Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

Started Nov 21, 2020 | Discussions
CedarTree33 Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

I have been a m4/3’s owner for a while now after selling my Nikon D700 full-frame camera and lenses in lieu of a lighter camera system for hiking and travel. I’m genuinely asking the questions below and am not trying to “troll” or anything like that.

I’m hoping to avoid any heated discussion about which camera systems best. I understand each person has their unique reasons for their system of choice. Mine has honestly been m4/3’s for a long time. But for me, I am starting to see my reasons for not moving into mirrorless full-frame dwindle. With that said, I recognize I may be missing something. With mirrorless full-frame camera system becoming smaller and lighter, it’s hard for me to justify staying with m4/3’s (especially with the news from Olympus). Here are my main two personal reasons for staying with m4/3’s currently:

1). Smaller/lighter lenses for long telephoto. With my Olympus 100-400mm, I’ve been able to get into bird and wildlife photography! I didn’t do that before due to the cost of the Full-frame lenses.

2). The computational photography features in the new Olympus cameras (e.g. live composite, Live ND, etc.) are pretty cool and prevent me from carrying extra gear and tripod. This allows me to keep my pack lighter during hikes and travel.

However, mirrorless full-frame lenses (equivalent to my m4/3 lenses) are pretty much the same size and weight...and sometimes cheaper. If they are not the same size, it seems they are only a couple inches difference. Also the mirrorless full-frame camera bodies are now the same size/weight as my Olympus E-M1 mark 3.

In terms of my reasoning for staying with m4/3’s above, I have been reading about/hearing that you can get the same m4/3 crop factor or field of view if you crop into a higher megapixel full-frame image (e.g. Using a Nikon Z7 or Sony A7R III/IV and cropping into the image). Also, I think it’s only a matter of time before the Full-frame bodies get more computational photography features. (The Canon R5/6 already has the 8 stops of image stabilization...which was a deleted 3rd reason I was staying with m4/3’s).

Therefore, with these abilities above, is there a legitimate reason why I should stay with m4/3’s? If I can get better low-light performance, better IQ, etc. with a full-frame mirrorless system AND keep my weight/size similar to what I have now. Why shouldn’t I switch? Or put another way, in regards to the two reasons for me staying with m4/3’s above, and with the full-frame mirrorless systems where they are at right now, is there still legitimacy for me to stay with m4/3’s?

Is there a reason that I’m not thinking about?...for example, will I not be able to grab focus using a full-frame camera and a distant subject (and therefore not able to crop in during post to achieve a more close-up shot...like I would with my Olympus 100-400mm)?

Thanks for your time and advice. Unfortunately, I’m not in a place or position where I can rent a bunch of gear to test out these questions. I appreciate your opinions and advice.

 CedarTree33's gear list:CedarTree33's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R5 Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Olympus 25mm F1.2 +4 more
Nikon D700 Nikon Z7 Sony a7R
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
NCB Senior Member • Posts: 2,040
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
2

IQ is to some extent subjective. Are you happy with your Oly IQ? If you are, then maybe IQ isn't a reason to change.

Maybe you should dip a toe into the FF market by getting a basic setup to try, rather than going whole-hog. A Z6 (or Z6ii) with the 24-70 f4 would be a good start.

Nigel

 NCB's gear list:NCB's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon D3100 Nikon Df Nikon Z6 Nikon Z50 +2 more
Dan_168 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,087
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
3

I own multiple format systems and here is how I see it. to me the FF offer huge image quality advantage, I really mean huge, the noise performance, and the shallow DOF control, the rendering of image, to me that makes me to favor FF. the only good thing I see in M4/3 is size, so if size is an important factor, stay with MFT, like you said, the 100-400 for example, you will not find such 200-800 equivalent thing in FF , at least not in the same price range and size for sure.

so I would say it's better to run both system and choose and pick the " right lens" for each, you don't have to duplicate everything, you can use the FF for portrait, taking advantage of the DOF control,, say a really cheap FF 85 1.8 still work better than the expensive MFT 45 1.2. a 35 1.8 is much cheaper and still works better than a 17 F0.95 MFT lens.

