Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 8,150
Re: Yeah
2

daleeight wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

Lars101x wrote:

I have the following lenses:

300mm f4

40-150 f2.8

12-100 f4

MC14 TC

45mm f1.8

missing a WA lens.

Following, because I am interested in this topic (as a fellow Olympus shooter).

I totally see full frame being ideal for wide angle and normal lenses. I am curious how you plan to replace the 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.0.

I personally am not willing to run two systems, so I have been considering the best way forward.

Agree.... but the options in Nikon z series are limited, which means you have to get the FTZ adapter and bolt on something,

The options are extensive for the Nikon z system  users as  the FTZ gives excellent results. I have found that for my F mount lenses the AF performance is essentially as when they are used on my D810

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

and for Olympus 150mm on up (300mm above in FF) there IS a big difference right now, and that makes 2 systems a better play, right now that is.

For native Z mount lenses there are no options for long tele yet. However there are a legion of easily adaptable options from F mount . Given the size of longer lenses the addition of the adapter adds little to the overall kit. The size difference is also significantly reduced when you compare apples to apples as opposed to the popular m43 delusion of comparing m43 F/2.8 lens to FF F/2.8 lenses. Assuming you can find FF lenses slow enough the size differences are typically relatively small .

Of course others will certainly disagree with me on that. A lot do not want 2 systems, but 2 systems in this scenario is the better play. In Canon's new system, maybe not so much.

As I do not do a lot of long tele shooting, I must say that that my use of m43 is becoming less and less though I do love my GX8 + 20mm combo

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +11 more
kenw
kenw Veteran Member • Posts: 6,325
Re: Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?
2

LightCameraAction wrote:

This topic has always interested me. I get that the light gathering ai equal for the same depth of field. However, it seems like larger sensors must still provide some advantage. Otherwise, why would people pay $50k for a phase one system versus a micro 4/3 camera (or even a phone)?

In general larger sensors can in a single exposure get you:

  1. Greater maximum sensor resolution (e.g. 20MP m43, 60MP FF, 100MP MF)
  2. More photons collected/counted
  3. Shallower DoF

You only care about 1 if you need to print rather large and many folks don't hence the reason there are many 24MP FF bodies available.

Item 3 is of course a matter of aesthetic taste in many cases.

You can only take advantage of 2 if for a given composition (i.e. identical field of view) you can either tolerate a longer shutter speed or a shallower DoF on the larger format. For instance if subject motion sets a maximum length for shutter speed and subject depth sets a minimum DoF and you can set those limiting parameters on both systems then m43 and FF will collect the same number of photons across the image and thus have the same image noise and tonal gradation.

A landscape photographer who uses a tripod can usually take full advantage of item 2 by using base ISO, smaller aperture (to achieve the same DoF) and a longer shutter speed. If not using a tripod and in low light then as Rashid points out there is likely no advantage to the larger format and really whichever system has the best performing IS will have the advantage.

As I pointed out in an earlier post a smaller format can improve upon item 2 by averaging multiple exposures either in post or for some cameras using multishot modes in camera (e.g. High Res) which are techniques often appropriate to landscape shots.

An event photographer shooting in low light who can tolerate very narrow DoF (or might even prefer it aesthetically) can also take advantage of item 2. As soon as said photographer needs deep enough DoF that a smaller format could achieve there is no longer any advantage to the larger format.

A studio photographer who likely can bring an arbitrary amount of light to the subject can of course also take advantage of number 2.

So as others have said larger formats mostly just expand the range of possibilities. For a large chunk of photography there is no difference between a larger and a smaller format because the subject and composition already restrict shutter speed and DoF to settings a small format can achieve and all systems perform essentially identically when shot at "equivalent" focal lengths and apertures at the same shutter speed. Only when the subject allows it can the larger format use "equivalent" settings not available on the smaller format to achieve improved image quality.

-- hide signature --

Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 kenw's gear list:kenw's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus E-M5 II Nikon Z7 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR +37 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 8,150
Re: Yeah
1

LightCameraAction wrote:

Lars101x wrote:

daleeight wrote:

Have a z7 and still have the E-M1mkIII...

You don't say what Pro lenses you have teamed up with and your gear list doesn't indicate what you wrote. So for Pro I assume you mean the 17mm f/1.2 or a zoom with 12mm...

So you don't think you should invest in say a Oly 7-14 f/2.8 or the Pany 8-18 f/2.8-4 because Olympus "sold" (transferred is more like it) and you're scared of the future? Then don't read some of the posts on here about Nikon and how their financials aren't good and that they are next.

If your landscapes consist of web viewing or printed at 20" or smaller then what you have is fine, if you can get a wider lens. But for some things, and bigger things, the z7 will pretty much make you go "why do I have this Olympus for landscapes"...

Not saying Olympus and m43 is not bad for landscapes, but the z7 is a better landscape image taker, even with the 24-70 f/4 "kit" lens. It just is.

You just need to rent a z7 and the 24-70 f.4 a a basic test, try it for a couple days shooting landscapes, and then look at them in your post processor of choice. Like in LR, just open them and click auto in the basic panel. Do that with both the Oly and Nikon image too. Tweak from there.

I have the following lenses:

300mm f4

40-150 f2.8

12-100 f4

MC14 TC

45mm f1.8

missing a WA lens.

Following, because I am interested in this topic (as a fellow Olympus shooter).

I totally see full frame being ideal for wide angle and normal lenses. I am curious how you plan to replace the 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.0.

True FF equivalents for those lenses { same DOF control, same total light gathering etc} are an 80-300mm F/5.6 and a 600mm F/8 which can be easily covered amongst F mount lenses. The FTZ adapter gives very good results with a host of F mount options and overall on a telephoto lens adds little bulk

I personally am not willing to run two systems, so I have been considering the best way forward.

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +11 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 8,150
Re: Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?
3

kenw wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

This topic has always interested me. I get that the light gathering ai equal for the same depth of field. However, it seems like larger sensors must still provide some advantage. Otherwise, why would people pay $50k for a phase one system versus a micro 4/3 camera (or even a phone)?

In general larger sensors can in a single exposure get you:

  1. Greater maximum sensor resolution (e.g. 20MP m43, 60MP FF, 100MP MF)
  2. More photons collected/counted
  3. Shallower DoF

You only care about 1 if you need to print rather large and many folks don't hence the reason there are many 24MP FF bodies available.

Item 3 is of course a matter of aesthetic taste in many cases.

You can only take advantage of 2 if for a given composition (i.e. identical field of view) you can either tolerate a longer shutter speed or a shallower DoF on the larger format. For instance if subject motion sets a maximum length for shutter speed and subject depth sets a minimum DoF and you can set those limiting parameters on both systems then m43 and FF will collect the same number of photons across the image and thus have the same image noise and tonal gradation.

A landscape photographer who uses a tripod can usually take full advantage of item 2 by using base ISO, smaller aperture (to achieve the same DoF) and a longer shutter speed. If not using a tripod and in low light then as Rashid points out there is likely no advantage to the larger format and really whichever system has the best performing IS will have the advantage.

This assumes that you would want to get the same DOF as a smaller format as opposed to enough DOF . For example a 24mm lens on FF a common landscape focal length has even at F/5.6 a DOF covering from around 6ft to infinity. The fact that you can get deeper DOF on smaller formats does not necessarily matter. Of course the wider you go the DOF becomes a non-issue a 14mm focal length at F/2.8 will get you from under 4ft to infinity

As I pointed out in an earlier post a smaller format can improve upon item 2 by averaging multiple exposures either in post or for some cameras using multishot modes in camera (e.g. High Res) which are techniques often appropriate to landscape shots.

Appropriate to landscape shots with very little or no movement. In many situations there are all sorts of potentially "moving" parts of a scene. Movement being the fly in the ointment for all pixel shift features.

An event photographer shooting in low light who can tolerate very narrow DoF (or might even prefer it aesthetically) can also take advantage of item 2. As soon as said photographer needs deep enough DoF that a smaller format could achieve there is no longer any advantage to the larger format.

Having had the misfortune to shoot 100's of weddings and lower light events . The typical F/2.8 trinity zooms being the lenses of choice sufficient DOF was not an issue. While as you say you can indeed match the DOF of a FF F/2.8 lens with a m43 F/1.4 lens you are going to need a lot of lenses to cover the range of zooms.

A studio photographer who likely can bring an arbitrary amount of light to the subject can of course also take advantage of number 2.

In a studio where you control the light and subject is static , pixel shift results will be excellent

So as others have said larger formats mostly just expand the range of possibilities. For a large chunk of photography there is no difference between a larger and a smaller format because the subject and composition already restrict shutter speed and DoF to settings a small format can achieve and all systems perform essentially identically when shot at "equivalent" focal lengths and apertures at the same shutter speed. Only when the subject allows it can the larger format use "equivalent" settings not available on the smaller format to achieve improved image quality.

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +11 more
daleeight Senior Member • Posts: 2,867
Re: Yeah
1

James Stirling wrote:

daleeight wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

Lars101x wrote:

I have the following lenses:

300mm f4

40-150 f2.8

12-100 f4

MC14 TC

45mm f1.8

missing a WA lens.

Following, because I am interested in this topic (as a fellow Olympus shooter).

I totally see full frame being ideal for wide angle and normal lenses. I am curious how you plan to replace the 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.0.

I personally am not willing to run two systems, so I have been considering the best way forward.

Agree.... but the options in Nikon z series are limited, which means you have to get the FTZ adapter and bolt on something,

The options are extensive for the Nikon z system users as the FTZ gives excellent results. I have found that for my F mount lenses the AF performance is essentially as when they are used on my D810

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

and for Olympus 150mm on up (300mm above in FF) there IS a big difference right now, and that makes 2 systems a better play, right now that is.

For native Z mount lenses there are no options for long tele yet. However there are a legion of easily adaptable options from F mount . Given the size of longer lenses the addition of the adapter adds little to the overall kit. The size difference is also significantly reduced when you compare apples to apples as opposed to the popular m43 delusion of comparing m43 F/2.8 lens to FF F/2.8 lenses. Assuming you can find FF lenses slow enough the size differences are typically relatively small .

Of course others will certainly disagree with me on that. A lot do not want 2 systems, but 2 systems in this scenario is the better play. In Canon's new system, maybe not so much.

As I do not do a lot of long tele shooting, I must say that that my use of m43 is becoming less and less though I do love my GX8 + 20mm combo

I said the option in Nikon z series are limited, and you agree. I also said that because of that you have to get the FTZ and bolt something to it, like F series. And, you agree. That makes the options extensive, but there is also a downside that you don't care about. Sure, adding the FTZ doesn't cause much of a difference in weight or length, but it DOES add some. Considering the options in f series for long range lenses are already bigger and heavier than the Oly 300mm f/4, you just add to it.

Now, I am NOT saying that the images will be better with an Oly and a 300mm f/4, but the experience of lugging it around and using it just might be. That is for individuals to decide. All the anti-Oly from their board has moved over here as a selling point for Nikon.

In reality, the Canon R cameras with say their 600mm f/11 lens is a much better match for the Oly with their 300mm f/4 than anything Nikon.

-- hide signature --

Dale

 daleeight's gear list:daleeight's gear list
Olympus E-M1 III Olympus PEN-F Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 +4 more
aclo Contributing Member • Posts: 533
Re: Yeah

daleeight wrote:

Agree.... but the options in Nikon z series are limited, which means you have to get the FTZ adapter and bolt on something, and for Olympus 150mm on up (300mm above in FF) there IS a big difference right now, and that makes 2 systems a better play, right now that is.

It's worth pointing out that with a Z7, you can set it to DX mode and then it's a 20mp APS camera. So, a 70mm-200mm lens becomes a 105-300mm one, etc, while keeping the viewfinder working as usual (unlike a DSLR) and still effectively having a larger sensor than m43.

Having said that, for me by far the most important thing is how much I like using the camera. 15 years ago, when I first switched to digital, I got a Nikon D200 over Canon 20D because I like it a lot more to use, despite the two being further apart in terms of noise/DR than m43 and FF (according to bclaff's plots anyway). The D200 was dire in fact... But, I liked it a lot more in everything except image quality than the D750 I got after it (nothing wrong with the D750, mind you, and it did have better AF etc).

aclo Contributing Member • Posts: 533
Re: Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?

rashid7 wrote:

honestly the FF advantage is much exaggerated, unless you are shooting action, where you will get about 2 stops of higher useable ISO, or need razor thin DoF.

Phones are becoming increasingly great cameras, except they don't give you much reach

I think how a camera feels to someone is the most important thing, once it does cover the bases they want covered (eg high ISO ability if that is what they need, etc). As I said elsewhere, I switched from film Minoltas to Nikon with the D200, which had dire high ISO performance (especially compared to the competing Canon model) purely  because of this, and never regretted it.

I now have a Z7 II and it's almost perfect. If the Casonynon R5.4RIV could flawlessly track youtube influencers' eyes abseiling under the jungle canopy whilst gyrating like dervishes with their hair hiding their eyes, all underwater, I'd still go for the Z7 just because I like it better and in terms of what I actually want it's at least equivalent to them. The Olympus camera might well also have worked for me, it's just that I already knew the Nikons did so only compared to Canon and Sony (plus more than half my photos are handheld at night at max ISO, so it's useful to have a larger sensor for those).

So overall I think you are right that if you don't specifically require whatever capability a larger sensor provides, then pick the camera system you like best for other reasons.

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 11,837
Re: Or
2

daleeight wrote:

NCV wrote:

daleeight wrote:

Have a z7 and still have the E-M1mkIII...

You don't say what Pro lenses you have teamed up with and your gear list doesn't indicate what you wrote. So for Pro I assume you mean the 17mm f/1.2 or a zoom with 12mm...

So you don't think you should invest in say a Oly 7-14 f/2.8 or the Pany 8-18 f/2.8-4 because Olympus "sold" (transferred is more like it) and you're scared of the future? Then don't read some of the posts on here about Nikon and how their financials aren't good and that they are next.

Olympus lost huge amounts of money for years. If you read some of the threads on the M43 forum you will see that JIC has been very slow and it seems disinterested, transferring the various web sites and service points over to the new company.

It was clear from the crummy new website, which also drew much comment, that JIC have no real interest in taking Olympus camera gear forward. There was no big razzmatazz relaunch that a new owner of a brand usually does.

It seems to be that those who wrote that the JIC operation is just a way to get around Japanese employment laws and that this is just a warehouse clearance operation were right.

So indeed the OP should be very wary about buying more Olympus gear.

Sorry to say this is the harsh truth. It is sad to see a brand and an alternative format disappear.

Nikon; well if you read knowledgeable pundits like Hogan, you will learn that they are a cash rich company who are expensively paying for past mistakes and adapting perhaps with anticipation to a new camera market.

The Z system is a flurry of activity, with lots of new lenses being released as well as bodies.

If your landscapes consist of web viewing or printed at 20" or smaller then what you have is fine, if you can get a wider lens. But for some things, and bigger things, the z7 will pretty much make you go "why do I have this Olympus for landscapes"...

The subtlety of tonal transitions on FF are on another planet compared to M43.

I shot a rock formation with my old D300 APC and even with this old sensor, you could see all the tone changes in the sandy rock. With M43 I was surprised to see the tonal changes were missing. I must repeat the experiment with FF some time.

Not saying Olympus and m43 is not bad for landscapes, but the z7 is a better landscape image taker, even with the 24-70 f/4 "kit" lens. It just is.

You just need to rent a z7 and the 24-70 f.4 a a basic test, try it for a couple days shooting landscapes, and then look at them in your post processor of choice. Like in LR, just open them and click auto in the basic panel. Do that with both the Oly and Nikon image too. Tweak from there.

Are you arguing or just giving opinion? If the 1st one, you're arguing with the wrong guy. First, it is JIP and not JIC. Second, all I said was there are a lot of folks here who say that "Nikon is next". I'm NOT saying that. I'm stuck in both systems, so I'm either an idiot or a bad chooser. I said Olympus is still a great system, and Nikon z is a great system.

An informed opinion.

The option for the OP is to get a WA lens, which is one purchase, under $1000...

A better bet in my opinion would be to trade in those high grade Olympus items whilst they still have some value. Throwing €1000 at a brand which has a high possibility of  disappearing from the  camera market, once the warehouse is empty is not a good option in my opinion

Or just wait a while to see how thing turn out.

Or get a new FF z series body, z7 as was mentioned, and a WA lens, be it the 24-70 f/4, or the 14-30 f/4, or both, or one that is f/2.8 (which I'd not suggest at this point). So financially speaking, it is a lot less money upfront now to get a WA m43 lens.

But more expensive in the medium term. See above.

But I also said to go rent a z7 and a WA, I'd just rent a 24-70 f/4 (12-35 in m43 world) and give that a good workout or 2. Try it at 24mm and stitch 2 or 3 images if need be. If that is done, for landscapes, I think the OP will know what to do.

But for the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 and the 300mm they have, I'd stick with them right now, since for wildlife and birding, I don't see the equal, or advantage, in Nikon z land yet.

My adapted 100-400 is a 150-600 if I switch to DX format and still have more pixels than an M43 20MP sensor. It cost me €650 SH and I can sell it on at little loss if Nikon releases a long zoom that covers this range.

LightCameraAction Contributing Member • Posts: 708
Re: Yeah

James Stirling wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

Lars101x wrote:

daleeight wrote:

Have a z7 and still have the E-M1mkIII...

You don't say what Pro lenses you have teamed up with and your gear list doesn't indicate what you wrote. So for Pro I assume you mean the 17mm f/1.2 or a zoom with 12mm...

So you don't think you should invest in say a Oly 7-14 f/2.8 or the Pany 8-18 f/2.8-4 because Olympus "sold" (transferred is more like it) and you're scared of the future? Then don't read some of the posts on here about Nikon and how their financials aren't good and that they are next.

If your landscapes consist of web viewing or printed at 20" or smaller then what you have is fine, if you can get a wider lens. But for some things, and bigger things, the z7 will pretty much make you go "why do I have this Olympus for landscapes"...

Not saying Olympus and m43 is not bad for landscapes, but the z7 is a better landscape image taker, even with the 24-70 f/4 "kit" lens. It just is.

You just need to rent a z7 and the 24-70 f.4 a a basic test, try it for a couple days shooting landscapes, and then look at them in your post processor of choice. Like in LR, just open them and click auto in the basic panel. Do that with both the Oly and Nikon image too. Tweak from there.

I have the following lenses:

300mm f4

40-150 f2.8

12-100 f4

MC14 TC

45mm f1.8

missing a WA lens.

Following, because I am interested in this topic (as a fellow Olympus shooter).

I totally see full frame being ideal for wide angle and normal lenses. I am curious how you plan to replace the 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.0.

True FF equivalents for those lenses { same DOF control, same total light gathering etc} are an 80-300mm F/5.6 and a 600mm F/8 which can be easily covered amongst F mount lenses. The FTZ adapter gives very good results with a host of F mount options and overall on a telephoto lens adds little bulk

I personally am not willing to run two systems, so I have been considering the best way forward.

Yeah, I was mostly curious about what the OP's plan is. For instance, do they plan on getting a Nikon 500mm pf and 70-300, rely on crop mode (and/or teleconverters), invest in high end Nikon glass that will provide a full 2-stop advantage (e.g., 70-200 f2.8), or run a dual system. Certainly many different ways one can build a system.

I have also wondered if some of the equivalent lenses, such as the 70-300, have autofocus motors that can keep up with the Olympus pro lenses.

orca_kkl Regular Member • Posts: 327
Re: Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?

James Stirling wrote:

This assumes that you would want to get the same DOF as a smaller format as opposed to enough DOF . For example a 24mm lens on FF a common landscape focal length has even at F/5.6 a DOF covering from around 6ft to infinity. The fact that you can get deeper DOF on smaller formats does not necessarily matter. Of course the wider you go the DOF becomes a non-issue a 14mm focal length at F/2.8 will get you from under 4ft to infinity

James, I can related to your "sufficient" DOF comment with my limited experience. I remember my last three trips to China (all before Covid-19 of course) the air quality in both urban and rural areas that I visited  were pretty poor most of the time. Beyond 100 meters (sometimes less) the poor air quality mostly rendered the deeper DOF moot. Only times when the air quality improved when I was there were when it rained, but then the moistures rendered deeper DOF moot also. On all three trips to China I ended using (for the 24-70 mm focal range) from f/4 to f/5.6, with a rare f/8 for an extremely "clear" scene.

Even my trips to Yosemite in years past f/5.6 - f/8 were all I used, for the haze or wildfire smokes limited the clarity.

daleeight Senior Member • Posts: 2,867
Re: Yeah

aclo wrote:

daleeight wrote:

Agree.... but the options in Nikon z series are limited, which means you have to get the FTZ adapter and bolt on something, and for Olympus 150mm on up (300mm above in FF) there IS a big difference right now, and that makes 2 systems a better play, right now that is.

It's worth pointing out that with a Z7, you can set it to DX mode and then it's a 20mp APS camera. So, a 70mm-200mm lens becomes a 105-300mm one, etc, while keeping the viewfinder working as usual (unlike a DSLR) and still effectively having a larger sensor than m43.

Having said that, for me by far the most important thing is how much I like using the camera. 15 years ago, when I first switched to digital, I got a Nikon D200 over Canon 20D because I like it a lot more to use, despite the two being further apart in terms of noise/DR than m43 and FF (according to bclaff's plots anyway). The D200 was dire in fact... But, I liked it a lot more in everything except image quality than the D750 I got after it (nothing wrong with the D750, mind you, and it did have better AF etc).

It's also worth pointing out that if you set your z7 to DX mode that you just spent a lot more money on a camera and sensor that has a big sensor that you have now decided to use only part of. And set the z7 to DX mode and you have even less cropability. Also, the now 105-300 is not f/2.8 or f/4 anymore either.

-- hide signature --

Dale

 daleeight's gear list:daleeight's gear list
Olympus E-M1 III Olympus PEN-F Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 +4 more
jaiyenyen Regular Member • Posts: 213
Re: Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?
1

Putting it simply, changing from an EM1-ii to Z7 was the best photographic decision I have ever made. Is the Z7 a better camera, are the S lenses better, all yes. Quantify the reason. Its simply I get better results, but mainly I get much more enjoyment from the Z7 than I did with my Oly.

 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
George1958 Senior Member • Posts: 1,269
Re: Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?
1

There is always a danger that threads such as these end up as a polemic debate however well intended they might be.

I think the current gear debate and fashion for FF is more driven by clever social engineering and aggressive marketing than is routed in real world issues that are significant and impactful on photography.

There are no rules that say M4/3 is unsuitable or inferior to FF for landscape. Steve Gosling shoots M4/3 and also MF. If you have listened to Steve in his streams etc, he does not view format as an issue. He is highly successful with both M4/3 and MF.

https://www.stevegoslingphotography.co.uk

There is a flaw with bigger is best. Steve is one of the many great photographers irrespective of the format he uses. His work invites you to consider why he is successful and can push past empty technical debates to great art with apparently modest, or some would have it inferior gear.

Sadly what is good in photography has become a cul de sac spec sheets war about particular aesthetics, sharpness, DR, low noise etc. No matter that most photographs out there are average to banal, especially my own.

I don't expect to ever shoot as well as Joe Cornish, or Steve Gosling and I don't want to try and clone what they do. I do want to better understand what sets them appart as masters at their craft. For sure it is not the camera system they use.

 George1958's gear list:George1958's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sigma SD15 Olympus PEN E-P3 Sigma sd Quattro Olympus E-M1 II +6 more
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 11,837
My old D700
4

George1958 wrote:

There is always a danger that threads such as these end up as a polemic debate however well intended they might be.

I think the current gear debate and fashion for FF is more driven by clever social engineering and aggressive marketing than is routed in real world issues that are significant and impactful on photography.

I think this is quite insulting to say that those who have adopted the 35x24mm sensor size have been fooled by marketing eccetera.

Why do most top photographers use the 35-24 format or in some cases a bigger format? Have they been fooled too?

I have just finished reading "Follow the Light" by James Erwin. It concerns professional architectural photography. He clearly stated that 35x24 is the smallest viable format for professional results.

It was actually the shock of seeing the output from a SH D700 that I bought to use with some old Nikon PC lenses that made me decide that I would go FF.

The creamy tonal range and smoother colour transitions were shockingly superior to my M43 output. I had been quite happy with M43 up to then.

Lets not even get started on post processing where far more "dodging and burning" is possible before the results look artificial.

There are no rules that say M4/3 is unsuitable or inferior to FF for landscape. Steve Gosling shoots M4/3 and also MF. If you have listened to Steve in his streams etc, he does not view format as an issue. He is highly successful with both M4/3 and MF.

We can say that M43 is suitable for landscape, but technically it is inferior in terms of image quality.

If you are happy using M43 for landscape that is fine. It is still cheaper than FF.

Before the advent of FF mirrorless, M43 had the advantage of being much lighter to carry on long hikes. I adopted M43 for this very reason. The advent of cameras like the Z7 with the superb lightweight F4 zooms and the 24-200 have made M43 obsolete for this type of photography.

https://www.stevegoslingphotography.co.uk

There is a flaw with bigger is best. Steve is one of the many great photographers irrespective of the format he uses. His work invites you to consider why he is successful and can push past empty technical debates to great art with apparently modest, or some would have it inferior gear.

It works both ways. Great photography can be made with any camera. certain formats enable us to maximise the image quality and the ability to post process.

Sadly what is good in photography has become a cul de sac spec sheets war about particular aesthetics, sharpness, DR, low noise etc. No matter that most photographs out there are average to banal, especially my own.

I don't expect to ever shoot as well as Joe Cornish, or Steve Gosling and I don't want to try and clone what they do. I do want to better understand what sets them appart as masters at their craft. For sure it is not the camera system they use.

Finally Olympus have exited the camera business and have paid another company to tie up the loose ends with an outcome that is very uncertain. Panasonic is moving to FF and it seems that they will abandon the M43 format. Even the manufacturers of M43 do not believe in the format anymore.

George1958 Senior Member • Posts: 1,269
Re: My old D700
1

NCV wrote:

George1958 wrote:

There is always a danger that threads such as these end up as a polemic debate however well intended they might be.

I think the current gear debate and fashion for FF is more driven by clever social engineering and aggressive marketing than is routed in real world issues that are significant and impactful on photography.

I think this is quite insulting to say that those who have adopted the 35x24mm sensor size have been fooled by marketing eccetera.

I did point out that the likes of Steve Gosling also use MF? I was not suggesting that the whole world has been fooled into buying FF (itself a crop frame with an out of date and misleading description from film days) . I was commenting on all of the silly propaganda about FF and that those who know how, can do very well with other smaller formats. Given that is the case why do so many feel that they have to leave smaller behind as some form of pseudo progression? That might be what I was describing. In the end its about selling cameras.

Why do most top photographers use the 35-24 format or in some cases a bigger format? Have they been fooled too?

I don't know that they do, most it would seem use smartphones and don't care about FF.

I have just finished reading "Follow the Light" by James Erwin. It concerns professional architectural photography. He clearly stated that 35x24 is the smallest viable format for professional results.

Yes of course, he has a valid opinion. Architectural photography is unquestionably a specialist use, very different from general photography. If you use tilt and shift, you definitely need more sensor space to make your T&S lens work.  If the work does not require T&S then FF is less critical.

It was actually the shock of seeing the output from a SH D700 that I bought to use with some old Nikon PC lenses that made me decide that I would go FF.

Yes, I bought a 6D mki , an A7 and then a 5D mkIv and a slew of lenses, all now sold. I perhaps don't care about DXO scores and I was not sold on the FF look, 2:3 aspect ratio IMHO awful.

The creamy tonal range and smoother colour transitions were shockingly superior to my M43 output. I had been quite happy with M43 up to then.

Lets not even get started on post processing where far more "dodging and burning" is possible before the results look artificial.

I don't have the same experience. Its difficult to find common ground. Most personal experiences are just that and all are equally valid. I have not had the same issues. The superior output is for me a stylistic thing, the image can be dull as ditchwater or not as long as it has that staple look (which I find boring and formulaic)

There are no rules that say M4/3 is unsuitable or inferior to FF for landscape. Steve Gosling shoots M4/3 and also MF. If you have listened to Steve in his streams etc, he does not view format as an issue. He is highly successful with both M4/3 and MF.

We can say that M43 is suitable for landscape, but technically it is inferior in terms of image quality.

You mean that formulaic look that deserves no praise, its the image that counts surely?

If you are happy using M43 for landscape that is fine. It is still cheaper than FF.

Before the advent of FF mirrorless, M43 had the advantage of being much lighter to carry on long hikes. I adopted M43 for this very reason. The advent of cameras like the Z7 with the superb lightweight F4 zooms and the 24-200 have made M43 obsolete for this type of photography.

https://www.stevegoslingphotography.co.uk

There is a flaw with bigger is best. Steve is one of the many great photographers irrespective of the format he uses. His work invites you to consider why he is successful and can push past empty technical debates to great art with apparently modest, or some would have it inferior gear.

It works both ways. Great photography can be made with any camera. certain formats enable us to maximise the image quality and the ability to post process.

Yet no one can say what great image quality is outside DXO type metrics and how far you can press your face to a screen to see all that lovely detail, or whether there is a speck of noise?

Sadly what is good in photography has become a cul de sac spec sheets war about particular aesthetics, sharpness, DR, low noise etc. No matter that most photographs out there are average to banal, especially my own.

I don't expect to ever shoot as well as Joe Cornish, or Steve Gosling and I don't want to try and clone what they do. I do want to better understand what sets them appart as masters at their craft. For sure it is not the camera system they use.

Finally Olympus have exited the camera business and have paid another company to tie up the loose ends with an outcome that is very uncertain. Panasonic is moving to FF and it seems that they will abandon the M43 format. Even the manufacturers of M43 do not believe in the format anymore.

A faulty premise only because you are not privy to the business decisions that have been made, only the speculative (even if correct) discussions on the forums. If you are going to buy into speculation, then why would you buy a Nikon ? Loosing loads of money and falling market share. M4/3 might  be around a little longer.

 George1958's gear list:George1958's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sigma SD15 Olympus PEN E-P3 Sigma sd Quattro Olympus E-M1 II +6 more
rashid7
rashid7 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,032
Re: My old D700
2

"We can say that M43 is suitable for landscape, but technically it is inferior in terms of image quality."

that seems to me like a sweeping generalization; & gross over-simplification!

(It certainly is not my experience... and I've owned 4 FF cameras)

-- hide signature --

Keep it fun!

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 11,837
Not really
4

rashid7 wrote:

"We can say that M43 is suitable for landscape, but technically it is inferior in terms of image quality."

that seems to me like a sweeping generalization; & gross over-simplification!

(It certainly is not my experience... and I've owned 4 FF cameras)

I think it is indisputable that a similarly exposed image on FF is technically superiore for DR and above all noise.

I have no problems in seeing that the subtle tonal transitions and colour transitions are superior with FF when shooting the formats side by side.

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/
https://momenti-indecisivi.blogspot.it/

SUPER-ELMAR
SUPER-ELMAR Regular Member • Posts: 190
Re: Not really
4

NCV wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

"We can say that M43 is suitable for landscape, but technically it is inferior in terms of image quality."

that seems to me like a sweeping generalization; & gross over-simplification!

(It certainly is not my experience... and I've owned 4 FF cameras)

I think it is indisputable that a similarly exposed image on FF is technically superiore for DR and above all noise.

Does it translate to more awards, sales, recognition, business?  I haven't seen this across formats and I shoot all size digital.  The greatest photographs in history had very little to do with super DR and noise.

Get the subject, timing and lighting right, the rest is trivial between modern ILC's for the way content is consumed presently.

 SUPER-ELMAR's gear list:SUPER-ELMAR's gear list
Ricoh GR III Leica M10 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Hasselblad X1D II 50C Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH +5 more
Doug Greenberg Contributing Member • Posts: 814
Re: Anyone using a z7 and coming from M43?

I use both M43 and Nikon, including the Z7. I have no problem operating within two "worlds." The M43 gear is wonderfully compact (the lenses are the issue here when we are talking bird photography). For airline trips for bird photography I mostly take M43, but still take my Z7 with the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF and two teleconverters. There is some redundancy within my overall rig, but this is not a bad thing in case there is a problem with a camera body. The Olympus 300mm f4 is a terrific lens, and it is much easier to travel with than my Nikon 600mm f4, especially on overseas trips (remember those?) with stricter carry-on limits.

One thing that keeps me tethered to the Nikon system is the superior multi-flash technology.  So I am a two-system guy.

If someone likes M43 I see no reason to dump all the gear now because Olympus sold the division to another company. Everything I have works fine and I don't see "obsolescence" being an issue for some years to come (if it becomes an issue at all).

You could just go ahead and buy an M43 wide-angle (I just got a very tiny, very sharp Laowa 7mm. for Christmas).

Doug Greenberg

 Doug Greenberg's gear list:Doug Greenberg's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 +12 more
rick in vegas Contributing Member • Posts: 557
Re: I have and have one regret.
2

That lens is not good for Z7. It is more for Z5/6. It isnt that sharp on Z7.

 rick in vegas's gear list:rick in vegas's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Nikon Z7 Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads