the 2.8 Pro zooms.....

LOL, if that is all you care about is slightly less DoF in some cases, then good for you. Don't forget that in cases where a certain about of DoF is need, like two subjects or multiple faces, then the FF lens is usually at a 2 stop disadvantage.

yes, the Pro zooms are sharper across the frame...

True.

The Sony is a bit better in low light which is obvious, but when comparing with the good M43 F/2.8 zooms vs the lousy Sony F/4 zooms, they are near equal. (Some Sony owners will try to tell you otherwise.

I use both M4/3 and an A7 and an A7s.....the GX7 is not up to the A7 in low light and the A7s is better than anything.

A7s is a nice camera. No IS and only 12MP though. It costs over $1600 and is not as good as most FF cameras at lower ISOs either. But if you only shoot in really low light it is a great option.

Others like me will be more honest

When have you EVER been honest? Even your name suggests otherwise!

Sony NEX cameras are not honest?

I say a guy who has literally hundreds of posts about how his GX7 is terrible and how everyone should buy an A7 is the one whose honesty should be questioned.

- read the reviews)

I think people by all means should read reviews and if possible try what they can for themselves......M4/3 can be very good....so can Sony. The DXOmark link above is a great place to start.

DxO sucks for lenses because they rely heavily on only resolution. They refuse to test M43 lenses with the EM5II high resolution mode, but do with their brand camera proclaiming that is what makes it better than others.

What will really kill you with Sony is lens prices. Currently the FE auto-focus lenses average around $1200 each. A prime that is only F/2.8 like the FE 35mm costs a whopping $800. The Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 is less than half its price, half its size, and gives you more than a stop of light when wide open.

MY three most expensive lenses are Canon...

I have Canon lenses too, but you didn't mention all the limitations and the extra price of the adapter. Many Canon lenses refuse to AF accurately or at all. The only thing I can think of more limiting would be only 5 FPS...like you camera.

And if you want a long lens, forget about Sony. That's when they start to get HUGE and super pricey. With you OMD, you could get the Olympus 75mm F/1.8 whcih Sony has nothing close.

Well I would use my Canon mount 150 2.8 Sigma...

That lens is HUGE and costs more. Just a get a real DSLR and be done with it. Focusing would be 10x more reliable. It would not be as sharp as the Olympus sad to say.

And if Sony did make a 150mm F/2.8 or even F/3.5 prime it would cost close to $2000 going by the high prices of the rest of their lenses.

My 150 was around...

Only a troll would compare used prices to MSRP.

Overall you will find you can get an EM5 II and several great lenses for under $2000. For the Sony expect to pay $4000 or more. Ouch.

Now that depends on what sort of kit you want......

You can put together a nice kit with ANY system.

Now, your turn......what kit are YOU using?

I've owned pretty much every Sony camera made in the past 5 years except the A7sII and A7rII. I even had an A3000 for awhile.

 

[neil holmes]

Back again, I see....

The Oly 12-40mm F/2.8 is a significantly better lens than any of the Sony Zooms.

I use primes over zooms.....

Because the Sony F/4 zooms are over priced and suck.

So you keep saying....I use primes because I just prefer them....I prefer faster lenses and tilt shift lenses....zooms to me are just for ease of use or when I don't have something specific to shoot.

The Sony F4 zooms are not for me but neither are the Oly 2.8 zooms ......I would prefer the Sony ones given the choice though.....others will have a different choice but the FE kit lens has a level of performance similar to that of the pro zooms ......not bad for a kit lens.

The Olympus even works well as a near-macro lens and has a greater range.

The Sony's can be used FF or APSC and AF extension tubes are less than $10.

Sony prime are great, but their zooms have small apertures and are garbage.

LOL, the only Sony zoom I have is better than my only M4/3 zoom....and even though it is slow, it is actually has greater DOF control at 28mm than the 2.8 Pro zooms.....

LOL, if that is all you care about is slightly less DoF in some cases, then good for you. Don't forget that in cases where a certain about of DoF is need, like two subjects or multiple faces, then the FF lens is usually at a 2 stop disadvantage.

Shows just how little you actually know.

Again, USING both.....more often than not the FF camera will be at a LOWER ISO or the SAME ISO for multiple faces ....just a different shutter speed. MOST of the time the advantage in real life is actually to the FF camera even without any other consideration.

yes, the Pro zooms are sharper across the frame...

True.

The Sony is a bit better in low light which is obvious, but when comparing with the good M43 F/2.8 zooms vs the lousy Sony F/4 zooms, they are near equal. (Some Sony owners will try to tell you otherwise.

I use both M4/3 and an A7 and an A7s.....the GX7 is not up to the A7 in low light and the A7s is better than anything.

A7s is a nice camera. No IS and only 12MP though. It costs over $1600 and is not as good as most FF cameras at lower ISOs either.

The A7s is a camera for specific things...it is not as good as other FF cameras at lower ISOs (but still has greater DR than any M4/3 camera at base so is still a very good camera in ANY light)....

It is a camera that doesn't NEED stabilization so much (though my stabilized lenses work well on it).....I can shoot at any shutter speed and aperture I choose in any light for the most part.

But if you only shoot in really low light it is a great option.

Well no....it is actually a great camera in any light....it is just at its best compared to others in low light

Others like me will be more honest

When have you EVER been honest? Even your name suggests otherwise!

Sony NEX cameras are not honest?

No, I doubt you even USE an NEX camera.

I say a guy who has literally hundreds of posts about how his GX7 is terrible and how everyone should buy an A7 is the one whose honesty should be questioned.

Who has hundreds of posts about how my GX7 is terrible?

What I DONT like about it is that I hate the grip, I don't like it above ISO 3200 (6400 in a pinch), there is no mic input and ISO in video is limited to 3200 max.

I love the camera, it has a nice touch screen and I love the tilting EVF....I simply PREFER my FF cameras because I DO shoot a lot in low light and the A7s is better than anything and the A7 (that I got on the same day as I got my GX7) is better than the GX7 for that too.

If I ONLY shot in good light, I would be happy to stick with a GX7 only (though again, the A7 with a lens like my Canon TS-Es or Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 or Canon 135 f2 L will be better for image quality.

- read the reviews)

I think people by all means should read reviews and if possible try what they can for themselves......M4/3 can be very good....so can Sony. The DXOmark link above is a great place to start.

DxO sucks for lenses because they rely heavily on only resolution. They refuse to test M43 lenses with the EM5II high resolution mode, but do with their brand camera proclaiming that is what makes it better than others.

OH right......you are honest and people should read reviews but only the ones that support your opinion that Sony zooms suck....

What will really kill you with Sony is lens prices. Currently the FE auto-focus lenses average around $1200 each. A prime that is only F/2.8 like the FE 35mm costs a whopping $800. The Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 is less than half its price, half its size, and gives you more than a stop of light when wide open.

MY three most expensive lenses are Canon...

I have Canon lenses too, but you didn't mention all the limitations and the extra price of the adapter. Many Canon lenses refuse to AF accurately or at all. The only thing I can think of more limiting would be only 5 FPS...like you camera.

Adapters range from cheap to expensive.....the Metabones IV works great with the MF TS-E lenses and I use my cheap Fotga for AF when I want that......AF is slow and AFS only (though there are AFC adapters for the PDAF cameras now) but AF with the A7s for instance works in light way below what it would with the same Canon lenses on any current Canon camera.....and way below what they would with the GX7 too (even though both are supposed to have EV -4 AF).

5FPS is fine by me......most of the time 1fps is enough.....if I wanted more, I would likely have a high end Canon DSLR...(but I don't so I wont).

And if you want a long lens, forget about Sony. That's when they start to get HUGE and super pricey. With you OMD, you could get the Olympus 75mm F/1.8 whcih Sony has nothing close.

Well I would use my Canon mount 150 2.8 Sigma...

That lens is HUGE and costs more. Just a get a real DSLR and be done with it. Focusing would be 10x more reliable. It would not be as sharp as the Olympus sad to say.

LOL it is actually a LOT sharper on a Canon 5Diii than the Oly 75 is on any M4/3 camera and I would be confident enough to say it would be sharper still on my A7.

It is not a lens I like to use for AF on that camera (it plays up) ...it does auto focus acceptably fast on my GX7.

And if Sony did make a 150mm F/2.8 or even F/3.5 prime it would cost close to $2000 going by the high prices of the rest of their lenses.

My 150 was around...

Only a troll would compare used prices to MSRP.

Great, you use M4/3 now too as well as Sony (I doubt you use either)......I use both M4/3 and Sony FF....do you? Who is it that's trolling?

Overall you will find you can get an EM5 II and several great lenses for under $2000. For the Sony expect to pay $4000 or more. Ouch.

Now that depends on what sort of kit you want......

You can put together a nice kit with ANY system.

Now, your turn......what kit are YOU using?

I've owned pretty much every Sony camera made in the past 5 years except the A7sII and A7rII. I even had an A3000 for awhile.

So you say.

 

[Angrymagpie]

Typical kit? I thought the OP was asking for a lens and a body combo.

And I was just highlighting the fact that the 42.5 /1.2 Panasonic is a heavier, bigger, and much more expensive lens than the 55/1.8 Zeiss.

The OP mentioned a normal zoom, and said something about not being able to afford the weight of a telephoto. You went off-topic to bring up the issue of a large aperture prime and differences in DOF. I pointed out that there is a large aperture AF prime for mFT, too.

You then objected to the comparison to the Nocitron 42.5/1.2 based on weight, size, and price. FWIW, the 55/1.8 is about $1,000 at bhphoto at 281g. The Nocitron is $1,400 at 425g. So yes, it is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. My goal was to put that objection in context of a larger kit. So we're both off-topic.

Returning to the topic, the OP asked specifically about low light performance of the A7II relative to the EM-5 with 12-40/2.8. Compared to a full frame A7II with 24-70/4, the net difference in light gathering is one stop in favor of the A7II.

With the regard to the OP's comment regarding the weight of the telephoto, the OP might consider the P/L 35-100/2.8 which comes in at 360 grams, which is more than a pound lighter than the O 40-150/2.8 or the Sony 70-200/4.

 

[neil holmes]

If you want to include several people at slightly different distances then you will need a higher ISO with the larger sensor.

People keep saying this but it is actually not true that often.

Try shooting with your FF Sony against your M4/3 camera at the same time....if you left it up to the camera you would find that often the Sony will be at the same ISO or even lower.....it will just be the shutter speed that differs and in good light the shutter speed will be high enough for people with anything.

I only shoot my GX7 against my A7 for things like this as I am curious but in practice the GX7 will be at a higher ISO more often than not.....and once the ISO starts climbing with both, the larger sensor is better anyway most of the time.

Also the Sony system does not yet have a zoom to match the 12-40mm, from what I have read.

The Pro zooms do look very good......to me it seems their strength is they are sharp across the frame.....you need a camera and lens to take a photo and the Sony Zooms might not be the greatest FF zooms but I do think they compare favourably to M4/3 zooms.....even the FE kit zoom....it may not be so great at the edges so maybe not for a landscape zoom but it is sure sharp enough in the centre where it is likely sharper than the pro zooms when mounted to an A7 series camera of 24mp or more against the Pro zooms on current or previous M4/3 cameras.

Andrew

--

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

 

[dulynoted]

If you want very shallow DoF then the A7ii and 55mm will deliver it and you have the greater light gathering. If you want to include several people at slightly different distances then you will need a higher ISO with the larger sensor.

Also the Sony system does not yet have a zoom to match the 12-40mm, from what I have read.

Andrew

--

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

An em5 mark II and one of 25mm f0.95 lenses would offer nearly the same dof control. Or the other f0.95 lenses.

True enough, except that one is AF one is manual without electronic contact. And one has a ridiculous level of sharpness wide open, and one needs to be stopped down.

Eh well the original comment was it all comes down to dof right? There is alot more to it than that was my point. If dof is the only concern then m43 offers options with the equivalent of f1.8 on full frame in the 21mm 35mm 50mm 70mm 80mm 85mm and 100mm focal lengths. Without adapting anything. I dont think the a7 series even does that yet (I know for certain there is no native 21mm f1.8 on sony e mount) . But dof isnt the only thing. Ergonomics, speed of operation, focus method etc all matter. The package is greater than the sum of its parts . By that comparison the sum of m43 parts exceeds the sum of the a7 series imho. The sony system can equal and eventually surpass m43 but it still wont matter to most of us and it hasnt happened yet. Opinions may vary.

although for my money the 25mm nokton is a much better lens than the 55mm. The colors and pop from the nokton are more appealing to me. The 55 is sharper wide open but stopped down i doubt thats the case. And even wide open the 25mm makes some gorgeous and very detailed 16x20 and 20x30 inch prints. Most people that call it soft havent shot with it and fewer have printed from it. I do my best to use it wide open as much as possible and I have been bitten by the printing bug.

 

[eques]

not because of low light performance or MPs, but because of the color roll off and micro contrast of the FF sensor.

I'd get the small 35/2,8 lens and the Sony G90/2,8 or Zeiss Batis 85/1,8. The rest I'd cover with adapted lenses.
Yes, the minimal set would be around EUR 3500 and 1250/1100g.

A similar set with the Nikon D750 might be cheaper and have a little more weight (1600g), I personally don't like OVFs any more. But you'd win in battery life!

BTW, with the EM5II plus the PL42,5 F1,2 and a 17 F1,7 you get very near to the A7II performance at about the same weight and price, because with these fast lenses you could keep down noise.

Peter

 

[Ulric]

I just want to buy a camera for daily use, mainly portrait. But sometimes shot at room light condition.

However, I have heard about some poor comments on low light for all MFT camera. So if I use 12-40 2.8 Pro with OMD EM5 MK II, how is it comparing to Sony A7II? In fact I am really impressed by A7II but i can't afford the weight for their tele lens.

Also how about Panasonic GX8 comparing to EM5 MKII for my use?

IMHO, a largish m4/3 camera compared to a smallish FF camera will end up with the m4/3 at a disadvantage. But there is no need to compare like that. Such comparisons that try to match like-for-like force one of the systems out of its sweet spot and are therefore unfair and unrealistic.

Instead, make a list of what body and lenses you would get for each system, then compare the price, size, weight, performance and so on you get. Decide if the difference in any one area, is such that it makes up for differences in another.

As for low-light performance, someone using m4/3 for that will look at prime lenses.

 

[Angrymagpie]

If you want very shallow DoF then the A7ii and 55mm will deliver it and you have the greater light gathering. If you want to include several people at slightly different distances then you will need a higher ISO with the larger sensor.

Also the Sony system does not yet have a zoom to match the 12-40mm, from what I have read.

Andrew

--

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

An em5 mark II and one of 25mm f0.95 lenses would offer nearly the same dof control. Or the other f0.95 lenses.

True enough, except that one is AF one is manual without electronic contact. And one has a ridiculous level of sharpness wide open, and one needs to be stopped down.

Eh well the original comment was it all comes down to dof right? There is alot more to it than that was my point. If dof is the only concern then m43 offers options with the equivalent of f1.8 on full frame in the 21mm 35mm 50mm 70mm 80mm 85mm and 100mm focal lengths. Without adapting anything. I dont think the a7 series even does that yet (I know for certain there is no native 21mm f1.8 on sony e mount) . But dof isnt the only thing. Ergonomics, speed of operation, focus method etc all matter. The package is greater than the sum of its parts . By that comparison the sum of m43 parts exceeds the sum of the a7 series imho. The sony system can equal and eventually surpass m43 but it still wont matter to most of us and it hasnt happened yet. Opinions may vary.

although for my money the 25mm nokton is a much better lens than the 55mm. The colors and pop from the nokton are more appealing to me. The 55 is sharper wide open but stopped down i doubt thats the case. And even wide open the 25mm makes some gorgeous and very detailed 16x20 and 20x30 inch prints. Most people that call it soft havent shot with it and fewer have printed from it. I do my best to use it wide open as much as possible and I have been bitten by the printing bug.

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
Streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com

Look mate, I'm not disagreeing with your preference or trying to have a debate about which system is better. To me that's kind of pointless since we live in the world where we don't need to be stuck in a single system like following a monotheistic religion.

My comment regarding the 55/1.8 being preferable is based on my own experience with both the A7 and the MFT systems, and on what I understood from OP's needs as per expressed in his original post (mostly for portrait). Based on that, I recommended the A7 pairing with the Batis 85, which in my mind is hard to match in MFT. He later clarified that he did not mean portrait in the traditional sense of the term (he seems to want something versatile for social photography).

In which case, the 55/1.8 makes more sense than the 25/0.95 Nokton in my opinion. It is very well regarded and can be said to be the lens that makes the system. Objectively speaking, when pair the Sony's 24mp full frame sensor, it simply performs better optically than something like E-M1 pairing with the 25/0.95, full stop.

Of course one could make all sorts of very reasonable subjective points, such as there's no functional need for the Sony combo, or something like the Nokton looks better in one's eyes.

That's a different discussion altogether - one that has to be made on the basis that objectively speaking, the FF combo is going to be optically superior and operationally speaking friendlier (AF) than something like the E-M1 + Nokton.

 

[dulynoted]

If you want very shallow DoF then the A7ii and 55mm will deliver it and you have the greater light gathering. If you want to include several people at slightly different distances then you will need a higher ISO with the larger sensor.

Also the Sony system does not yet have a zoom to match the 12-40mm, from what I have read.

Andrew

--

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

An em5 mark II and one of 25mm f0.95 lenses would offer nearly the same dof control. Or the other f0.95 lenses.

True enough, except that one is AF one is manual without electronic contact. And one has a ridiculous level of sharpness wide open, and one needs to be stopped down.

Eh well the original comment was it all comes down to dof right? There is alot more to it than that was my point. If dof is the only concern then m43 offers options with the equivalent of f1.8 on full frame in the 21mm 35mm 50mm 70mm 80mm 85mm and 100mm focal lengths. Without adapting anything. I dont think the a7 series even does that yet (I know for certain there is no native 21mm f1.8 on sony e mount) . But dof isnt the only thing. Ergonomics, speed of operation, focus method etc all matter. The package is greater than the sum of its parts . By that comparison the sum of m43 parts exceeds the sum of the a7 series imho. The sony system can equal and eventually surpass m43 but it still wont matter to most of us and it hasnt happened yet. Opinions may vary.

although for my money the 25mm nokton is a much better lens than the 55mm. The colors and pop from the nokton are more appealing to me. The 55 is sharper wide open but stopped down i doubt thats the case. And even wide open the 25mm makes some gorgeous and very detailed 16x20 and 20x30 inch prints. Most people that call it soft havent shot with it and fewer have printed from it. I do my best to use it wide open as much as possible and I have been bitten by the printing bug.

 

[pocoloco]

As part of kit, the 42.5 doesn't really add that much to the total price or weight. Looking at a whole kit with, say, a 3 main zooms and a portrait lens.

A Sony kit would consist of

• Sony A7II $1,700
• S 24-70/4 $1,200
• S 70-200/4 $1,500
• S 16-35/4 $1,350
• S 55/1.8 $1,000

Total Price: $6,750 and weight of 2,665g.

A comparable Olympus kit (using the P/L 35-100 as comparable to the S 70-200) would consist of

• Olympus EM-1 $900
• O 12-40/2.8 $850
• P/L 35-100/2.8 $1,050
• O 7-14/2.8 $1,150
• O 42.5/1.2 $1,400

Total price of $5,400 and weight of 2,198g.

So the additional f/stop of light gathering and DOF freedom comes at a cost of about $1,350 and roughly an additional 1 lb in the bag. Substituting the O 40-150/4 gets a little more telephoto reach and also picks the weight up a bit, too ...

• Olympus EM-1 $900
• O 12-40/2.8 $850
• O 40-150/2.8 $1,350
• O 7-14/2.8 $1,150
• O 42.5/1.2 $1,400

for a total of $5,650 and 2,718g.

 

[pocoloco]

If you want to include several people at slightly different distances then you will need a higher ISO with the larger sensor.

People keep saying this but it is actually not true that often.

Try shooting with your FF Sony against your M4/3 camera at the same time....if you left it up to the camera you would find that often the Sony will be at the same ISO or even lower.....it will just be the shutter speed that differs and in good light the shutter speed will be high enough for people with anything.

If the mft has the equivalent DoF at f1.8 with a shutterspeed of 1/60th and iso200, then the FF needs to be on f3.x with a shutterspeed of 1/60th and... with an iso of 400. If you wan to keep the iso at 200, you will need a slower shutterspeed, and that might not be possible (moving subjects).

So with static subjects, and using a tripod, no problem slowing down the shutterspeed, but otherwise you need to raise the iso.

 

[Mistajolly]

I find that the size and dof is an advantage in m43 for low light street photography. Wide open I have more shots in focus. The camera is also less obvious. GX7 with tilting evf is great to capture candid shots.

All systems have a long way to go, I want to shoot F16 at 1/500 in a candlelit room without noise.

 

[Angrymagpie]

I find that the size and dof is an advantage in m43 for low light street photography. Wide open I have more shots in focus. The camera is also less obvious. GX7 with tilting evf is great to capture candid shots.

All systems have a long way to go, I want to shoot F16 at 1/500 in a candlelit room without noise.

Interesting. Nowadays I use my MFT most of the time. But for night street photography, I always grab my A7 because it simply delivers better quality at higher ISO.

https://500px.com/photo/117923073/streets-of-jakarta-at-night-1-by-angrymagpie-photography

Loading…

500px.com

Loading…

500px.com

https://500px.com/photo/97112967/going-home-by-angrymagpie-photography

Size-wise, my MFT cameras are pretty much the same size as my FF, so I don't prefer one over another for the sake of being discreet. Furthermore, I almost always manual focus for night street photography as I find it to be much faster and more accurate. I'm curious to try out how Panasonic's AF technology perform - though the higher ISO quality always make me choose FF when I know I'd be doing night street shots.

 

[Astrotripper]

A Sony kit would consist of

• Sony A7II $1,700
• S 24-70/4 $1,200
• S 70-200/4 $1,500
• S 16-35/4 $1,350
• S 55/1.8 $1,000

Total Price: $6,750 and weight of 2,665g.

A comparable Olympus kit (using the P/L 35-100 as comparable to the S 70-200) would consist of

• Olympus EM-1 $900
• O 12-40/2.8 $850
• P/L 35-100/2.8 $1,050
• O 7-14/2.8 $1,150
• O 42.5/1.2 $1,400

Total price of $5,400 and weight of 2,198g.

So the additional f/stop of light gathering and DOF freedom comes at a cost of about $1,350 and roughly an additional 1 lb in the bag.

For me these are not comparable sets.

You can't shoot the S 24-70/4 at f2.8. So I also don't get why the FF has an additional 1 f/stop light gathering, since it stops at f4 and the mft at f2.8.

The term "light gathering" is kinda ambiguous, but it's not hard to deduce what he meant by that. At f/4, a 35mm format camera will have 1 stop more DoF control and around 1 stop of noise advantage over MFT at f/2.8. That advantage comes at a cost of price, weight and size.

 

[Jeff]

A Sony kit would consist of

• Sony A7II $1,700
• S 24-70/4 $1,200
• S 70-200/4 $1,500
• S 16-35/4 $1,350
• S 55/1.8 $1,000

Total Price: $6,750 and weight of 2,665g.

A comparable Olympus kit (using the P/L 35-100 as comparable to the S 70-200) would consist of

• Olympus EM-1 $900
• O 12-40/2.8 $850
• P/L 35-100/2.8 $1,050
• O 7-14/2.8 $1,150
• O 42.5/1.2 $1,400

Total price of $5,400 and weight of 2,198g.

So the additional f/stop of light gathering and DOF freedom comes at a cost of about $1,350 and roughly an additional 1 lb in the bag.

For me these are not comparable sets.

You can't shoot the S 24-70/4 at f2.8. So I also don't get why the FF has an additional 1 f/stop light gathering, since it stops at f4 and the mft at f2.8.

The term "light gathering" is kinda ambiguous, but it's not hard to deduce what he meant by that. At f/4, a 35mm format camera will have 1 stop more DoF control and around 1 stop of noise advantage over MFT at f/2.8. That advantage comes at a cost of price, weight and size.

Yes, that's precisely what I meant. Wish there was a better term than 'light gathering', but so far haven't come across one.

 

[Jeff]

As part of kit, the 42.5 doesn't really add that much to the total price or weight. Looking at a whole kit with, say, a 3 main zooms and a portrait lens.

A Sony kit would consist of

• Sony A7II $1,700
• S 24-70/4 $1,200
• S 70-200/4 $1,500
• S 16-35/4 $1,350
• S 55/1.8 $1,000

Total Price: $6,750 and weight of 2,665g.

A comparable Olympus kit (using the P/L 35-100 as comparable to the S 70-200) would consist of

• Olympus EM-1 $900
• O 12-40/2.8 $850
• P/L 35-100/2.8 $1,050
• O 7-14/2.8 $1,150
• O 42.5/1.2 $1,400

Total price of $5,400 and weight of 2,198g.

So the additional f/stop of light gathering and DOF freedom comes at a cost of about $1,350 and roughly an additional 1 lb in the bag. Substituting the O 40-150/4 gets a little more telephoto reach and also picks the weight up a bit, too ...

• Olympus EM-1 $900
• O 12-40/2.8 $850
• O 40-150/2.8 $1,350
• O 7-14/2.8 $1,150
• O 42.5/1.2 $1,400

for a total of $5,650 and 2,718g.

 

[ahaslett]

Jeff

You need to say whether the reduced DoF in your example for the FF is an advantage or a disadvantage.

Andrew

--

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

 

[Astrotripper]

You need to say whether the reduced DoF in your example for the FF is an advantage or a disadvantage.

More control over DoF is never a disadvantage. If it were, nobody would pay a premium for fast primes. I've never heard people complaining that the Nocticron produces too shallow DoF, for example.