Also taking advantage of the high ISO advantage of FF when you need to shoot in those situation, and don't forget wide angle is much easier with FF, tons of 14-16 MM FL range FF option from super cheat to expensive. way more than MFT. .

Then keeping the MFT for super telephoto work, such as the 100-400 you mentioned, and if you are really into long lens, the new 150-400 F4.5 with built in TC is a dream lens for you, imagine to get a 800mm F4.5 lens in FF, how big and how expensive will that be?

I personally rent the EM1X for few weeks when it first come out, but i did not like the image quality so I decided to spend my $3000 elsewhere, but if the 150-400 were available at that point and I am bird shooter, it's hard to resist that combo.

gnik1 Regular Member • Posts: 196
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
2

Like you I am a mft user keeping a weather eye on FF.  But I'm not seeing that ff lenses are similar in size to mft equivalents - quite the opposite in fact. FF lenses (esp primes) seem to be getting bigger.  The diminutive size & high quality of mft lenses will keep me in that system for the foreseeable.

 gnik1's gear list:gnik1's gear list
Panasonic G85 Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH Panasonic 100-300mm F4-5.6 II +2 more
OP CedarTree33 Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

NCB wrote:

IQ is to some extent subjective. Are you happy with your Oly IQ? If you are, then maybe IQ isn't a reason to change.

Maybe you should dip a toe into the FF market by getting a basic setup to try, rather than going whole-hog. A Z6 (or Z6ii) with the 24-70 f4 would be a good start.

Nigel

Thanks Nigel!

My main intent with getting a higher megapixel camera is having the ability to crop in and still have adequate quality. But yes, I understand what you are saying. I could perhaps look at a Z7 (instead of a Z7II, Z6, or Z6II).

 CedarTree33's gear list:CedarTree33's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R5 Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Olympus 25mm F1.2 +4 more
PLShutterbug Senior Member • Posts: 1,321
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
1

As another said IQ is subjective. Your Oly IQ may be very similar to the Nikon Z7/II because the pixel pitch is close on both cameras.

If your reason to switch is to be able to crop FF the the Z6 is NOT your camera. You are used to what, 20MP? image quality. Cropping a Z6 image to DX results in about 8MP - still define for a display, but not for prints larger than about 8”x10”.

The real difference between FF and M43 or DX lenses is reach, uncropped. If you are happy with your reach right now you should not switch. While a 400mm FF lens is the same size as a 40mm M43 lens, your crop factor means you only need a - what, 250mm? - to get the same reach. Tha means that for the same uncropped image your M43 kit is smaller and lighter than FF. You already switched away from FF once to lighten your load. Switching back to mirrorless will NOT be lighter than your old FF DSLR kit. It might actually be heavier because the Z lens system is maximized for image quality, not size and weight. Several of the Z lenses are larger and heavier than their F-mount predecessors.

I switched up from Nikon DX to FF with my Z7 and I am really, really happy. But I care more for image quality than weight and I’m willing to lug around what it takes to maximize IQ.

You haven’t convinced me to convince you to switch away from M43.

 PLShutterbug's gear list:PLShutterbug's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR +5 more
OP CedarTree33 Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

You haven’t convinced me to convince you to switch away from M43.

Yeah. That’s where I’m struggling to. But when I look at a Z7 with 50mm 1.8 compared to my E-M1.3 with 25mm f1.2...and similar S line of Nikon glass...I start to wonder...what am I still doing in m4/3 land? I’m not upset with the images my Oly gear produces when I’m in good light. However, once dusk hits the quality drops significantly - Especially if I’m doing wildlife where I have to have high shutter speeds.

This is where having a FF might be beneficial. I can keep my gear small and lightweight with the S line of glass. When I need longer reach I can whip out a 70-200mm f2.8 + TC and f5.6 and have the similar reach as my m4/3 telephoto lenses - especially if I can crop into the subject with a higher mp camera (like the Z7/Z7II).

Or am I thinking about that wrong?

 CedarTree33's gear list:CedarTree33's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R5 Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Olympus 25mm F1.2 +4 more
PLShutterbug Senior Member • Posts: 1,321
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
1

Yes, you’re thinking about that wrong.

Not that your IQ in poor light won’t improve with FF (it will, for uncropped images), but that the S-line Z lenses are small and light. They are not, especially if you get the f/2.8 versions.

Disabuse yourself of your thinking that mirrorless=lighter. It is categorically untrue. The quicker you do that the faster you will be able to make decisions on other criteria.

 PLShutterbug's gear list:PLShutterbug's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR +5 more
djd97 Regular Member • Posts: 274
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
2

nickels25 wrote:

You haven’t convinced me to convince you to switch away from M43.

Yeah. That’s where I’m struggling to. But when I look at a Z7 with 50mm 1.8 compared to my E-M1.3 with 25mm f1.2...and similar S line of Nikon glass...I start to wonder...what am I still doing in m4/3 land? I’m not upset with the images my Oly gear produces when I’m in good light. However, once dusk hits the quality drops significantly - Especially if I’m doing wildlife where I have to have high shutter speeds.

This is where having a FF might be beneficial. I can keep my gear small and lightweight with the S line of glass. When I need longer reach I can whip out a 70-200mm f2.8 + TC and f5.6 and have the similar reach as my m4/3 telephoto lenses - especially if I can crop into the subject with a higher mp camera (like the Z7/Z7II).

Or am I thinking about that wrong?

The 70-200 with a 2xTC would be 400mm and 42mp with a Z7. Cropped to DX size would be 600mm and 20mp. Cropped to m4/3 would be 800mm and 10mp.

Alternatively, your Oly 100-400 has an equivalent FOV of a 200-800 on FF and 16/20mp (depending on body).

So, you'd need an 80mp FF sensor for a 400mm lens to give you the same resolution/reach as a 20mp m4/3 sensor with a 400mm lens.

 djd97's gear list:djd97's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +2 more
daleeight Senior Member • Posts: 2,991
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
2

You mention "cropping in" a few times, and while that is an option, it is a pretty crazy one to be permanent with. Why buy 45mp sensor just to whack it down to 20-25mp...? For one off "I don't have long enough lens" then maybe, or "I didn't compose this right" then maybe.

But you mention wanting more megapixels, so to me, if you have m43 20mp sensor (like my E-M1mkIII or Pen-f) then the z6 or z6II aren't really solving this for you.

The problem with Nikon or others, and people will not like this, is that for long zooms or primes, it is really difficult to beat Olympus (or Panasonic) lens options right now. You 100-400, while not awesome for "equivalent" aperture when it comes to in-focus depth (for those that like to argue equivalence), is a very good lens and had to get 200-800 in a Nikon in the package the Olympus is. Same with the Olympus 300mm prime and the Panasonic options too. You can get an older Nikon long zoom or prime, 500 or 600, but it isn't 800, and it is big, heavy, and long, and don't forget the adapter.

All that to say, if you are a bird or wildlife shooter, having a E-M1mkII or III or the E-M1x with a long zoom or prime is to me, the way to go. Yes, a lot of Nikon shooters shoot birds, but it just cost a lot more, and needs a bigger bag and more muscles. For everything else, the FF z6 or z7 lines, very good and can show the m32 cameras and lenses a thing or 2. Well, maybe macro not so much, because my E-M1mkIII with Oly 60mm f/2.8 macro is WAY smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the z6 with FTZ adapter and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro...

So if you want birds, or long zoom stuff, I'd stick with what you have, but for everything else, get some Nikon (sensor MP's your choice), the 24-70 f/4 zoom, and start shooting and build from there based on what you see.

-- hide signature --

Dale

 daleeight's gear list:daleeight's gear list
Olympus E-M1 III Nikon Z7 Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +7 more
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,120
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

I shoot both Olympus and Nikon (and Pansonic for video).  I like the m43 format for size, weight, and cost.  FF can be better, but it costs and weighs more (usually).

I have the Z7, but rarely use it.  Only when I'm looking for high mp images.  On the other hand, I would grab it over the E-M1x for most uses.  I had an E-M1x, did not like it and sent it back.  Too big, didn't like the ergonomics.

Even for wildlife, I usually use a pair of E-M1.2's and the Pansonic 100-400 and Olympus 300 f/4 (with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs).  But for really fast moving birds, I'll use a Nikon D500 and either the 200-500 f5.6 or the 300mm f2.8 (I can add 1.4, 1.7 or 2.0 TC).  Last time out, I took both lenses and the D500 and Z7; never did get around to using the Z7.

Nikon has a lot of work to do to fill out the Z lens lineup.  And they do not have any plans for a 70-200 f4 (which I really have a problem with).  I have the FX 70-200 f2.8, and it is big and heavy (and expensive) and it does work with the FTZ adapter.  So that's the problem.  I was optimistic that they would put out a line of f/4 lenses that make for a lighter and more affordable kit.  They aren't.

You have several recent purchases (including the Olympus 100-400, E-M1.3, and E-M1x).  A lot of money there.  And at this time, your Nikon telephoto options are FZ lenses which require an FTZ adapter.  It works, but if you plan to swap lenses frequently you will want to get several of them (and they aren't cheap).

And the E-M1x firmware update for birds is coming soon.  I would play with that for a while, first.  Too bad they aren't planning on updating the E-M1.3.  That alone is why I will likely be looking at the Z6 II.

It's a complicated decision.  I certainly wouldn't sell off my Oly gear until I was satisfied with any other system.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
OP CedarTree33 Contributing Member • Posts: 554
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

daleeight wrote:

You mention "cropping in" a few times, and while that is an option, it is a pretty crazy one to be permanent with. Why buy 45mp sensor just to whack it down to 20-25mp...? For one off "I don't have long enough lens" then maybe, or "I didn't compose this right" then maybe.

But you mention wanting more megapixels, so to me, if you have m43 20mp sensor (like my E-M1mkIII or Pen-f) then the z6 or z6II aren't really solving this for you.

The problem with Nikon or others, and people will not like this, is that for long zooms or primes, it is really difficult to beat Olympus (or Panasonic) lens options right now. You 100-400, while not awesome for "equivalent" aperture when it comes to in-focus depth (for those that like to argue equivalence), is a very good lens and had to get 200-800 in a Nikon in the package the Olympus is. Same with the Olympus 300mm prime and the Panasonic options too. You can get an older Nikon long zoom or prime, 500 or 600, but it isn't 800, and it is big, heavy, and long, and don't forget the adapter.

All that to say, if you are a bird or wildlife shooter, having a E-M1mkII or III or the E-M1x with a long zoom or prime is to me, the way to go. Yes, a lot of Nikon shooters shoot birds, but it just cost a lot more, and needs a bigger bag and more muscles. For everything else, the FF z6 or z7 lines, very good and can show the m32 cameras and lenses a thing or 2. Well, maybe macro not so much, because my E-M1mkIII with Oly 60mm f/2.8 macro is WAY smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the z6 with FTZ adapter and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro...

So if you want birds, or long zoom stuff, I'd stick with what you have, but for everything else, get some Nikon (sensor MP's your choice), the 24-70 f/4 zoom, and start shooting and build from there based on what you see.

Thank you! Super helpful!

 CedarTree33's gear list:CedarTree33's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R5 Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Olympus 25mm F1.2 +4 more
ZapperVT Senior Member • Posts: 1,438
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

nickels25 wrote:

1). Smaller/lighter lenses for long telephoto. With my Olympus 100-400mm, I’ve been able to get into bird and wildlife photography! I didn’t do that before due to the cost of the Full-frame lenses.

However, mirrorless full-frame lenses (equivalent to my m4/3 lenses) are pretty much the same size and weight...and sometimes cheaper. If they are not the same size, it seems they are only a couple inches difference. Also the mirrorless full-frame camera bodies are now the same size/weight as my Olympus E-M1 mark 3.

The Olympus 100-400 is unique for its combination of long effective focal length and low weight, at the sacrifice of less light collected and therefore lower IQ compared to FF equivalents. If you like this set of tradeoffs, you should keep your Oly because you won't find anything like it in full frame mirrorless right now.

A FF equivalent of the Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 would be a 200-800 f10-13. (To get the full frame equivalents of M43, multiply focal length and aperture by 2). If such a lens existed, it might not be much bigger or heavier than the Olympus. But there's nothing even close on the market. The closest you could come is a 150-600mm f5-6.3 with a 1.4x teleconverter for an effective 210-840 f/7.1-9. That combination would be a stop faster than the Olympus and approaching twice the weight.

And Sony is the only mirrorless system with a native150-600 available. For now you would have to use a DSLR lens with an adapter for a Nikon Z or a Canon R camera.

The only lenses in FF mirrorless that approach the reach and low weight of the Olympus 100-400mm (but not the versatility) are the two Canon RF f/11 primes, with the 800mm at 1260 grams and the 600mm f/11 at 930g.

So the Olympus has a unique combination of long focal length, low weight, and slow aperture (in FF equivalents) compared to equivalent FF lenses, which are bigger, heavier, and faster. The tradeoff for low weight and size is less light, and hence lower IQ. This is the same tradeoff a APS-C user like myself makes, but even more so for M43.

 ZapperVT's gear list:ZapperVT's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z50 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED +9 more
jaiyenyen Regular Member • Posts: 222
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

john isaacs wrote:

I shoot both Olympus and Nikon (and Pansonic for video). I like the m43 format for size, weight, and cost. FF can be better, but it costs and weighs more (usually).

I have the Z7, but rarely use it. Only when I'm looking for high mp images. On the other hand, I would grab it over the E-M1x for most uses. I had an E-M1x, did not like it and sent it back. Too big, didn't like the ergonomics.

Even for wildlife, I usually use a pair of E-M1.2's and the Pansonic 100-400 and Olympus 300 f/4 (with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs). But for really fast moving birds, I'll use a Nikon D500 and either the 200-500 f5.6 or the 300mm f2.8 (I can add 1.4, 1.7 or 2.0 TC). Last time out, I took both lenses and the D500 and Z7; never did get around to using the Z7.

Nikon has a lot of work to do to fill out the Z lens lineup. And they do not have any plans for a 70-200 f4 (which I really have a problem with). I have the FX 70-200 f2.8, and it is big and heavy (and expensive) and it does work with the FTZ adapter. So that's the problem. I was optimistic that they would put out a line of f/4 lenses that make for a lighter and more affordable kit. They aren't.

You have several recent purchases (including the Olympus 100-400, E-M1.3, and E-M1x). A lot of money there. And at this time, your Nikon telephoto options are FZ lenses which require an FTZ adapter. It works, but if you plan to swap lenses frequently you will want to get several of them (and they aren't cheap).

And the E-M1x firmware update for birds is coming soon. I would play with that for a while, first. Too bad they aren't planning on updating the E-M1.3. That alone is why I will likely be looking at the Z6 II.

It's a complicated decision. I certainly wouldn't sell off my Oly gear until I was satisfied with any other system.

Don’t be to sure that a 70-200 f4 isn’t going to happen. I was talking with a well respected Nikon employee a couple of months back about that and they said  “watch this space, Nikon doesn’t always stick to the roadmap”, and then went onto mention a couple of lenses recently launched that wasn’t an the roadmap

 jaiyenyen's gear list:jaiyenyen's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Nikon Z7 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 1.4x Teleconverter EC-14 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +4 more
cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 6,325
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
1

nickels25 wrote:

NCB wrote:

IQ is to some extent subjective. Are you happy with your Oly IQ? If you are, then maybe IQ isn't a reason to change.

Maybe you should dip a toe into the FF market by getting a basic setup to try, rather than going whole-hog. A Z6 (or Z6ii) with the 24-70 f4 would be a good start.

Nigel

Thanks Nigel!

My main intent with getting a higher megapixel camera is having the ability to crop in and still have adequate quality. But yes, I understand what you are saying. I could perhaps look at a Z7 (instead of a Z7II, Z6, or Z6II).

I have  Z6 and14-30mm f4 and 24-70mm f4, I sold my D500 plus 200-500 and several other F lenses and bought a Olympus E-m1ii, for the 40-150 f2.8 and 100-400 Panasonic lenses. I also have the 12-40 f2.8 as a crossover system lens . I swapped the body for a E-M1X this and either of the two tele lenses is 300g lighter than the 200-500 alone. so I have a system for my motorsport and one for other shooting, although I can use either when I want to, I cannot see a great difference between the shots from the D500 with 200-500 and the E-M1X plus 100-400, the shots from the 40-150 are however outstanding. If you used a similar 100-400 on the FF camera body you would need 80 mp to match the m4/3 20mp when cropping down to m4/3 a 24mp crop to m4/3 is around 6.4mp, or use a 2X teleconverter.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D1 Nikon D1X Nikon D1H Nikon D2H Nikon D2X +16 more
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 11,837
As an ex M43 user
5

I recently sold all my M43 gear that was getting a bit long in the tooth. I had five or six years good service out of my EM5, which was quite revolutionary when it appeared. I sold all my stuff before Olympus announced their exit from the camera industry.

I tried a demo Z7 at my local dealers and was smitten with this camera. The viewfinder is on an almost optical level and I can work seamlessly with my D810. I found the electronic viewfinder in my EM5 unpleasent and useless even, when I used M43 in tandem with the OVF in my D810.

I hike a lot and I like photographic our historic cities here in Italy. I wanted a one lens solution for my hikes and I compared the possibility of getting a EM1iii + 12-100 and running a M43 kit along side my DSL outfit. But I found the Z7 + 24-200 weighs the same, so I bought a Z 7 with two or three lenses including the brilliant 24-200.

For hiking the Z7 + 24-200 is brilliant. I keep the 14-30 in my rucksack as it does not weigh too much.

I also have via the FTZ adaptor a lot of interchangeability with my F lenses, even my Ai lenses from 30 years ago.

For use with lenses up to about 200 I see no advantage at all in M43 anymore (Panasonic I think understood this). The weight issue is no longer valid with the latest mirrorless FF cameras. The Z7 severely spanks the the image quality you get from a M43 sensor. The smoother colour transitions, malleability of the files in post, shadow recovery before the file falls apart and noise at moderately high ISO are on another planet.

I think with good reason, that M43 is also a dying format. Panasonic have said they are concentrating on FF and Olympus  will  fade quickly away with the new owners who were brought in to get around the Japanese employment laws.   I wince to think of those who are queuing up to buy the 150-400 €7000 lemon for a format that will see no future development, but just the sale of existing stock  or perhaps some "bin parts" cameras to use up the stock of components.

I quess you might be wise keeping a body and you long lens for wildlife, but go for the Z system and get rid of as much M43 gear as you can before it becomes worthless for trading in.

A recent visit to Florence found me using the 14-30 and the 24-200. it worked really well.

Some from Valle d'Aosta

syberman7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,474
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s
2

nickels25 wrote:

In terms of my reasoning for staying with m4/3’s above, I have been reading about/hearing that you can get the same m4/3 crop factor or field of view if you crop into a higher megapixel full-frame image (e.g. Using a Nikon Z7 or Sony A7R III/IV and cropping into the image).

This argument is technically correct, but the price might put you off. Your 20 MP on an Olympus E-M1 III costs just $1,399, whereas to get a 19 MP DX crop on a Nikon Z7 will cost you #2,497. And that's M43 versus DX - still not apples to apples.

 syberman7's gear list:syberman7's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z7 II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 +6 more
abera Regular Member • Posts: 103
Two quick and easy reasons
1

nickels25 wrote:

Therefore, with these abilities above, is there a legitimate reason why I should stay with m4/3’s?

Two reasons off the top of my head:

The environmental cost of buying new stuff.

The the cost to your wallet.

avalvo Senior Member • Posts: 1,648
Re: Two quick and easy reasons

I am also a multi format shooter.  Using M43, FF and MF these days has given me a lot of perspective.

Much depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it.  They all have their sweet spots and their weaknesses.  That said, I can do high quality work with all.  It is just a matter of knowing the tools.

From what I am gathering you are doing some hiking and probably nature photography - landscapes and birds, etc.  You also have a nice complement of Olympus gear.  I have a similar set up and can see why you are struggling.  These are really great cameras and lenses.

A few thoughts:

No doubt that FF has better image quality when you can use the right lenses, and fill the frame.  It has better tonal transitions and easier post - more flexible files.  You have to meet that criteria and in some cases the advantage shrinks.

Here is what I mean:

- Yes, lenses on FF are getting smaller.  But, that is only if you are comparing the slower FF lenses, say a 50mm 1.8 to say a 25mm Oly 1.2.  They are about the same size, but the Oly is still a faster lens and can be shot at 1.2.  Now the gap shrinks between the two systems.  And, M43 IBIS is still the very best - gap narrows more.  Sure, put a 50mm 1.2 back on the FF camera and you have back your advantages - but you have to want to carry the weight and that is a large difference.  Also, M43 zooms are awesome lenses.  When I shoot M43, I almost always shoot the zooms.  They are just that good.  This is due to the image circle, the 4:3 format and good Oly design.  With FF that is not the case, I usually turn to primes because there is a noticeable difference.  Again, now the gap seems to shrink.

- If you are shooting landscape an nature, M43 offers a DOF advantage.  I may need to stop down to F11 with FF to get that DOF I need for a scene.  But, with FF, I am Ok with F5.6 and right in the sweet spot of the lens.  So, now the gap is not so much.  FF will still have better DR, but I can usually solve that with a graduated filter.  Also, in a lot of landscape and nature shooting you can use the HR mode of the Oly.  Now you are really narrowing the gap to full-frame.  Some will say that you will get blur with moving objects, etc.  I find this a, mostly, non-issue.  This can happen when you are in challenging light - yes.  But, it will also happen with FF where you are stopping down for DOF and using longer shutter speeds.

- On the telephoto end, M43 starts to shrink the practical difference.  Now it is giving you reach that is not easy to hit with huge expense and weight in FF world.   Here there can be little to no gap.  As I said, for the FF advantage, you need to fill the frame.  If I were you, I think I'd pickup a 300MM F4.  With the new lens coming out, there should be some nice used ones coming on market.

Point here, is that you are smart to evaluate your situation. And, do not assume  that M43 will not develop.  It will certainly develop because the faster sensor readout had some real advantages.

Last, I will leave you with a photo that I have used as an example here before.  On this fine morning I only had my E-m1 II kit with me.  And truth be told I had tried to do this scene in M43 and FF before and was not happy with those attempts.  But, on that morning, the light and the moon were right, so we go with what we have.

There was 18 stops of light to tame in this image.  From the bright moon to the foreground.  It would be hard for any camera.  But, I knew what I had to do and I how to make the tools work for me.  This all done in camera and required very little post processing.

Good luck in your quest.  Hope we were able to help.

 avalvo's gear list:avalvo's gear list
Nikon D850 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Fujifilm GFX 100
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,120
Re: As an ex M43 user

NCV wrote:

I recently sold all my M43 gear that was getting a bit long in the tooth. I had five or six years good service out of my EM5, which was quite revolutionary when it appeared. I sold all my stuff before Olympus announced their exit from the camera industry.

I tried a demo Z7 at my local dealers and was smitten with this camera. The viewfinder is on an almost optical level and I can work seamlessly with my D810. I found the electronic viewfinder in my EM5 unpleasent and useless even, when I used M43 in tandem with the OVF in my D810.

I had the EM5, and it was revolutionary but highly flawed.  The EM5.2 was a vast improvement, and the E-M1.2 is really the camera that makes M43 an all-around system (ergonomics and continuous AF).  Selling off your M43 gear on the basis of the limitations of the EM5 just doesn't seem to be a sound decision.

My major issue with the Z7 is the huge delay in auto-review.  With my m43 cameras, I can leave review on all of the time.  The image is displayed with barely noticeable delay, and a quick tap on the shutter dismissed it if I don't want to scrutinize it.  With the Z7, there is a blackout, and delay displaying the image, and slow return to live view.  It is so slow, I don't try using it.  Which means I have to punch up playback if I want to review the image.  Not sure why this is, but it seems like the Z7 hast to write the image out, and then read it back as if you had punched up playback.

Now that Nikon is releasing the Z7 II, I have no hope that they will fix issues with the Z7.

On the other hand, Olympus has sold off their camera division, and I have no hope that the acquired business will be successful.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads