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.

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

If you have to stop down the FF to the same equivalent aperture, you get little benefit other than almost certainly better resolution. And as others have said, the latest Olympus/OM bodies have far better stabilization, esp with matched lens that coordinate lens and sensor stabilization.

OTOH, if you are shooting wide open with m4/3 and still have more than enough DOF, the FF almost certain will allow more exposure and less noise. But that is going to be undercut by less stabilization and probably heavier weight to keep steady. And the cost of buying a new system, and the learning curve to use it without thinking about it.

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

You would need to find a FF outfit that matches the IBIS of your m43 (EM1.3 and 12-100 @ f4 and 1/20) and has a f4.0 speed as well... that way, you will get 2 stops better IQ along with the improvements you want... ie. FF ISO 6400 looking like m43 does at ISO 1600. Or if the FF lens is one stop faster, so f2.8, but FF IBIS is one stop worse, that will still be the same result.

FF generally has worse stabilisation, and often the 2 stops promised improvement is swallowed up by the loss of 2 stops (or more) stabilisation compared to m43, in the handheld work you want to do.

So do your homework to find a very good FF IBIS setup, and maybe a bigger f2.8 zoom, otherwise you can end up in the same position with DR and detail as with m43.

Don't rely on manufacturers claims... go to a shop and try a FF setup and see, in your hands, if it is as good as your m43 setup, and that the FF lens is at least f4 in speed.

Do you shoot RAW and process with DXO Prime noise reduction? I find ISO 6400 quite good, but as you say, there is still a loss of DR and resolution.

If you like your lens (lenses), and m43 as a system, you could get an OM-1 and use Handheld High Resolution shooting for the stationary subjects you like. I find ISO 6400 with HHHR looks as good or better than ISO 1600 (non HHHR) in all aspects... noise, DR and detail. If you got a Panaleica 10-25 f1.7 with an OM-1, HHHR at f1.7 would be like ISO 250, or maybe ISO 500 (allowing for about a stop less effective IS... no sync IS).

Beware that HHHR sometimes just doesn't work well, at least not with every attempt, and your level of hand shake might produce a different level of success to someone else's.

A very good IBIS FF body and a FF f2.8 zoom could be a bit smaller/ lighter and less expensive than an OM-1 + Panaleica 10-25 f1.7, and still produce a little bit better IQ for your specific low light, handheld needs... happy hunting and research! Let us know what you decide.

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.

The OM-1 isn't going to give you that much of a clean iSO AT 40,000 ON low light situations. That was not the case of the shot shown.  The OM-1 is a modest improvement over the earlier sensors, not a major jump.

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

victorav wrote:

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

Correct. And it's also a lot of full spectrum light available for the shot, not a low light dark condition. That's why I also posted an ISO 40,000 from my EP7 to show that it's not that much of an improvement- people underestimate how far you can go with ISO in the right conditions.

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

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?

FF IBIS in some models has gotten pretty good. But if you want a good 12-200 F4 Pro lens equivalent you will have to go bigger and more expensive. Are you ready to carry such lens?

But yes, FF will give you an ISO advantage for sure. Whatever people say about the OM-1 the OM-1 is not that big jump in ISO over earlier sensors, and DXO and Topaz also help FF cameras to an even higher operational point. The question is - how much high ISO you really need in your shooting.

That said, if you need deeper DOF or the DOF you usually get in m43rds, then FF isn't going to help here as you need to "stop it down." In which case the OM-1 may be your best option, as it also has really good IBIS.

Coming from an EP5 to the IBIS of an OM-1 will be a revelation.  Combine that with the modest improvement of the OM-1 sensor and it probably gets you where you need to be.

Just don't expect the "2 stops better ISO" - or even 1 stop better ISO unless you are using JPEGS or hand held high res.

Thanks!

L

ahaslett wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

victorav wrote:

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

Correct. And it's also a lot of full spectrum light available for the shot, not a low light dark condition. That's why I also posted an ISO 40,000 from my EP7 to show that it's not that much of an improvement- people underestimate how far you can go with ISO in the right conditions.

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

People forget that the bright parts of a "high ISO" image have a lot more signal than the dark parts of a "lower ISO" image. I'm still impressed with 40,000 ISO.

Blue skies - the curse of landscape photographers - limited signal in the red and green channels.

Andrew

Agreed.  All I am saying is do not expect the big jump the marketing hype made out the OM-1 to be- it's a modest improvement. It's certainly better than nothing, but even current latest sensors not on the OM-1 can also do high iso if shooting in those conditions.

I think for the OP the OM-1 may still be the way to go simply because he's coming from an E-P5 so the IBIS will be a major jump, combined with the modest improvement and changes to perhaps shoot hand held high res in some situations (which does then jump the ISO capability) may work.

ahaslett wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

victorav wrote:

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

Correct. And it's also a lot of full spectrum light available for the shot, not a low light dark condition. That's why I also posted an ISO 40,000 from my EP7 to show that it's not that much of an improvement- people underestimate how far you can go with ISO in the right conditions.

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

People forget that the bright parts of a "high ISO" image have a lot more signal than the dark parts of a "lower ISO" image. I'm still impressed with 40,000 ISO.

Blue skies - the curse of landscape photographers - limited signal in the red and green channels.

Andrew

Agreed. All I am saying is do not expect the big jump the marketing hype made out the OM-1 to be- it's a modest improvement. It's certainly better than nothing, but even current latest sensors not on the OM-1 can also do high iso if shooting in those conditions.

I think for the OP the OM-1 may still be the way to go simply because he's coming from an E-P5 so the IBIS will be a major jump, combined with the modest improvement and changes to perhaps shoot hand held high res in some situations (which does then jump the ISO capability) may work.

Shooting RAW and using software like DeepPrime together with a higher resolution sensor produces the best results in my experience. I’m not so keen on PhotoLab, so only use it when NR is important.

In very noisy images, you can get better results with lower resolution sensors, because the AI invents artefacts in large areas of smooth tones. I guess it must randomly find features in the data - more data = more invented features.

I agree one has to watch for AI artifacts as the noise climbs up and particularly in shadowy areas with lines or surfaces that already have some roughness to them. Saw it recently actually.

Not sure if Lowe resolution sensor helps here.

In slightly noisy images, you get more detail left after NR if you start with more detail. Baby’s eyelashes in available light are a classic test case.

I generally find the more resolution you have the better. Worst case- you can always resample/resize down giving you also a slight boost.

So far I’ve been more than pleased with the OM1, and my only reason for upgrading now was to spend my saved budget before inflation ate it away. It’s more of an upgrade over the EM1.2 than I expected.

👍

The space where MFT isn’t good enough for my use cases is getting smaller.

I had a vision of carrying an entire basic handheld kit in a single shoulder bag. Saw the bag that matched the vision when picking up the OM1.

Carried it on a decent walk through soft sand and over rocks today. Very happy. Also very happy with FF kit, for other use cases. Definitely have to choose which lenses to carry, even fairly close to the car.

I am watching to see what the OM-5 comes to be, and how much it gets from the OM-1.  A key requirement for me is size, so crossing fingers it's more in line with the EM5 line than just a cheaper, slightly less capable OM-1 body.

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

I can see the OM5 might be the perfect body to go with the 12-45/4 and 30-150/4, if you are into lightweight photography.

I don't use the zooms. I use the 15mm, 25mm, 45mm and 75mm.  But yeah.

I’m fairly happy with an old EM1.1 as having the basics, together with light lenses.

My shooting style clusters around 10mm, 25mm and 100mm. I get a lighter kit with the Laowa 10/2 and PL 25/1.4 and EM1., than an EM5.3 with 8-25/4 and 12-45/4. Could shave a bit off an EM5.3 kit by using a PL 8-18.

Nothing in MFT land beats a GM1 with Panasonic kit lenses for weight.

I have a GM5. GM5 is nice but I can't unsee 20MP with no AA filter at this point. To me the GM5 beats the GM1 due to having an EVF and a much better dial.  I wish Lumix had done a GM9 but that ship has sailed and I will be crying in hell (if I got to hell) along with Tom (moderator) for all eternity they didn't make one

Andrew
--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

River Photography wrote:

memo90061 wrote:

River Photography wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

I have OM1 and Sony A7R4. Don’t switch to Sony if IS is important.

I can do at least 1/2s on the OM1 with only IBIS at 150mm if using a solid stance.

Canon seem to have the best IS of FF bodies. I’d check the details of lenses and IS etc.

Andrew

the A74 is not even close to Olympus as well. How they come to the conclusion that it can do 5.5 stops is just pure nonsense. video ibis is usable with electronic stabilization turned on with a slight crop.

I agree! I bought it and IBIS was so bad. I couldn't even have sharp 1/20 pictures. Even the Panasonic S5 is better than the Sony. Can take 1/2 pictures, but the OM-1 is so much better when it comes to IBIS.

All i can say is thank god the electronic stabilization works ok for video without degrading the quality. Other wise im very happy with the camera. the em12 you could deliberately shake the camera and see the stabilisation working, the sony you cant see any change at all, you actually have to hold the camera super still and move in very sight increments to see it work ,i just dont see the point in even turning it on for stills.

On many cameras, video stabilization is computational.  Which has a small effect on sharpness but can provide very stable images.  I wonder if that's the case with the Sony?