New in MFT (2020): Panasonic G9 or Olympus E-M1ii (mainly wildlife)

Elias06 wrote:

When I compare the Z50 to the Pana and Oly I notice the following:

• Pro
  • Sensor size

Of course some of us choose m4/3s for BIFs because we think the sensor size is a pro

SteveY80 wrote:

StefanSC wrote:

I agree with the fact somebody who would get really familiar with the G9 or the E-M1 II would be able to obtain better results.

I also think that, after the 2.0 FW update, the G9 has more depth for BiF (the near/far AF has a lot of potential).

I'm not an expert on the G9's (over)complicated AF system, but personally I've not found the 2.0 FW update's features to have any benefit when shooting birds in flight.

The near/far AF options work quite well with still subjects, e.g. when trying to get it to focus on a bird in a tree rather than the branches around it. But trying to use near AF when tracking a bird in flight against a busy background just caused a lot more hunting and completely missed shots. For me simply using a cluster of focus points worked better than seemingly more advanced features like animal detect and near/far AF.

My impression is that even though both cameras are capable, it's easier and simpler to get decent BIF results with Olympus PDAF.

I agree. I have found good uses for near and far AF but BIF isn't one of them.  I'm just not dextrous enough

StefanSC wrote:

I agree with the fact somebody who would get really familiar with the G9 or the E-M1 II would be able to obtain better results.

I also think that, after the 2.0 FW update, the G9 has more depth for BiF (the near/far AF has a lot of potential).

That being said, the test is far from useless as :

1) It is roughly controlled so you can compare results between cameras.

2) It works on the "how easy is to get good results with this camera" level, which I guess is what we all want: the camera to get out of the way in order to focus on the actual image.

You are right, I shouldn't have used the term useless, it is a good test for which camera you can pick up and shoot Red Kites in a semi controlled environment first time out  What these test rarely do is test how useful it is to the average birder in the field when so many other things come into play .

Elias06 wrote:

drj3 wrote:

The current lack of native lenses and the lack of IBIS would both be negatives for the Z50. While IBIS or stabilization is not generally required for BIFs, it is important for everything else including stationary wildlife.

That is correct, however with the FTZ adapter I should be able to use the F-mount lenses as well. Is the lack of IBIS a big issue if the lens has stabilization?

It depends. If the camera does not have IBIS (both the E-M1.2 and G9 do), then you should generally get stabilized lenses, if you want to photograph things in low illumination.

The Tamron 18-400 does have stabilization (up to 3 stops according to Lenstip - down to 1/75 at 400mm). Its performance is similar to other zooms with such wide focal length range (stopping down is needed for best performance and most tend to be weakest at the longest focal length).

https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=514

One suggestion and one comment

Suggestion: when this pandemic if over, go to a camera store and handle both cameras - pick the one with the best ergonomics. I picked the GH4 and then upgraded to the G9 - love it. I have the 100-400. Most similar in feel to my old canon, and felt best in my biggish hands.

Comment: with regards to BIF - you will find that both systems work only as well as the user allows/experience. Seriously. Example - I was with some friends - they were shooting Canon 7D mII with 100-40o (very capable cameras, right?). A needletail (type of swift) was flying around and we blasted away. The result? my G9 was the only one that got any decent photos of the little sucker [and all good natured ribbing of m43 stopped right then and there].

Elias06 wrote:

drj3 wrote:

The current lack of native lenses and the lack of IBIS would both be negatives for the Z50. While IBIS or stabilization is not generally required for BIFs, it is important for everything else including stationary wildlife.

That is correct, however with the FTZ adapter I should be able to use the F-mount lenses as well. Is the lack of IBIS a big issue if the lens has stabilization?

My feeling is that most mft superzooms end at 150mm (= 300 mm FF) for a reason. Keeping 300mm (= 600 mm FF) steady without a tripod takes practice and/or technology. If you can get dual IS in with the other bodies, why settle for less?

acfo wrote:

Elias06 wrote:

drj3 wrote:

The current lack of native lenses and the lack of IBIS would both be negatives for the Z50. While IBIS or stabilization is not generally required for BIFs, it is important for everything else including stationary wildlife.

That is correct, however with the FTZ adapter I should be able to use the F-mount lenses as well. Is the lack of IBIS a big issue if the lens has stabilization?

My feeling is that most mft superzooms end at 150mm (= 300 mm FF) for a reason. Keeping 300mm (= 600 mm FF) steady without a tripod takes practice and/or technology. If you can get dual IS in with the other bodies, why settle for less?

Technology as in the EM-1 II or III and the 300F4 lens. The number of stops stabilized for is a big deal with a long focal length lens. 7 stops versus 3 stops is a huge difference. With 3 stops of stabilization I likely wouldn't even be happy with many shots at a FL of 40mm (m4/3), let alone 300mm (600mm FF). 5 stops of stabilization with the EM-1 I was a primary reason for me getting into m4/3 5 years ago. Size was the other; features yet another.

Both the Panasonic and the Olympus are fabulous cameras.

Both Panasonic and Olympus make superb lenses.

And there are a great deal of superb photographers who use Panasonic bodies + Olympus lenses, or Olympus lenses + Panasonic (or PanaLeica) lenses.

Given the almost complete parity between the cameras, my only advice is - if at all humanly possible, try to get your hands on each camera. You won't be able to try them out 'in the field' doing BIF photography - but merely holding each camera and playing around with could probably be more valuable to you than armloads of serious advice. Cameras have different 'feels' to them - and finding the one you like better - or the one you actually love using - is more than half the battle.

If you are unable to get your hands on them, then I only have one other suggestion and it comes from having used both Panasonic and Olympus cameras for years: buy the Panasonic G9. WHY? Because you are already familiar with Lumix menus from your FZ300 - and that familiarity means the G9 will feel like an old friend once you start using it - and you won't have the relatively steep learning curve of trying to figure out all the bells and whistles of the legendarily complex Olympus menu system.

It's that simple.

One other radical thought by the way - Panasonic makes a significantly better version of your FZ300 - the FZ2500 - which seems to be universally beloved among photographers of all stripes including quite a few nature enthusiasts and birders. The sensor in it, while not the equivalent of the state-of-the-art ones inside both the G9 and the E-M1ii, is nonetheless quite fine for what it does - and it even has some inventive, powerful and simple shooting modes which allow taking high-speed sequences of animals-in-motion - or birds-in-flight - which probably would make your FZ300 look like an ancient medieaval tool. Arguably the Sony RX10 Mk iii or iv are every bit as good as the FZ2500 - so if that possibility at all intrigues you, you might also put both them both on your short list. If I were looking for a powerful all-in-one tool for both birding and general photography, I certainly would.

The other consideration - which comes back to actually getting the cameras in your hand, by hook or by crook, has to do with their EVF's: both have superb viewfinders but each is different - and for some photographers, the viewfinder (aka EVF) can surprisingly be the most important part of the equation. Here too, I'm slightly prejudiced in favor of the G9 - simply because I think the Panasonic engineers have mastered the art of making superb electronic viewfinders...a little better than their Olympus counterparts have. (So have the Fujifilm engineers, by the way - but that's another story.)

Good luck. Assuredly, no matter which you choose...it will be an interesting and serious upgrade over your FZ300 (which, by the way, is a very fine camera as well).

Elias06 wrote:

StefanSC wrote:

So, putting it all together: get either a Nikon D7500 or Z50 (if you prefer mirrorless) and the Nikon 200-500 if you shoot 60% wildlife and 20% BIFs. You can get it in budget if you shop around and it will out-wildlife and out-BIF anything in MFT land short of a E-M1x and Oly 300mm f4.

If you can't squeeze the 200-500 in the budget, go for the Sigma 150-600mm C or the Sigma 100-400mm C. Both are strong performers, above what is currently available from MFT tele zooms with similar reach.

With this set-up you'll have access to full frame sensors if you desire/need in the future and you'll be able to access various high end lenses (for example, the light 300mm and 500mm PF lenses or the optically superb, expensive and extremely heavy 400/500/600mms). Not to mention the vast used market and various either lenses.

Thank you for your answer. I had actually considered the Z50 but as I couldn't find any reviews on its use for wildlife photography I let that ship sail.

What is your opinion on the Z50 for wildlife and BIF? I have checked prices and I could definitely afford the camera + converter + Tamron 18-400MM F/3.5-6.3 DI II VC HLD NIKON (while maybe saving up for one of the better Nikon lenses like you propose).

When I compare the Z50 to the Pana and Oly I notice the following:

• Pro
  • Sensor size
  • Flexibility for next step-up if and when necessary
  • More lenses to choose from on the long zoom end
• Con
  • Not weather sealed (is this correct? I get mixed messages)
  • Lenses are larger, I don't have any physical restraints, but I do travel a lot and a smaller system might be better for me (however the combo I described above is actually smaller than G9 + PL 100-400)
  • No IBIS

My main concern is size and my other concern is that I cannot find any info on the AF-system of the Z50 and how it compares to G9/E-M1ii.

Unfortunately, i have no experience with the Z50, though I have a experience with the Z6 and Z7 and according to Nikon "guru" (AFAIK he is independent, as in Nikon are doing their best to ignore him) Thom Hogan, the Z50 is similar to the Z6 so, by interpolation, I would say the Z50 should fall somewhere between G9 and E-M1 II from an AF point of view, probably closer to the E-M1 II.

The body of the Z50 itself though is a rung below the G9 and E-M1 II when it comes to functions and build quality (not ergonomics though).

I would avoid the super-zooms like the 18-400 though. As far as I know, the only super-zoom that is worth it's salt is the Olympus 12-100mm f4 ;). Either I would get the dual kit and save up for the adapter and 200-500 or just bite the bullet and get the 200-500 setup from the start.

Regarding the cons:

1) Weather sealed is something that a definition from Lensrentals (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/the-devils-photography-dictionary/) explains very well: "A term that consumers falsely define as ‘weather proof’ and camera companies accurately define as ‘the warranty doesn’t cover water damage’."

2) The size issue comes into play usually when flying. If you fly a lot in small/regional flights where you are limited in cabin luggage, then yes, it matters a lot. Otherwise, a proper backpack and a proper strap will simplify your life.

Also, there is the issue of overall image quality versus weight. A Nikon 20MP APS-C sensor with the 200-500 f5.6 will always net you better IQ compared to any mFT 20 MP sensor mated to the PL 100-400mm. But you are 1/1.5kg heavier set-up. For me, the trade-off is worth it, but then again, my experience with the PL 100-400 was disappointing.

Finally, there is something to be said about the Nikon PF lenses which are quite light and high performance...

3) IBIS, oh, IBIS... My experience with IBIS is a follows:

a) Extremely useful when shooting movies.

b) Extremely useful when shooting hand held using street lights as your only light source.

c) Somewhat useful when shooting with m43 telephoto lenses (ironically , up to a point, a heavy telephoto is easier to hand-hold compared to one that is lightweight...)

d) Somewhat useful when shooting wildlife, but not as useful as Optical IS.

e) Otherwise, kinda useless.

Peter 1745 wrote:

Don't over think it. Both Olympus and Panasonic systems are highly capable.

If you are worried about BIF with Panasonic you can reassure yourself by checking out posts from Trevor Carpenter who gets excellent BIF photographs with his Panasonic system.

If possible try handling both systems and choose the one that feels best in your hands.

Just dont forget that BIF needs some specific training: the photographer's skills are more limiting than the cameras performance

Dunsun wrote:

From my very own experience I can say that it depends on what you shoot.

My scenario - dogs running towards my camera.

Olympus E-M1 II + Oly 40-150 2.8 was significantly more accurate than Pana G9 + Pana 100-300 II.

the main reason for this is probably the Oly 40-150 f2.8. That lens is just in a ballpark of it’s own.

Which works spectacularly for BIF. Coupled with the dual IS with the 100-400, you can't go wrong.

Dick

:-)I know this is off thread,but just got done looking at your g80 pics. One word,excellent.

First of all I would like to thank everyone for giving their (semi-)professional advice concerning my question. However, after consideration of the different possibilities and more importantly the future possibilities, I have decided to not buy a MFT-camera and buy the new Nikon Z50. The main reasons are:

• Future upgrade possibilities
  When investing in the Z50 and buying Nikon F-Mount lenses, I will have the possibility to upgrade to either mirrorless full-frame or DSLR (FX and DX) without having to completely resell all the equipment.
  
• Portability vs IQ
  I compared the Z50 system with the MFT-system of the cameras I was looking into and the differences are a lot less then expected (unless of course using the 200-500 lens. I think it is worth the trade-off considering the better low-light performance of ASP-C (although I am certain the low light performance of MFT would have been sufficient for me). 
  
• Price
  The price of the Z50 with 70-300 AF-P DX VR lens is cheaper then the Pana or Oly combination. I know I will be giving up some handy stuff like video (not used) and IBIS (Nikon lenses have VR built in). But this again I feel is 'luxurious' and if I ever decide I need it, I can always upgrade to full-frame Z-series. 

I've used both companies products being a Pana G6/G8/G9 user with 100-300mm then 100-400mm progression.

I then switched to Olympus EM1 Mkii and 300mm f4 (along with other lens) the jump from years of Pana to Oly didn't bother me as I'm (like you said you were) a quick learner.

I still have the 100-400mm as a travel lens.

It really is a personal choice, there will be pros/cons for both and the opinion of others may match this.

Shame we are lockdown as you could try both out at a Pana or Olympus sponsored event or local camera shop.