Stay with M43 or shift to FF for my hands?

2ndact scene1 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.

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?

Traveling light and FF are not something physically compatible in my experience.

For travel and also as a second camera for events I need something very light but capable of handling low light (I also like to photograph objects in museums and churches/temples/mosques). My solution is M4/3 gear with fast primes, by which I mean f/1.7 or possible f/1.4 lenses but not expensive and heavy f/1.2 lenses. So far, it is working OK but I am still making adjustments. I just got the PL 15mm f/1.7 for wide angle which has really impressed me. Ideally I would get the PL 42.5mm for something longer and use just two lenses.

I think if you are willing to compromise on lenses, and get one or two relatively fast primes for those museum and church interiors, you may have more success. Of course your needs may be different to mine. I typically don't use a telephoto when I travel, so this may not work for you entirely but maybe still something to think about.

Like you, some of my favorite subjects are small objects in glass cases and paintings (and details) in museums, as well as architectural details (gargoyles, frescoed ceilings, etc.).

For a long while, I’ve been using 2, sometimes 3 Voigtländer primes… 17.5mm, 42.5mm and adapted 75mm f1.5.

What I’ve discovered is that in order to get MORE Depth of Field, especially shooting small objects, I’m bumping the ISO and setting the aperture at f2.8, f4 and f5.6. For paintings, to avoid glare from overhead display lighting, I’m forced to step to the side and shoot at an angle. That means I need more DoF to get the entire thing in focus. Shooting from further away helps reduce glare, too. Resting the camera on my sling bag swung around in front helps with longer shutter speeds.

With glass cases, I've been using a folding rubber lens hood pressed against the glass.

The other problem is crowded galleries and struggling to compose with people in the way. I’ve been using longer lenses for that.

On the last few trips, I started using my 12-40mm. The zoom helps with crowds and to simplify composing. I just picked up a 35-100mm f2.8, so I’ll have more reach.

I do miss the Voigtländer image quality a bit, but I’m happy with the results.

Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes (no tweaking)

I can't speak about Nikon and Canon, but I have a Sony A7III and while the Sony Full Frame system has some great attributes, I wouldn't reccomend it for a system with great stabilization.

Sony has a 24-240 f/3.5-5.6 full frame lens with stabilization, but the lens is 220g heavier (40% more) than the 12-100/F4 - and I find the 12-100 rather heavy.

It's only half a stop faster than the 12-100 at the long end, so its not going to buy you much in shutter speed or image quality.

I wonder if its worth investigting the Sony APSC series - these cameras also have great autfocus and good stabilization

The Sony APSC format 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS lens is equivalent to an M43 format  13.5-101, F/2.7-4.7 lens, so very close to the 12-100/4 at the long end, but weighs only 325g.

jeffharris wrote:

2ndact scene1 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.

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?

Traveling light and FF are not something physically compatible in my experience.

For travel and also as a second camera for events I need something very light but capable of handling low light (I also like to photograph objects in museums and churches/temples/mosques). My solution is M4/3 gear with fast primes, by which I mean f/1.7 or possible f/1.4 lenses but not expensive and heavy f/1.2 lenses. So far, it is working OK but I am still making adjustments. I just got the PL 15mm f/1.7 for wide angle which has really impressed me. Ideally I would get the PL 42.5mm for something longer and use just two lenses.

I think if you are willing to compromise on lenses, and get one or two relatively fast primes for those museum and church interiors, you may have more success. Of course your needs may be different to mine. I typically don't use a telephoto when I travel, so this may not work for you entirely but maybe still something to think about.

Like you, some of my favorite subjects are small objects in glass cases and paintings (and details) in museums, as well as architectural details (gargoyles, frescoed ceilings, etc.).

For a long while, I’ve been using 2, sometimes 3 Voigtländer primes… 17.5mm, 42.5mm and adapted 75mm f1.5.

What I’ve discovered is that in order to get MORE Depth of Field, especially shooting small objects, I’m bumping the ISO and setting the aperture at f2.8, f4 and f5.6. For paintings, to avoid glare from overhead display lighting, I’m forced to step to the side and shoot at an angle. That means I need more DoF to get the entire thing in focus. Shooting from further away helps reduce glare, too. Resting the camera on my sling bag swung around in front helps with longer shutter speeds.

With glass cases, I've been using a folding rubber lens hood pressed against the glass.

The other problem is crowded galleries and struggling to compose with people in the way. I’ve been using longer lenses for that.

On the last few trips, I started using my 12-40mm. The zoom helps with crowds and to simplify composing. I just picked up a 35-100mm f2.8, so I’ll have more reach.

I do miss the Voigtländer image quality a bit, but I’m happy with the results.

Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes (no tweaking)

Rubber lens hoods are a great tool. I am amazed museums let you put one right on the glass but no one has stopped me.  I used one last month at the Brooklyn Museum with a PL 20mm.  Not every image is a winner but some turned out OK.

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 don't think that "traveling light" and a FF camera+lens go together. Traveling light is one of the reasons that I use m4/3.

Oly has dual image stabilization (IS) if you use one of their lens. I own Panny (GX9 & G9) and the new OM-1, but all of my long lens that require IS are Pannys so I don't get dual stabilation.

If you want to travel light and have great IS, then I suggest you consider Panny's line of Superzooms. For many years, I used Panny's FZ150 and got some great shots. I put the 1.7 extender "lens" on it and I got the equiv. of 1000mm full frame. The following photos was taken at 1000mm at 1/50 sec. HANDHELD. Look closely at the small debris hanging from the birds beak ... it's very sharp!

FZ150 (wih 1.7 extender "lens") ,1000mm equiv, 1/50 sec. handheld, ISO 100, no post processing.

This photo was taken about 10 years ago. I am guessing that Panny has improved it's IS over these years???

The newer FZ series may not take an extender, but given the zoom range you want, the camera (without extender) should meet your needs. A caveat ... the photo above was taken in bright sunlight so you may not get as good results in darker places like churches etc.. 10 years ago, most noise reduction software didn't do a very good job. Today ... many of them (e.g., Topaz Denoise) are amazing. Today I don't hesitate to shoot at higher ISOs to gain faster shutter speeds or a small aperture for better depth of field.

You should give the newer FZ's at a look if you want to travel light and get IS.

- Simon

2ndact scene1 wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

2ndact scene1 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.

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?

Traveling light and FF are not something physically compatible in my experience.

For travel and also as a second camera for events I need something very light but capable of handling low light (I also like to photograph objects in museums and churches/temples/mosques). My solution is M4/3 gear with fast primes, by which I mean f/1.7 or possible f/1.4 lenses but not expensive and heavy f/1.2 lenses. So far, it is working OK but I am still making adjustments. I just got the PL 15mm f/1.7 for wide angle which has really impressed me. Ideally I would get the PL 42.5mm for something longer and use just two lenses.

I think if you are willing to compromise on lenses, and get one or two relatively fast primes for those museum and church interiors, you may have more success. Of course your needs may be different to mine. I typically don't use a telephoto when I travel, so this may not work for you entirely but maybe still something to think about.

Like you, some of my favorite subjects are small objects in glass cases and paintings (and details) in museums, as well as architectural details (gargoyles, frescoed ceilings, etc.).

For a long while, I’ve been using 2, sometimes 3 Voigtländer primes… 17.5mm, 42.5mm and adapted 75mm f1.5.

What I’ve discovered is that in order to get MORE Depth of Field, especially shooting small objects, I’m bumping the ISO and setting the aperture at f2.8, f4 and f5.6. For paintings, to avoid glare from overhead display lighting, I’m forced to step to the side and shoot at an angle. That means I need more DoF to get the entire thing in focus. Shooting from further away helps reduce glare, too. Resting the camera on my sling bag swung around in front helps with longer shutter speeds.

With glass cases, I've been using a folding rubber lens hood pressed against the glass.

The other problem is crowded galleries and struggling to compose with people in the way. I’ve been using longer lenses for that.

On the last few trips, I started using my 12-40mm. The zoom helps with crowds and to simplify composing. I just picked up a 35-100mm f2.8, so I’ll have more reach.

I do miss the Voigtländer image quality a bit, but I’m happy with the results.

Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes (no tweaking)

Rubber lens hoods are a great tool. I am amazed museums let you put one right on the glass but no one has stopped me. I used one last month at the Brooklyn Museum with a PL 20mm. Not every image is a winner but some turned out OK.

Let me add, when I am able to put a rubber lens hood very gently against the display case glass, the camera is quite stable and usually no image stabilization is required, which is a good thing because the neither the G7 and PL20mm have IS.  However, you have to be pretty careful doing that and there is probably some small risk involved if the display case is not well secured.

ProDude wrote:

Kodachromelover wrote:

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?

I would have to say, coming from one of the finest FF cameras to an OM-1 there is near NO way you can expect improvement in stabilization from the CAmera/lens combo of a FF setup.

Do tell, which setup was that?

john isaacs wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

For a long while, I’ve been using 2, sometimes 3 Voigtländer primes… 17.5mm, 42.5mm and adapted 75mm f1.5.

Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes (no tweaking)

That's some serious barrel distortion.

Yeah, no doubt!

That was with the Voigtländer 17.5mm. I stood off to the side trying minimize glare, hence the distortion.

That was a show of numerous versions of the Judith and Holofernes beheading at the Palazzo Barberini in Rome last November.

guitareinar wrote:

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. Having the jpegs from computational photography go through AI NR is a neat trick on the OM1.

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.

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.

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 FF lenses to carry, even fairly close to the car.

Andrew

Andrew, would you mind sharing what shoulder bag you picked up? thanks!

ProMaster Jasper Medium.

Laowa 10/2, 8mm Pro, OM1 with 12-40/2.8 mounted, 40-150/2.8 with tripod foot.  Shoulder strap on left, rain cover on right.

Andrew

Sorry, but no... if you're not able to get the shot with this lens and camera, nothing else will.

If you don't get past 1/20th, the IBIS (sync IS) doesn't work as it should OR you may improve your technique. I'm not as stable as I used to be and 1" is a breeze with this combo. Especially at the wide end.

FF will give you better ISO performance but much worse IS, so you'll end up in the same place.

john isaacs wrote:

2ndact scene1 wrote:

Rubber lens hoods are a great tool. I am amazed museums let you put one right on the glass but no one has stopped me. I used one last month at the Brooklyn Museum with a PL 20mm. Not every image is a winner but some turned out OK.

I have been told not to put a rubber lens hood against the glass in some museums. So I also have a black collapsible shoot through reflector that blocks reflections which I can use as well. The advantage is that it allows me to back up a bit if I need to.

No one has ever tried to stop me.

If the guards are sniffing around I wait until they’re not looking.