Tempted to enter MFT system for sports and action photography

JKdad wrote:

I’ve been looking for reasons to buy a MFT kit, but it doesn’t make sense for me.

For sports I can’t imagine anything better than a RX10 IV.

IQ wise, I can’t tell a difference between it and my APSC gear. High ISO doesn’t bother me as I use PL6.

It focuses/shoots like an A9 and is very small/light considering it reaches to 600.

I can’t imagine a MFT kit doing any better.

Surely you must be kidding? I owned a RX10MkIV for over 2 years. Loved it. BUT that said now having an OM-1 is like going from a Toyota to a BMW in all aspects. It's faster (hard to believe I know), better built, lower noise at higher ISO's, tremendously customizable with greater dynamic range etc.

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

I’ve been looking for reasons to buy a MFT kit, but it doesn’t make sense for me.

For sports I can’t imagine anything better than a RX10 IV.

IQ wise, I can’t tell a difference between it and my APSC gear. High ISO doesn’t bother me as I use PL6.

It focuses/shoots like an A9 and is very small/light considering it reaches to 600.

I can’t imagine a MFT kit doing any better.

Surely you must be kidding? I owned a RX10MkIV for over 2 years. Loved it. BUT that said now having an OM-1 is like going from a Toyota to a BMW in all aspects. It's faster (hard to believe I know), better built, lower noise at higher ISO's, tremendously customizable with greater dynamic range etc.

I’m not joking. Can’t speak to the OM-1 since I’ve never used it.

But how big and heavy would that camera be with a 600mm lens on it?

Id bet the DR between the two is minimal and the noice isn’t much of an issue with the DXO magic.

Again, I’m talking about using it for sports, which is what this post is about.

If I can’t tell a difference between it and my Fuji, Canon and Sony APSC systems, then I seriously doubt the MFT sensor will matter, long as the files are DXO’d

If the OP wants speed, reach and ultimate IQ, I’d go with a A7R IV or V, use a shorter zoom and just use it in crop mode. That way the OP can have it all and still have a pretty light and compact system, with a real IQ difference.

Hell, they could use a 200 lens on the camera, crop out half and still have a 16 MP image, but with the rich tones and DR of that amazing Sony sensor.

I don’t get MFT at all.

JKdad wrote:

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

I’ve been looking for reasons to buy a MFT kit, but it doesn’t make sense for me.

For sports I can’t imagine anything better than a RX10 IV.

IQ wise, I can’t tell a difference between it and my APSC gear. High ISO doesn’t bother me as I use PL6.

It focuses/shoots like an A9 and is very small/light considering it reaches to 600.

I can’t imagine a MFT kit doing any better.

Surely you must be kidding? I owned a RX10MkIV for over 2 years. Loved it. BUT that said now having an OM-1 is like going from a Toyota to a BMW in all aspects. It's faster (hard to believe I know), better built, lower noise at higher ISO's, tremendously customizable with greater dynamic range etc.

I’m not joking. Can’t speak to the OM-1 since I’ve never used it.

But how big and heavy would that camera be with a 600mm lens on it?

Id bet the DR between the two is minimal and the noice isn’t much of an issue with the DXO magic.

Again, I’m talking about using it for sports, which is what this post is about.

If I can’t tell a difference between it and my Fuji, Canon and Sony APSC systems, then I seriously doubt the MFT sensor will matter, long as the files are DXO’d

If the OP wants speed, reach and ultimate IQ, I’d go with a A7R IV or V, use a shorter zoom and just use it in crop mode. That way the OP can have it all and still have a pretty light and compact system, with a real IQ difference.

Hell, they could use a 200 lens on the camera, crop out half and still have a 16 MP image, but with the rich tones and DR of that amazing Sony sensor.

I don’t get MFT at all.

I'm trying to really reason with you but it seems you aren't in that vein at this time. Anything above ISO800 on a RX10MkIV is destruction of detail which NO program can rescue you from. I can easily shoot right up to ISO12,800 on an OM-1 and recover very nicely. That's just for starters.

KevinDe wrote:

JKdad wrote:

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

I’ve been looking for reasons to buy a MFT kit, but it doesn’t make sense for me.

For sports I can’t imagine anything better than a RX10 IV.

IQ wise, I can’t tell a difference between it and my APSC gear. High ISO doesn’t bother me as I use PL6.

It focuses/shoots like an A9 and is very small/light considering it reaches to 600.

I can’t imagine a MFT kit doing any better.

Surely you must be kidding? I owned a RX10MkIV for over 2 years. Loved it. BUT that said now having an OM-1 is like going from a Toyota to a BMW in all aspects. It's faster (hard to believe I know), better built, lower noise at higher ISO's, tremendously customizable with greater dynamic range etc.

I’m not joking. Can’t speak to the OM-1 since I’ve never used it.

I was certain you were joking. Have you used an RX10IV for sports?

But how big and heavy would that camera be with a 600mm lens on it?

OM1 + 75-300 = 1022g

RX10IV = 1095g

Id bet the DR between the two is minimal and the noice isn’t much of an issue with the DXO magic.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20System%20OM-1,Sony%20DSC-RX10M4,Sony%20ILCE-9M2

Then I suppose the DR between the OM-1 and the A9II is minimal and the noise isn't much of an issue with DxO magic.

Again, I’m talking about using it for sports, which is what this post is about.

Have you used it for sports?

If I can’t tell a difference between it and my Fuji, Canon and Sony APSC systems, then I seriously doubt the MFT sensor will matter, long as the files are DXO’d

If the OP wants speed, reach and ultimate IQ, I’d go with a A7R IV or V,

Those cameras are not particularly fast...which is why the A9 and A1 exist.

use a shorter zoom and just use it in crop mode.

How many AF points does that leave me tracking a small target?

That way the OP can have it all and still have a pretty light and compact system, with a real IQ difference.

There is nothing compact about the RX10IV. At least ILC disassemble for easier transport.

Hell, they could use a 200 lens on the camera, crop out half and still have a 16 MP image, but with the rich tones and DR of that amazing Sony sensor.

If less detail and less DR is what you are after, then by all means.

I don’t get MFT at all.

You don't get a lot of things. Has nothing to do with the format.

You MFT guys can be so insecure. I don’t have to itemize replies but here:

You're comparing weight with a MFT lens that starts at 150 equivalent  I’d imagine most sports shooters would like to go shorter than 150 from time to time. So, for a fair comparison, pick a 24-600 equivalent MFT lens that doesn’t suck.

Far as composing MFT-1” vs MFT-FF is silly. A FF sensor is almost 4 times larger in area. The MFT sensor isn’t quite twice the size of a 1”. Comparing a 1” to MFT and then MFT to FF is a big leap.

I just tried out a A7R V and the AF is sublime. The sensor is tremendous and the camera is a bit smaller than the OM-1. That’s pretty ridiculous

The OM does have more AF phase points, but try the new Sony AI AF and tell me what you think

Lastly… cropping an image affects DR?

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

I’ve been looking for reasons to buy a MFT kit, but it doesn’t make sense for me.

For sports I can’t imagine anything better than a RX10 IV.

IQ wise, I can’t tell a difference between it and my APSC gear. High ISO doesn’t bother me as I use PL6.

It focuses/shoots like an A9 and is very small/light considering it reaches to 600.

I can’t imagine a MFT kit doing any better.

Surely you must be kidding? I owned a RX10MkIV for over 2 years. Loved it. BUT that said now having an OM-1 is like going from a Toyota to a BMW in all aspects. It's faster (hard to believe I know), better built, lower noise at higher ISO's, tremendously customizable with greater dynamic range etc.

I’m not joking. Can’t speak to the OM-1 since I’ve never used it.

But how big and heavy would that camera be with a 600mm lens on it?

Id bet the DR between the two is minimal and the noice isn’t much of an issue with the DXO magic.

Again, I’m talking about using it for sports, which is what this post is about.

If I can’t tell a difference between it and my Fuji, Canon and Sony APSC systems, then I seriously doubt the MFT sensor will matter, long as the files are DXO’d

If the OP wants speed, reach and ultimate IQ, I’d go with a A7R IV or V, use a shorter zoom and just use it in crop mode. That way the OP can have it all and still have a pretty light and compact system, with a real IQ difference.

Hell, they could use a 200 lens on the camera, crop out half and still have a 16 MP image, but with the rich tones and DR of that amazing Sony sensor.

I don’t get MFT at all.

I'm trying to really reason with you but it seems you aren't in that vein at this time. Anything above ISO800 on a RX10MkIV is destruction of detail which NO program can rescue you from. I can easily shoot right up to ISO12,800 on an OM-1 and recover very nicely. That's just for starters.

I’m highly reasonable. But you slant the facts in favor of your preferred format.

You’re saying Sony Is so bad at making sensors (even though they make most of them) that a sensor less than twice the size performs 20 times better at high ISO?

Does that mean a FF frame sensor performs at 100k ISO like the OM does at 12k?

JKdad wrote:

You MFT guys can be so insecure. I don’t have to itemize replies but here:

You're comparing weight with a MFT lens that starts at 150 equivalent I’d imagine most sports shooters would like to go shorter than 150 from time to time. So, for a fair comparison, pick a 24-600 equivalent MFT lens that doesn’t suck.

Far as composing MFT-1” vs MFT-FF is silly. A FF sensor is almost 4 times larger in area. The MFT sensor isn’t quite twice the size of a 1”. Comparing a 1” to MFT and then MFT to FF is a big leap.

I just tried out a A7R V and the AF is sublime. The sensor is tremendous and the camera is a bit smaller than the OM-1. That’s pretty ridiculous

The OM does have more AF phase points, but try the new Sony AI AF and tell me what you think

Lastly… cropping an image affects DR?

Now you're talking my language. I just took delivery of a A7RV on Tuesday and have been testing the heck out of it. There is NO question it's an excellent image tool to say the least. With that many megapixels I'm finding that anything over ISO1600 has plenty of noise/grain but it doesn't bother the end result once an image is processed. I can do much the same with my OM-1 right beside it which I've been testing that very way. The truly interesting thing is that the Sony produces a HUGE image file to view, no surprise. Plenty of detail.

That said if I take images of the same thing and plant them on my 38" calibrated ViewSonic screen, the Sony is by NO means more detailed nor sharper. The obvious is that one can crop till the cows come home on the Sony. I've cropped a bird image eliminating nearly 80% of the image to zero in on the bird and the resulting image off the OM-1 was superb and highly printable in a very good size (at least up to 13x19 or larger. The two cameras are so darned close in so many regards that I'm not even sure YET that I'll keep the Sony. The OM-1 is going nowhere. It's already assisted my photographic business very nicely. I was just wanting to see if the A7R5 was all that and a bag of chips.

I happened to get the Tamron 35-150 for my main lens with that adding the 200-600 for far away subjects as where I am in Idaho we have LOTS of wildlife and birds. So far I'm finding the need on that long lens to up the shutter speeds higher (raising the ISO) to nail a good shot that I can nail easily with my OM-1 and 100-400(equivalent to 200-800mm in FF) hand held and never worry about higher ISO's nor higher shutter speed. I'm finding that annoying but haven't finished my evaluation yet on that one. The Tamron is a amazing GEM of a lens. Sharp all over and bokeh to die for if desired so no complaints there.

I ran a test on a tripod in my poorly lit livingroom last night with both cameras on a fake colorful bird I use for tests of lenses and cameras. You would NOT say the Sony is sharper or has any more definition then the OM-1, just a larger image, that's all. So that said for now I'm not nearly as convinced about FF anymore as I thought I was when I had an R5 Canon. So just don't try to blow thing way out of proportion.

JKdad wrote:

I’m highly reasonable. But you slant the facts in favor of your preferred format.

You’re saying Sony Is so bad at making sensors (even though they make most of them) that a sensor less than twice the size performs 20 times better at high ISO?

Does that mean a FF frame sensor performs at 100k ISO like the OM does at 12k?

Woah it's as if you didn't read a word I typed. Sony probably makes the finest sensors on the planet at this time. The OM-1 has a Sony fabricated chip as well. About the only ones NOT fabricated by Sony is Canon. They are fast rising in the mix. I enjoyed the RX when I had it, but realized it's limitations. The OM-1 is in another league but you just can't seem to swallow that. The A7RV is another beast altogether. A high resolution leader in the FF realm. Another step beyond would be the Fuji 100S larger format 100mp sensored camera for obvious reasons. The larger the sensor the greater it's dynamic range capabilities. You don't try to ignore physics. But what's largely been discussed here regarding those that may wish to downsize is the Mft is a "sweet spot" lacking the compromises of a 1" or smaller sensor. It's just the way it is. Why you can't accept that is a mystery. There are as I said some obvious differences once again stepping into a FF format. But for many if not most applications it's not a necessity. When you go below Mft you are entering a entirely different realm of limitations. You'll just have to get used to that.

EZGritz wrote:

I bet the OM-1 DR is much better. You haven't tried it. The 40-150 PRO is ~ 2lbs with a 2X TC but also f/5.6 is much brighter with better IBIS and a bigger sensor that captures more light. It will work better in lower light and enable you to shoot a higher shutter speed. The kit will be 1lb+ heavier than your SONY bridge camera.

I almost never need 600mm though. 80-90% of my sports photography is 300mm or shorter. The 1.4XTc takes it to 420mm which gets me to 98% of the needed reach and is f/4, brighter still.

The OP says he needs 200mm or less. The 40-150 f/4 beats that by 50%, weighs less than a pound, and satisfies his need for reach. This kit is lighter and much more compact than your SONY. When he uses the 12-45 f/4 it's half the weight and much smaller than your SONY. You can crop M43 images 100%-200%. 10MP is way more than enough for big, high-resolution monitors. The websites I shoot for publish 2MP. It's all you need unless you print large format. If you do, 16MP is more than enough for a 12X18 print. Bigger prints take up a lot of wall space. Few images are printed bigger.

If he needs 14-150 range f/4-5.6, that kit weighs less than your SONY and takes as good or better image.

The OLY 12-200 (24-400mm) weighs one pound. The kit weighs less than your SONY and in either case, the OMS kit enables you to mount a shorter lens and configure a 1.5lb or less zoom kit when he doesn't need the range. Why do you want to carry around a 2.5lb bridge camera to shoot 24-90 when you can do it with a brighter lens with a 1.5 lb kit?

When I used bridge cameras I thought a 28-280 was long enough. Panasonic make an excellent 100-400 bridge camera I'd consider but same issue. When I want to shoot 12-90 what do I need to lug that thing around for when I can make a better image with any M43 camera and a 12-45 f/4 and carry a compact kit that weighs 1.5lbs?

The SONY bridge camera is good only if you need the entire range out to 600mm in the same shoot. FF Sony kits are much heavier than the M43 solution. Using a lens that isn't long enough and cropping the resolution in half is a handicap, not a benefit. It's using a shotgun to spray and prey rather than using a sniper rifle to take one photo and know you have it. Much less work.

BTW, the sensor in OLY/OMS bodies are Sony sensors. The OMS/OLY bodies have a long list of things they can do that aren't in the SONY bodies. IBIS is much better in the OMS/OLY bodies. Sonys are better for high-resolution landscape images.

With the A7R V Sony is now using their new IBIS (7 stops).

I was just reading about the OM-1 having great IBIS, but some are complaining about the auto-ISO minimum SS setting  only going as low as 1/50th? Did that get fixed in a FW update? Seems like that would be a waste of great IBIS

EZGritz wrote:

And the SONY bridge camera is as good he says?

Only here are people not raving about it.

It’s not a camera I use often, but it’s still great.

EZGritz wrote:

I bet the OM-1 DR is much better. You haven't tried it. The 40-150 PRO is ~ 2lbs with a 2X TC but also f/5.6 is much brighter with better IBIS and a bigger sensor that captures more light. It will work better in lower light and enable you to shoot a higher shutter speed. The kit will be 1lb+ heavier than your SONY bridge camera.

I almost never need 600mm though. 80-90% of my sports photography is 300mm or shorter. The 1.4XTc takes it to 420mm which gets me to 98% of the needed reach and is f/4, brighter still.

The OP says he needs 200mm or less. The 40-150 f/4 beats that by 50%, weighs less than a pound, and satisfies his need for reach. This kit is lighter and much more compact than your SONY. When he uses the 12-45 f/4 it's half the weight and much smaller than your SONY. You can crop M43 images 100%-200%. 10MP is way more than enough for big, high-resolution monitors. The websites I shoot for publish 2MP. It's all you need unless you print large format. If you do, 16MP is more than enough for a 12X18 print. Bigger prints take up a lot of wall space. Few images are printed bigger.

If he needs 14-150 range f/4-5.6, that kit weighs less than your SONY and takes as good or better image.

The OLY 12-200 (24-400mm) weighs one pound. The kit weighs less than your SONY and in either case, the OMS kit enables you to mount a shorter lens and configure a 1.5lb or less zoom kit when he doesn't need the range. Why do you want to carry around a 2.5lb bridge camera to shoot 24-90 when you can do it with a brighter lens with a 1.5 lb kit?

When I used bridge cameras I thought a 28-280 was long enough. Panasonic make an excellent 100-400 bridge camera I'd consider but same issue. When I want to shoot 12-90 what do I need to lug that thing around for when I can make a better image with any M43 camera and a 12-45 f/4 and carry a compact kit that weighs 1.5lbs?

The SONY bridge camera is good only if you need the entire range out to 600mm in the same shoot. FF Sony kits are much heavier than the M43 solution. Using a lens that isn't long enough and cropping the resolution in half is a handicap, not a benefit. It's using a shotgun to spray and prey rather than using a sniper rifle to take one photo and know you have it. Much less work.

BTW, the sensor in OLY/OMS bodies are Sony sensors. The OMS/OLY bodies have a long list of things they can do that aren't in the SONY bodies. IBIS is much better in the OMS/OLY bodies. Sonys are better for high-resolution landscape images.

People are taking me wrong.

I have 7 kits. The only thing I don’t have is a MFT kit. I’ve been looking for a reason but still haven’t found one.

I shoot lots of street, so size is more important to me than weight. The OM-1 looks to be larger than the new Sony. It’s the same size as my Nikon.

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

You MFT guys can be so insecure. I don’t have to itemize replies but here:

You're comparing weight with a MFT lens that starts at 150 equivalent I’d imagine most sports shooters would like to go shorter than 150 from time to time. So, for a fair comparison, pick a 24-600 equivalent MFT lens that doesn’t suck.

Far as composing MFT-1” vs MFT-FF is silly. A FF sensor is almost 4 times larger in area. The MFT sensor isn’t quite twice the size of a 1”. Comparing a 1” to MFT and then MFT to FF is a big leap.

I just tried out a A7R V and the AF is sublime. The sensor is tremendous and the camera is a bit smaller than the OM-1. That’s pretty ridiculous

The OM does have more AF phase points, but try the new Sony AI AF and tell me what you think

Lastly… cropping an image affects DR?

Now you're talking my language. I just took delivery of a A7RV on Tuesday and have been testing the heck out of it. There is NO question it's an excellent image tool to say the least. With that many megapixels I'm finding that anything over ISO1600 has plenty of noise/grain but it doesn't bother the end result once an image is processed. I can do much the same with my OM-1 right beside it which I've been testing that very way. The truly interesting thing is that the Sony produces a HUGE image file to view, no surprise. Plenty of detail.

That said if I take images of the same thing and plant them on my 38" calibrated ViewSonic screen, the Sony is by NO means more detailed nor sharper. The obvious is that one can crop till the cows come home on the Sony. I've cropped a bird image eliminating nearly 80% of the image to zero in on the bird and the resulting image off the OM-1 was superb and highly printable in a very good size (at least up to 13x19 or larger. The two cameras are so darned close in so many regards that I'm not even sure YET that I'll keep the Sony. The OM-1 is going nowhere. It's already assisted my photographic business very nicely. I was just wanting to see if the A7R5 was all that and a bag of chips.

I happened to get the Tamron 35-150 for my main lens with that adding the 200-600 for far away subjects as where I am in Idaho we have LOTS of wildlife and birds. So far I'm finding the need on that long lens to up the shutter speeds higher (raising the ISO) to nail a good shot that I can nail easily with my OM-1 and 100-400(equivalent to 200-800mm in FF) hand held and never worry about higher ISO's nor higher shutter speed. I'm finding that annoying but haven't finished my evaluation yet on that one. The Tamron is a amazing GEM of a lens. Sharp all over and bokeh to die for if desired so no complaints there.

I ran a test on a tripod in my poorly lit livingroom last night with both cameras on a fake colorful bird I use for tests of lenses and cameras. You would NOT say the Sony is sharper or has any more definition then the OM-1, just a larger image, that's all. So that said for now I'm not nearly as convinced about FF anymore as I thought I was when I had an R5 Canon. So just don't try to blow thing way out of proportion.

Interesting. You mostly shoot wildlife?