Stay with M43 or shift to FF for my hands?

Kodachromelover wrote:

In 2013 I could shoot at ¼ second at 25 mm (50 mm equivalent in FF) with my E-P5. Now my hands are less stable: I have neither Parkinson's nor evident tremor at rest, but with the E-M1 Mk III with the 12-100/F4 Pro I can't go below 1/20 second.

I often shoot indoors, for example in Churches and Museums where tripods and monopods are forbidden, so I am very often at ISO 6400 and sometimes I would need to go higher. I don't mind high ISO noise, that's not the point; I am disappointed, however, for the loss of detail and dynamic range.

OM-1 solves that without changing systems. See the OM-1 ISO 40,000 thread elsewhere in this forum.

I'm asking you if a FF with a 24-200 (a must for me! I travel light) could improve my photos. Would the stabilization in the FF cameras do the job? Would a 24-200 lens have the same sharpness as Oly 12-200/F4 Pro?

The 12-100mm f/4 is a top-flight lens with all the goodness that Oly Pro lenses have. The "equivalent" FF zooms are consumer grade and decidedly not lightweight. You decide.

James

Day Hiker wrote:

Kodachromelover wrote:

In 2013 I could shoot at ¼ second at 25 mm (50 mm equivalent in FF) with my E-P5. Now my hands are less stable: I have neither Parkinson's nor evident tremor at rest, but with the E-M1 Mk III with the 12-100/F4 Pro I can't go below 1/20 second.

I often shoot indoors, for example in Churches and Museums where tripods and monopods are forbidden, so I am very often at ISO 6400 and sometimes I would need to go higher. I don't mind high ISO noise, that's not the point; I am disappointed, however, for the loss of detail and dynamic range.

OM-1 solves that without changing systems. See the OM-1 ISO 40,000 thread elsewhere in this forum.

I'm asking you if a FF with a 24-200 (a must for me! I travel light) could improve my photos. Would the stabilization in the FF cameras do the job? Would a 24-200 lens have the same sharpness as Oly 12-200/F4 Pro?

The 12-100mm f/4 is a top-flight lens with all the goodness that Oly Pro lenses have. The "equivalent" FF zooms are consumer grade and decidedly not lightweight. You decide.

Agree. Have that lens and both cameras, and the OM-1 gives me reliably 2 more stops high ISO and lets me keep shooting where the light would have me either stowing my gear or reaching for a fast prime.

135-format IBIS seems to have advanced a lot and perhaps can mimic the best Oly cameras, but I'm confident they won't ever get "better" so the greater ISO range seems like the only reason to make the switch.

Alternatively, would a 12/1.4 or 17/1.2 be wide enough for those low-light interiors?

Good luck!

Rick

Kodachromelover wrote:

In 2013 I could shoot at ¼ second at 25 mm (50 mm equivalent in FF) with my E-P5. Now my hands are less stable: I have neither Parkinson's nor evident tremor at rest, but with the E-M1 Mk III with the 12-100/F4 Pro I can't go below 1/20 second.

I often shoot indoors, for example in Churches and Museums where tripods and monopods are forbidden, so I am very often at ISO 6400 and sometimes I would need to go higher. I don't mind high ISO noise, that's not the point; I am disappointed, however, for the loss of detail and dynamic range.

I'm asking you if a FF with a 24-200 (a must for me! I travel light) could improve my photos. Would the stabilization in the FF cameras do the job? Would a 24-200 lens have the same sharpness as Oly 12-200/F4 Pro?

Thanks!

L

Not sure how stabilization compares (my priors favor OMD but there's no substitute for testing), but the Nikkor Z 24-200 and Sony 24-240 are both f6.3 at the long end, which eats up most of the FF light gathering advantage.

The EP5 was released in 2013 and I think it used the same IS as the original EM5. I think I would see if you can hire a newer body with more modern stabilisation - maybe try an E-M1 III - they are likely to drop in price further when the OM5 comes out in October. That way you can see if the newer stabilisation works for you.

FF IBIS (from ANY maker) is nowhere near as good as the IBIS in the Oly M43 cameras.  Think about it....the sensor is 4x the size, which means more mass.  The more mass you have to move around, the harder it is for the stabilization that fits in the body to compensate.  Laws of physics....

My suggestion would be to look into a faster M43 lens, maybe primes instead of the zoom.  That would be less convenient, yes, but would accomplish what you need.

Oh, and don't underestimate the size difference between M43 and FF.  I use both, and FF lenses are a LOT bigger, especially if you want to use a superzoom type lens.

Now, if you were going to use a small FF with ONLY reasonably fast primes, there are some options that will give you better low light performance and keep the size down.  However, a FF one-lens zoom option is not going to do it.

-J

It's hard to say since issues with hands can vary so much and the question is will the added weight and/or any changes in balance, so this is something I'd definitely suggest to rent for a weekend at least if at all possible to be able to see how your hands handle it and it you have more or less shakiness.

As to the gear the Nikon 24-200 will weigh about the same while the Canon/Sony are about 200g more/7oz.

And they are all variable aperture so at the long end you lose 1 1/3 stops of light VS the Olympus.  You still would be up a little bit for anything moving but for static subjects where you can use the IS to the max I'd probably give it to the Olympus.

Go FF.

Day Hiker wrote:

Kodachromelover wrote:

In 2013 I could shoot at ¼ second at 25 mm (50 mm equivalent in FF) with my E-P5. Now my hands are less stable: I have neither Parkinson's nor evident tremor at rest, but with the E-M1 Mk III with the 12-100/F4 Pro I can't go below 1/20 second.

I often shoot indoors, for example in Churches and Museums where tripods and monopods are forbidden, so I am very often at ISO 6400 and sometimes I would need to go higher. I don't mind high ISO noise, that's not the point; I am disappointed, however, for the loss of detail and dynamic range.

OM-1 solves that without changing systems. See the OM-1 ISO 40,000 thread elsewhere in this forum.

That image was processed in dxo or Topaz I believe fyi

I'm asking you if a FF with a 24-200 (a must for me! I travel light) could improve my photos. Would the stabilization in the FF cameras do the job? Would a 24-200 lens have the same sharpness as Oly 12-200/F4 Pro?

The 12-100mm f/4 is a top-flight lens with all the goodness that Oly Pro lenses have. The "equivalent" FF zooms are consumer grade and decidedly not lightweight. You decide.

James

Generally, the larger the sensor, the more difficult it is to stabilize. Assuming the lens mass is similar, the smaller the better.

I have diagnosed tremors. I also had steady hands. University rifle team steady. Went from FF to APSC then stabilized Panasonic. I noticed a significant benefit with stabilization. I generally shoot primes, so I bought my first Oly, an E-P7. I’m speechless at the effectiveness of Oly's 5-axis IBIS. The E-P7 is certainly an experience closer to your E-P5 than an OM1 will ever be. A possible candidate.

If you want to really travel light and need a 24-200 (NOT equivalent, in a rash moment I picked up an RX100 m6 (24-200) for travel. Have an m3 (24-70) as well. Comparable to m43 up to 1600 and certainly light. So far 2 3 month trips in Europe plus a smattering of weekenders. Delightful.

Have you tried a monopod?

Kodachromelover wrote:

In 2013 I could shoot at ¼ second at 25 mm (50 mm equivalent in FF) with my E-P5. Now my hands are less stable: I have neither Parkinson's nor evident tremor at rest, but with the E-M1 Mk III with the 12-100/F4 Pro I can't go below 1/20 second.

I often shoot indoors, for example in Churches and Museums where tripods and monopods are forbidden, so I am very often at ISO 6400 and sometimes I would need to go higher. I don't mind high ISO noise, that's not the point; I am disappointed, however, for the loss of detail and dynamic range.

I'm asking you if a FF with a 24-200 (a must for me! I travel light) could improve my photos. Would the stabilization in the FF cameras do the job? Would a 24-200 lens have the same sharpness as Oly 12-200/F4 Pro?

Thanks!

L

I shoot Olympus (OM-1, E-M1iii, E-M5iii) and Nikon (Z6ii, Z7ii).  The Olympus IBIS is much better than the Nikon IBIS.  You would lose in a switch to Nikon.

Are you using the viewfinder?  Getting the camera up against your face is critical for stability.

Have you analyzed how you hold the camera?  With a lens as heavy as the 12-100, you need to use your left hand to support the lens.  It's useful if your left hand is in contact with the camera body and your right hand when you shoot.  If you like to shoot in portrait orientation, you should consider the control grip for improved stability.

Have you analyzed your stance?  Try shooting towards your left shoulder, keep your left elbow directly under the camera and tucked into your body, and keep your right elbow tucked into your body as well.

Have you analyzed your breathing?  Deep breath, exhale, shoot.

You might consider a chest support.  It's a mini-monopod that is supported by a neck strap and never gets near the ground.  Or small monopod inserted into a support that clips on your belt, with a neck strap so the monopod can't fall.  I've used both.  Usually, the fact that they don't his the floor is sufficient.