I just have to praise the micro43 system!....

I invested heavily in micro43 bodies and lenses starting with the Olympus EPL1 with the Panasonic 20mm lens.

I had been using a Canon 7D and was tired of heavy equipment.

Someone on one of my groups posted images she had taken with the EPL1 and I was blown away by the color and quality, so I had to buy one to see how I would like the micro43 system.

The interface of the EPL1 was kind of primitive when you compare it with that of today's current micro43 bodies - but undaunted, I moved up to EPL5s and then a Panasonic GH2, Panasonic GX7 and EM 10 ii. I loved them all...and also loved just about every lens I bought for them.

Having to do quite a bit of event work and often finding myself in dark venues I was attracted to the high ISO noise handling of the Sony mirrorless cameras and bought an A7iii and Tamron 28-75 lens. It was my first experience with a full frame camera.

I was immediately frustrated with the shorter reach of lenses on a full frame body. I had been spoiled by the reach of my 35-100 Panasonic lens, equaling a 70-200mm reach! I kept finding too many people out of focus when I used the rather open apertures I was used to using with my micro43 bodies.

Yes...at wide apertures there's no doubt that I can get nice smooth bokeh in my portrait-type shots with the Sony A7iii...BUT...

HONESTLY...the high ISO performance of the Olympus EM10 ii (and that of the Panasonic GX7) is nothing to sneeze at. Took this picture this morning in a high-ceilinged fluorescent + yellow tungsten bulb lit huge room with Auto White Balance. It's just an out of camera cropped and sized town image, taken at ISO 2500. The skin color is great. The Sony's auto white balance is not as good as that from the EM10 ii. Lens was the Olympus 12-40.

I've used a heck of a lot of cameras in my decades of love for photography, and none have pleased me more than my micro cameras. (The Sony RX10 iv is in another category with a smaller sensor - but its 24-600mm equivalent reach is greatly appreciated. It does not do nearly as well with high ISO images.)

Isabel

Nice write up. If you think you are spoiled now, if you ever get to play with the Oly 12-100, with dual stabilization, and handheld still shots at 1 -3 seconds, it will take you to yet another level 😃

Albert Valentino wrote:

Nice write up. If you think you are spoiled now, if you ever get to play with the Oly 12-100, with dual stabilization, and handheld still shots at 1 -3 seconds, it will take you to yet another level 😃

Thanks, Albert.

I suspect I would really enjoy that lens except for the fact that when I shoot events most of my subjects are moving, so the slow handheld shots wouldn't yield sharp people!

Every now and then I lust for the EM1 ii, but I really prefer the tilting lcd of the em10 ii to the fully articulated lcd of the EM1 ii.

Isabel

Isabel Cutler wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

Nice write up. If you think you are spoiled now, if you ever get to play with the Oly 12-100, with dual stabilization, and handheld still shots at 1 -3 seconds, it will take you to yet another level 😃

Thanks, Albert.

I suspect I would really enjoy that lens except for the fact that when I shoot events most of my subjects are moving, so the slow handheld shots wouldn't yield sharp people!

Every now and then I lust for the EM1 ii, but I really prefer the tilting lcd of the em10 ii to the fully articulated lcd of the EM1 ii.

I am also a big fan of the tilty LCD and used it on my EM1.1. On my EM1.2 I rapidly disliked everything about it and never use it at all other than the fixed position ☹️ It is just annoying  and disorienting compared to when I used it for macro. The tilty LCD stays in line with the lens and helps compose intuitively.

I also prefer the tilt screen, it's more robust as well.  Unless one needs to see the screen while in front of the camera, tilt screen works better IMO

Isabel Cutler wrote:

HONESTLY...the high ISO performance of the Olympus EM10 ii (and that of the Panasonic GX7) is nothing to sneeze at. Took this picture this morning in a high-ceilinged fluorescent + yellow tungsten bulb lit huge room with Auto White Balance. It's just an out of camera cropped and sized town image, taken at ISO 2500. The skin color is great. The Sony's auto white balance is not as good as that from the EM10 ii. Lens was the Olympus 12-40.

The image looks pixelated with tons of JPG artifacts even at screen size.

I am sorry, but I will happily sneeze at that...

I've used a heck of a lot of cameras in my decades of love for photography, and none have pleased me more than my micro cameras. (The Sony RX10 iv is in another category with a smaller sensor - but its 24-600mm equivalent reach is greatly appreciated. It does not do nearly as well with high ISO images.)

Isabel

Maybe you need to check your screen ...

JaKing wrote:

Maybe you need to check your screen ...

blotches and dots

Watercoloured and jpg artifacts

Dennis1972 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Maybe you need to check your screen ...

blotches and dots

Watercoloured and jpg artifacts

There's your problem ...

Do you really expect a 1289x1016 JPEG to stand up to 400% (or more) magnification?

Try viewing it at 100%.

You will still see minor artifacts, as JPEGs are lossey by nature, but nothing like your extremely unrealistic expectations show.

That applies equally to any similar file you see on the internet.

JaKing wrote:

Dennis1972 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Maybe you need to check your screen ...

blotches and dots

Watercoloured and jpg artifacts

There's your problem ...

Do you really expect a 1289x1016 JPEG to stand up to 400% (or more) magnification?

Try viewing it at 100%.

The above ARE BOTH AT 100% captured from my 32" 4k monitor.

You will still see minor artifacts, as JPEGs are lossey by nature, but nothing like your extremely unrealistic expectations show.

It might appear to be unrealistic to someone who only shoots m43 and basing their expectation upon it.

That applies equally to any similar file you see on the internet.

Dennis1972 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Dennis1972 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Maybe you need to check your screen ...

blotches and dots

Watercoloured and jpg artifacts

There's your problem ...

Do you really expect a 1289x1016 JPEG to stand up to 400% (or more) magnification?

Try viewing it at 100%.

The above ARE BOTH AT 100% captured from my 32" 4k monitor.

You will still see minor artifacts, as JPEGs are lossey by nature, but nothing like your extremely unrealistic expectations show.

It might appear to be unrealistic to someone who only shoots m43 and basing their expectation upon it.

That applies equally to any similar file you see on the internet.

Sorry mate, but you are doing some serious resizing here. Perhaps quite inadvertently through a misunderstanding of how displays work.

JaKing wrote:

Dennis1972 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Dennis1972 wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Maybe you need to check your screen ...

blotches and dots

Watercoloured and jpg artifacts

There's your problem ...

Do you really expect a 1289x1016 JPEG to stand up to 400% (or more) magnification?

Try viewing it at 100%.

The above ARE BOTH AT 100% captured from my 32" 4k monitor.

You will still see minor artifacts, as JPEGs are lossey by nature, but nothing like your extremely unrealistic expectations show.

It might appear to be unrealistic to someone who only shoots m43 and basing their expectation upon it.

That applies equally to any similar file you see on the internet.

Sorry mate, but you are doing some serious resizing here. Perhaps quite inadvertently through a misunderstanding of how displays work.

Exactly. 4k line of pixels on screen to hold ~ 1k of image pixels. Isn’t that roughly 400%? On an iPad it is closer to 100% where it looks just fine 😉

...not pixel peeping

Isabel

Isabel Cutler wrote:

...not pixel peeping

Isabel

Exactly, Isabel.

When I upload to the internet, almost everything is resized (I.e. tortured). When I print or edit, I only ever use the raw file.

There is a difference, apparently lost on our friend at present. That's OK, we all had to learn things for the first time sometime.

I agree, MFT is quite good, with a great selection of bodies and lenses.  What other lens mount offers this kind of versatility?

Since I am not a pro and don't have to please a client or  meet with his technical requirements, I only have to please myself...and that's a really nice place to be.

Isabel

Isabel Cutler wrote:

Since I am not a pro and don't have to please a client or meet with his technical requirements, I only have to please myself...and that's a really nice place to be.

Isabel

Indeed it is, Isabel.  Your pictures are just fine.  Keep up the good work.

Comments like from self important folks like many of the pixel peepers who blow up small parts of pictures to try to make a point (or to validate their importance) are exactly why I DON'T post many pictures.

Best Wishes, Isabell.

John

Isabel Cutler wrote:

snip

I've used a heck of a lot of cameras in my decades of love for photography, and none have pleased me more than my micro cameras.

snip.

Says it all. High five, Sister!

Stan