Went to get a G80 and ended up with an A7..tips from M4/3 and FF users?

Treadurownpath wrote:

Firstly, this is not a M4/3 bashing thread. I have been using M4/3 since 2013 now. I have a GX80 and several moderate lenses including 20mm, 14mm 12-32mm and 45-175mm. I travel a lot and love the size and features of my GX80.

However, I have just become sick of the GX80 viewfinder and was a little bit disheartened to find that they have used the same model, complained about since the GX7 days, in the GX9. It is not even the colour tearing that bothers me, it is the ratio and size, like peering through a tunnel. I use the viewfinder for essentially all of my compositions.

So I set off to get a new camera. The GX8's flawed shutter and IBIS system ruled that out so I looked at the G80. It's great, but the Sony A7 came up on a prime deal for £570 (including cashback) with kit lens. I just couldn't resist.

I have not had a big chance to try it out but am instantly noticing the bigger viewfinder. The menus are not as complicated as people make out and overall it seems fine to use. A big miss if the lack of touchscreen AF. All in all, the GX80 is quicker in every respect and more fully featured, but then I think well most of my shots are landscapes or general travel photos like portraits, do I really need any more speed than the A7.

Moreover, although I love the functions of the GX80 like 4k and its various 4k photo modes, in practice I barely ever use these. I'm a pretty traditional photographer from that point of view.

So currently I'm assessing the image quality difference, especially in relation to my needs and weighing up whether an A7 with the 28 F2 and 50 F1.8 would actually meet 99% of my photography needs. I may yet still run M4/3 parallel to this though with a couple of zooms for video and wildlife....or I may just get a cheapy FZ1000.

In any case, I was just pondering what other people's thoughts were on running both systems and if any M4/3 users can help me with tips to adjust to FF. I really am a noob in this area!

Who knows, perhaps the FF IQ won't capture me and I'll merely keep my GX80!

First of all, the IQ of the A7 will blow the GX80 out of the water. Having owned an A7 system as well as M43 for ages, I will tell you that the files from the A7 are a joy to work with, especially if you use low light or higher ISO. (However, the difference between the A7 and the GX8 is quite a bit smaller than the difference between the A7 and the GX80...keep that in mind when you make your decision.)

That being said....After 2 years with my A7, I sold it and returned to M43, with yes, that "flawed" camera you refuse to consider, the GX8. I actually prefer the GX8 in almost every way to the A7. Yes, you get the better sensor with the A7, for sure. But you also get wonky white balance and inconsistent color rendition, SLOW AF (not so much in daylight, but the A7 is awful in low light, which is a royal pain, especially when you have been used to Panasonic's excellent low light AF capabilities); expensive, and not great, lens selection, and no stabilization at all unless the lens has it. Add to that the refusal of Sony to activate sensor based PDAF in that camera for non-native lenses, and it means you have to use the expensive and touchy LAEA4 adapter for A-mount lenses, and it won't AF with adapted Canon lenses (unless you want to wait a week while it gets around to it).

Now, on the plus side, working with FF will give you a very different perspective on DOF effects and it's a great learning experience. I learned a lot about subject isolation and composition while working with it, and that was very valuable. As a matter of fact, I would add in another FF to my system again, if anyone other than Sony comes out with a mirrorless FF system (and I can afford it at some point), for wide to normal work in lower light, which is where M43 is at its weakest. However, since I spend most of my time out at long tele ranges, M43 (GX8 and 100-400mm) is a more versatile system for me at this point overall, so it's what I have and enjoy now.

So, moral of the story?  The A7 is a pain in the butt to use.  Later models rectified many of the flaws in that particular camera (although not the color rendition), and you would be far better served by buying one of them instead of the A7.  I personally would recommend the GX8 over the A7 that you are considering, actually....Much better camera, and the world's best EVF. By the way, I bought my GX8 after almost being totally put off by the hysteria about SS and the stabilization, and I realized that the entire issue was hugely overblown.  I use e-shutter about 90% of the time, and when I switch to the mechanical shutter, I don't have the problems with it that I thought I was going to, either, so it's a non-issue for me.  The stabilization is mediocre, but, to use that as an excuse when you are going to be buying a camera that has NO IBIS at all, is kind of an odd argument....

Anyway, my advice?  If you want to dabble in FF, then go for the A7.  It's a great learning experience.  Just keep in mind you are getting a body that has some major flaws, and it may not be all you want it to be.....

-J

Treadurownpath wrote:

Firstly, this is not a M4/3 bashing thread. I have been using M4/3 since 2013 now. I have a GX80 and several moderate lenses including 20mm, 14mm 12-32mm and 45-175mm. I travel a lot and love the size and features of my GX80.

However, I have just become sick of the GX80 viewfinder and was a little bit disheartened to find that they have used the same model, complained about since the GX7 days, in the GX9. It is not even the colour tearing that bothers me, it is the ratio and size, like peering through a tunnel. I use the viewfinder for essentially all of my compositions.

So I set off to get a new camera. The GX8's flawed shutter and IBIS system ruled that out so I looked at the G80. It's great, but the Sony A7 came up on a prime deal for £570 (including cashback) with kit lens. I just couldn't resist.

I have not had a big chance to try it out but am instantly noticing the bigger viewfinder. The menus are not as complicated as people make out and overall it seems fine to use. A big miss if the lack of touchscreen AF. All in all, the GX80 is quicker in every respect and more fully featured, but then I think well most of my shots are landscapes or general travel photos like portraits, do I really need any more speed than the A7.

Moreover, although I love the functions of the GX80 like 4k and its various 4k photo modes, in practice I barely ever use these. I'm a pretty traditional photographer from that point of view.

So currently I'm assessing the image quality difference, especially in relation to my needs and weighing up whether an A7 with the 28 F2 and 50 F1.8 would actually meet 99% of my photography needs. I may yet still run M4/3 parallel to this though with a couple of zooms for video and wildlife....or I may just get a cheapy FZ1000.

In any case, I was just pondering what other people's thoughts were on running both systems and if any M4/3 users can help me with tips to adjust to FF. I really am a noob in this area!

Who knows, perhaps the FF IQ won't capture me and I'll merely keep my GX80!

I was following you till the end, where you were willing to use an FZ1000 for anything the A7 and a wide + normal prime lens couldn't do.

Personally, I get most of what I need from m4/3.  I shoot Nikon (D750/D500) when I need the extra that it gives, but the sacrifice in cost and weight is only worth it for extreme conditions.  I have as much (or more) invested in my Nikon gear as my m4/3 gear; full complement of lenses, flashes, remote triggers, larger camera bags, etc.

If you want to dabble in FF, then that's good.  But I just don't see going to FF for IQ and then using something else because you don't have enough gear to cover your needs.  Of course, if all you need is a 28 and 50 mm lens, then that's great.

I am a bit mystified why Sony is always seen as the FF alternative to M43.
I am testing the FF waters myself at the moment. It all started when I bought a 28PC lens and found my Nikon D300 did not get the most out of this lens due to the restricted angle of view.

I found an incredibly cheep hardly used D700 to sit behind the lens. Playing around I was quite shocked at the image quality that even this elderly camera gave me. A SH 24-120 F4 was quickly added. The whole lot cost me less than the planned 12-100 was going to cost.

I think it is also worth considering the traditional DSLR if you want to dabble in FF, a used D750, D800 or D610 for example a fine camera. Nikon has a certain pedigree that Sony does not have and it probably shows in some practical areas like menus and white balance.

The files from my D700 are much easier to work with than those from my EM5 and they have a certain creamy quality that I like. M5 EM5 files seem to be a bit more “gritty”.
For some strange reason that I cannot understand, I have enjoyed the return to a good optical viewfinder.

BTW, the D700 24-120 is not as evilly heavy as a carry around camera as FF is sometimes made out.

NCV wrote:

I am a bit mystified why Sony is always seen as the FF alternative to M43.
I am testing the FF waters myself at the moment. It all started when I bought a 28PC lens and found my Nikon D300 did not get the most out of this lens due to the restricted angle of view.

Mirrorless, mirrorless....if you prefer an EVF, and want to use adapted lenses, mirrorless makes more sense.

I found an incredibly cheep hardly used D700 to sit behind the lens. Playing around I was quite shocked at the image quality that even this elderly camera gave me. A SH 24-120 F4 was quickly added. The whole lot cost me less than the planned 12-100 was going to cost.

I think it is also worth considering the traditional DSLR if you want to dabble in FF, a used D750, D800 or D610 for example a fine camera. Nikon has a certain pedigree that Sony does not have and it probably shows in some practical areas like menus and white balance.

I bought a D750 last year, and liked it, but the particular one I got ultimately got returned as it had a focusing issue. Even though the D750 is a very nice camera, I still prefer working with mirrorless, personally, but won't touch another Sony.

BTW, the D700 24-120 is not as evilly heavy as a carry around camera as FF is sometimes made out.

It's bulkier, and not terrible, but the D750 24-120mm was enough to give me significant wrist pain, unfortunately. I'm hoping the Nikon mirrorless FF that is rumored will be a little more svelte overall (not that I can afford it at the moment)....

-J

Ok, I've been completely called out on the concept of complaining about the IBIS in the GX8 whilst buying a camera and considering lenses without any IBIS at all. Completely fair point on that one haha. I guess what I mean is, is that it is hard to swallow swapping a GX80 for the GX8 in some ways, knowing that the shutter and IBIS has been improved, whilst testing out FF seems like something entirely different altogether.

Guys, the GX8 is a fantastic camera no doubt and the staunch defense of it clearly indicates that. In fact, it is convincing me almost to get one (maybe when they get even cheaper second hand) for use with a longer zoom (100-300 perhaps) for wildlife.

Someone also questioned my use of an FZ1000. Again, this is just for wildlife when I'm travelling (safari/rainforest etc). I am not interested in BIF etc. However, these trips are not extremely frequent so I don't want to spend a fortune on this setup. However, the GX8 setup above could be great.

Honestly, I think I was getting to the point where the only lens I really thought that the IQ was special was the 20mm. The others don't quite have that pop. The 14 is unimpressive etc etc. So I was looking at getting something like the 15mm but its fairly costly so I thought hey, lets try an A7 with a 28mm which is only working out a couple of hundred quid more expensive including the camera body.

So an A7 system (upgraded infrequently) with a 28 and 50 for landscapes and travel (the vast majority of my shooting) and a GX8 with a 100-300 (I dont think I can afford the 100-400) and maybe even a 12-35 for video etc somewhere down the line in the future might be my future setup.

Treadurownpath wrote:

So I set off to get a new camera. The GX8's flawed shutter and IBIS system ruled that out

Say what? Each to her/his own, I suppose, but I don't encounter a "flawed shutter and IBIS system" at all.

so I looked at the G80. It's great, but the Sony A7 came up on a prime deal for £570 (including cashback) with kit lens. I just couldn't resist.

In any case, I was just pondering what other people's thoughts were on running both systems and if any M4/3 users can help me with tips to adjust to FF.

I use both Panasonic MFT and Sony FF. As far as tips, well, you have to have a reason for wanting more than one system. Adjusting is a matter of gaining experience through practice in the situations where you want FF.

So currently I'm assessing the image quality difference, especially in relation to my needs and weighing up whether an A7 with the 28 F2 and 50 F1.8 would actually meet 99% of my photography needs.

Everyone's needs are different. 35mm and 50mm meet 90%+ of my needs with my Sony.

I may yet still run M4/3 parallel to this though with a couple of zooms for video and wildlife....or I may just get a cheapy FZ1000.

I also use an FZ1000 for certain things: outdoor picnics, and the like, where 25-400mm is quite handy! It's a 1" sensor, of course, so how the final image is used is a consideration.

- Richard

Treadurownpath wrote:

Honestly, I think I was getting to the point where the only lens I really thought that the IQ was special was the 20mm. The others don't quite have that pop. The 14 is unimpressive etc etc. So I was looking at getting something like the 15mm but its fairly costly so I thought hey, lets try an A7 with a 28mm which is only working out a couple of hundred quid more expensive including the camera body.

Well, the only lens you have that IS special is the 20mm. If you want pop, you need to look at some of the PL lenses, or the higher end non-PL zooms (12-35mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, for example), or some of the better Oly lenses. There is a big difference in output between any of those level lenses and the ones you have.

So an A7 system (upgraded infrequently) with a 28 and 50 for landscapes and travel (the vast majority of my shooting) and a GX8 with a 100-300 (I dont think I can afford the 100-400) and maybe even a 12-35 for video etc somewhere down the line in the future might be my future setup.

Be forewarned; the 28mm e-mount Sony is very sharp, but has really murky color rendition. I did not buy one because of that. Instead, I used a 28mm adapted Minolta AF (A-mount), which was just lovely. Remember; lenses each have their own unique qualities, and a basic lens in M43 that does not give you the punch you want is going to be paralleled by the basic lenses in pretty much any other system. To get better output costs more $ in the lens department, no matter what the brand system you use.....Sensors cannot compensate for mediocre glass, no matter how good they are.

-J

These two were from the A7 and the 28mm Minolta AF lens: