Stick with M43 w/ OM System OM-1 Mk II, Panasonic G7/G9 II, or start over?

[CydeWeys]

I currently have a pretty old Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II with the extra grip attachment to make it more comfortable when using larger lenses (so it's more like the OM-D E-M1 line in size, just without all the features). That camera body is no longer up to snuff anymore; in a few months it'll be a decade since it was released. The autofocus tracking is bad, the low light performance is bad, and I honestly think I can mostly take better photos with my Pixel 7 Pro, so I hardly ever use it anymore. I would like a camera that I'll actually use!

The thing is, I have some lovely Olympus lenses that are truly a joy to use, and are fully compatible with the latest body, the OM System OM-1 Mk II. My most used lenses are the M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8, M. Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 w/ 1.5X teleconverter, and M. Zuiko 70mm f/1.8. I also have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, but the autofocus performance on that is disappointing and I'd likely swap it out for an M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, if I'm going to stay on Micro Four Thirds anyway.

So the most obvious choice is to grab the OM System OM-1 Mk II (and hopefully there's some good Black Friday deals). It's maximally compatible with all of my lenses, it's better at everything in every way vs my existing camera body, and it has good reviews. But I could also go for the Panasonic G7 or G9 II, which are better at video than the OM System, but maybe slightly worse at photographs. I do care about video, but I care about photography more, and generally can't be arsed to buy all the software required for video editing and spend all the time making it look good and splicing it together. A wrinkle here is that a Panasonic body wouldn't be as compatible with my lenses; in particular they don't have in-lens stabilization that works well with the Panasonic, so all other things being equal I'm leaning towards the OM-1 Mk II solely because of my existing lens collection.

But then another option would be to simply sell my lenses and start over, probably with a Sony a7 IV. I'd end up spending a lot more money in total going that route though because the kind of quality lenses I'd want for it would cost MUCH more than the M43 equivalents, plus all the gear in total would take up a lot more space and weigh a lot more. I'm generally just throwing a camera plus an extra lens or two into my existing backpack when I travel rather than bringing a lot of photography-specific gear, which is one of the main reasons I selected M43 in the first place; I don't think I'd be able to physically fit a full-frame setup without requiring larger/more bags. But the resultant photos would obviously be better, especially in low light.

So, that's where my thoughts are currently at. Does the OM-1 Mk II make sense? Has anyone else faced this struggle before? I'm specifically asking this question in the general gear rec forum rather than the M43-specific forum because I'm looking for neutral opinions.

 

[musicshootr]

How valuable is compactness to you?

Have you thought about the middle ground of APS-C? You'd get to keep some of the compactness and affordability of M4/3 but get more advanced features than M4/3 (due to it being an all but abandoned mount).

As for video, DaVinci Resolve offers a good quality free editing option for you to try.

 

[number_5]

You can get an OM-1.2 from B&H for $1900 ($500 off), and I think this probably the lowest you're going to get.

You can get an OM-1.1 directly from OMS for $1400, and could be lower is you're willing to get an used. You can find many reviews compare the Mk I and Mk II, and I don't see me upgrading it to Mk II for my use case, but you might find something you want in Mk II.

 

[ZilverHaylide]

I currently have a pretty old Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II with the extra grip attachment to make it more comfortable when using larger lenses (so it's more like the OM-D E-M1 line in size, just without all the features). That camera body is no longer up to snuff anymore; in a few months it'll be a decade since it was released. The autofocus tracking is bad, the low light performance is bad, and I honestly think I can mostly take better photos with my Pixel 7 Pro, so I hardly ever use it anymore. I would like a camera that I'll actually use!

The thing is, I have some lovely Olympus lenses that are truly a joy to use, and are fully compatible with the latest body, the OM System OM-1 Mk II. My most used lenses are the M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8, M. Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 w/ 1.5X teleconverter, and M. Zuiko 70mm f/1.8. I also have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, but the autofocus performance on that is disappointing and I'd likely swap it out for an M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, if I'm going to stay on Micro Four Thirds anyway.

So the most obvious choice is to grab the OM System OM-1 Mk II (and hopefully there's some good Black Friday deals). It's maximally compatible with all of my lenses, it's better at everything in every way vs my existing camera body, and it has good reviews. But I could also go for the Panasonic G7 or G9 II, which are better at video than the OM System, but maybe slightly worse at photographs. I do care about video, but I care about photography more, and generally can't be arsed to buy all the software required for video editing and spend all the time making it look good and splicing it together. A wrinkle here is that a Panasonic body wouldn't be as compatible with my lenses; in particular they don't have in-lens stabilization that works well with the Panasonic, so all other things being equal I'm leaning towards the OM-1 Mk II solely because of my existing lens collection.

But then another option would be to simply sell my lenses and start over, probably with a Sony a7 IV. I'd end up spending a lot more money in total going that route though because the kind of quality lenses I'd want for it would cost MUCH more than the M43 equivalents, plus all the gear in total would take up a lot more space and weigh a lot more. I'm generally just throwing a camera plus an extra lens or two into my existing backpack when I travel rather than bringing a lot of photography-specific gear, which is one of the main reasons I selected M43 in the first place; I don't think I'd be able to physically fit a full-frame setup without requiring larger/more bags. But the resultant photos would obviously be better, especially in low light.

So, that's where my thoughts are currently at. Does the OM-1 Mk II make sense? Has anyone else faced this struggle before? I'm specifically asking this question in the general gear rec forum rather than the M43-specific forum because I'm looking for neutral opinions.

An OM-1 body is roughly the same size and weight as a full-frame Sony body such as the A7 IV. The big advantages of an OM-1 (over, say, a Sony A7 IV) include the much smaller size and weight of a complete kit (for most choice of lenses, and especially if you prefer zooms), the greater "reach" and smaller size of telephoto lenses, the quite-fast-readout sensor which allows very-high frame rates and little rolling shutter, the many computational photography features, the best IBIS of any camera, and the reputed ruggednes and weather resistance. All in all, a considerable group of advantages. Since you already own some excellent Olympus lenses, cost also greatly favors going with an OM-Systems OM-1 (i or ii).

The advantages of full-frame are in lower noise levels and greater dynamic range, the potential for shallower depth-of-field if desired, and higher resolution. (Also, better results if adapting older full-frame glass, which usually isn't good-enough in the center to compensate for throwing away most of the image, which is what happens if you mount such lenses on a smaller sensor).

However, the noise advantage of full-frame is probably less than it used to be, given modern noise-reduction and sharpening software such as DxO). And if buying full-frame because of a want/need for higher resolution, I'd say might as well "go whole-hog" and buy one of the high-resolution bodies such as the Sony A7R IV (or V), A1, or Nikon Z7ii or Z8. High-res full-frame bodies not only give the best resolution of any camera (other than medium-format), but also partially-mitigate the larger weight, size, and cost of most full-frame cameras and lenses by allowing the option of an APS-C crop with a still-respectable number of megapixels, giving you more "reach" from a given focal length. But of those cameras, only the A1 and Z8 have a fast readout sensor, and they are appreciably more expensive than the A7 IV you mentioned, which would itself already be more expensive than remaining with MFT.

About five years back, I was buying a new camera, and took a serious look at a predecessor model of the OM-1 (the OM-D E-M1ii (the "iii" hadn't been released yet)). I was very impressed -- and their successors should be even better. Ultimately I went with the A7R IV -- but that was because I decided that I wanted the ability to print really big, had old full-frame glass I wanted to adapt, seldom use big glass (I prefer moderate-aperture primes to zooms, and seldom use focal lengths longer than 105mm on full-frame), and didn't need a fast-readout sensor. I'm also a bit of a perfectionist, thought that given my age that camera purchase could well be my last, and I really wanted to try a high-resolution sensor. So, for me, everything ultimately pointed to the A7R IV.

YMMV, and the info we have for you is incomplete, but, unless those things or other compelling reasons for full-frame apply in your situation, I'd say go with an OM-1 (i or ii), rather than full-frame.

With regard to an OM-1 vs the high-end Lumix MFT bodies you're also considering, well, the latter are quite chunky, won't integrate their IBIS with the lens OS in the Oly lenses you have, and lack most of the computational-photography features of the OM-1. I've seen several online reviews/comparisons in the past, but don't remember most details, so I'll leave it to you to search for and read them. I do vaguely remember mention of the G9ii completely halting capture in at least some burst modes when the (large) buffer is full, whereas the OM-1 continues capturing at a slower rate, which behavior I consider far-preferable to a complete halt. (Don't know whether that Lumix issue has been (or could be) improved by a firmware update, or much about the GH7, it's on you to check if interested). But for those various above reasons, I think that unless you need the built-in fan or other video-oriented features of the GH7, I'd say choose the OM-Systems OM-1 (i or ii).

 

[CydeWeys]

I would say compactness is pretty valuable to me, as it can easily mean the difference between being able to just throw a camera and a couple lens into my personal item backpack on a flight when going on a trip vs not having the space available to do so. With the current setup I have, there were already times I wasn't bringing along the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens because it's decently large and heavy -- let alone how big such a lens would be for full frame!

I was considering APS-C but none of the cameras seem really top end for it? And with Sony in particular, it's even using the same size mount, so I figure you might as well just get a full frame body at that point and then APS-C E mount lens for big heavy zooms and such. I don't want the camera body to be small; I want it to be comfortable to hold and use even with longer lenses (note that the E-M5 Mk II that I have wasn't comfortable to use wit larger/heavier lenses until I added on the hand grip that makes it the same form-factor as the E-M1/OM-1 bodies).

Per another comment, the real body to look at would be the Sony Alpha 7R IV, to get really high res photos and that will still produce lots of pixels either cropping through a long APS-C lens or simply digitally cropping on a smaller lens that isn't long enough on its own.

Also, M43 isn't an abandoned mount. New high-end cameras and lenses are coming out for it every year.

 

[CydeWeys]

Thanks for your excellent, comprehensive answer. You make an insightful point about the Sony Alpha 7R IV, and how that would the alternative to go for as the wealth of pixels would allow me to use a physically smaller lens and still get sufficient pixels even for an effective long focal length, whether that be through digitally cropping in on a shorter full frame camera or optically cropping in on a long (but small) APS-C E-mount lens. The latter types of lens don't much seem to be in abundance though, so it would probably be the former. I do think APS-C is probably in an unhappy middle ground here where professionals don't choose it so it's lacking for high end bodies and lenses, whereas professionals do choose M43.

I'm realizing that in my original post I forgot to say what types of photographs I take most often, so here it is: I mostly use a standalone camera while traveling, so it's a lot of streetscape photography, landscapes, and points of interest. And I do also often enough wish I had more zoom, even though at max zoom with the teleconverter my longest lens is 450mm full frame equivalent -- I would definitely use longer in some situations (and have eyed up the 300mm f/4 Olympus lens, but that would be awfully large and heavy to lug around) . And yes these types of photos are exactly what you think they would be, typically birds and animals, but also sometimes just close-up architectural details on a part of a building that I can't get right next to. I think photography most 'comes alive' for me at extreme focal lengths, or to put it another way, at extremely narrow fields of view, as those are most unlike anything you can see with your naked eye in real life. Think of your stereotypical "it's a person but the moon is larger than they are" kinda photo.

As for shallow depth of field, the M. Zuiko 70mm f/1.8 is sufficient for me; I can't say I ever need even shallower than that. At that point you risk having large swaths of the subject's face not even be in focus, which is not a look I personally like. And I'll be honest, I don't fully appreciate what the really high sensor read-out of the OM-1 Mk II will do for me, likely nothing for landscapes/streetscapes/building/people photos, but for tracking animals, birds, fighter jets at airshows, etc., I'm sure it will be an improvement, and nice that the OM-1 comes with it rather than having to upgrade from the 7R IV to an even more expensive option like the Alpha 1. I'm sure the Alpha 1 is excellent, but that is such a high price, and would necessitate spending so much more on pro-level lenses to justify it, that I don't think I would choose to spend my money that way.

So I'm probably looking at going with the OM-1 Mk II, using the lenses I already have, and picking up a cheap (but still excellent) M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 lens for around $300 to use as my walking around / low light lens when even the 12-40mm f/2.8 is too big.

 

[CydeWeys]

Looking at the differences between the two, I think I'm definitely willing to pay the extra $500 for the Mk II. My favorite/most important differences with the Mk II include its better autofocus / subject detection (which is my single biggest gripe with my E-M5 Mk II, which is terrible at it), 1.5 stop better IBIS (which I'll absolutely take advantage of, as I'll oftentimes hand-hold slower/smaller lens for longer exposures to try get something usable), the better live GND (ND filters are too fidgety/gear-heavy for me so if the body can't do a high light / long exposure photo, then I'm not gonna accomplish it at all), and just the higher RAM/buffer apparently makes a lot of things across the entire camera work better, including even the continuous autofocus/subject detection algorithms while taking burst shots.

Also the Mk II apparently has a slightly higher quality feeling body, with more rubber used on wheels so that they aren't as hard plasticky/slippery -- this is something I'll appreciate. One of the major reasons I ended up with the E-M5 Mk II in the first place is that I went to B&H and tried out a BUNCH of cameras in person, and I simply liked the shooting feel of the Olympus the most out of anything. It felt like a real old school, photographer-centric kind of camera that just nailed the usability aspects. I had originally been leaning towards a Sony Alpha APS-C but the viewfinder mashed into a corner of the device was barely usable, and the Panasonic M43 wasn't much better. By contrast, using the viewfinder on an Olympus just works like a dream, and through the viewfinder is how I take the vast majority of my photographs.

 

[robbo2]

I had a Panasonic G9 and traded up to a G9 II in the spring. I also had an Olympus OMD EM1 mark II a year or two ago.

I like the G9 II. There is a noticeable improvement in dynamic range over the G9. Its image stabilization is great. However, it's much bigger than its Olympus counterparts.

Might you consider the OM5? It's small and light. I saw it on sale for just under $800 at a camera store over the weekend. From what I have read and heard, its image quality is pretty good. If you are in the US, there should be some great sale prices in the coming 2 months.

I saw the OM1 on sale through the OM site for about $1,200 several weeks ago.

You have a lot of MFT lenses. It would be great if you could continue to use them.

 

[MustAg]

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but the OM system OM1 mk ii is the most ridiculous and nonsensical camera that's available for sale right now IMHO. FF camera size and pricetag but a sensor smaller than APSC and with worse dynamic range than either APSC or FF lol. What a deal.

It's a dumb camera through and through to me. You deal with a smaller sensor to save money or weight, and usually both. Just get a decent APSC (R7, A6700) or a budget to midranger FF (A7C II, R8, Z6 III) all would be astronomically better ideas. If you wanna go with MFT then the orig g9 or maybe om5 make more sense.

 

[NowHearThis]

I currently have a pretty old Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II with the extra grip attachment to make it more comfortable when using larger lenses (so it's more like the OM-D E-M1 line in size, just without all the features). That camera body is no longer up to snuff anymore; in a few months it'll be a decade since it was released. The autofocus tracking is bad, the low light performance is bad, and I honestly think I can mostly take better photos with my Pixel 7 Pro, so I hardly ever use it anymore. I would like a camera that I'll actually use!

Can you list things you are currently shooting and things you would like to shoot/record so I can get a better sense of what your needs might be?

The thing is, I have some lovely Olympus lenses that are truly a joy to use, and are fully compatible with the latest body, the OM System OM-1 Mk II. My most used lenses are the M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8, M. Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 w/ 1.5X teleconverter, and M. Zuiko 75mm f/1.8. I also have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, but the autofocus performance on that is disappointing and I'd likely swap it out for an M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, if I'm going to stay on Micro Four Thirds anyway.

Working backwards here, the 17/1.8 is good lens, very fast to focus, it's only "good" in the corners wide open but it's been on sale lately so, value-wise, it's not bad option if you needed faster AF in low light. I recently purchased the Panasonic Leica 15mm F1.7 (got delayed in getting to me - should be here this week) to be my indoor, low light lens on my Olympus E-M1 Mark III.

Your other lenses are fantastic and are good for a wide range of applications. Just out of curiosity do you find that you are missing out on anything with these or have they been sufficient (speaking about the focal lengths only at the moment) for what you are doing now and what you'd like to do.

So the most obvious choice is to grab the OM System OM-1 Mk II (and hopefully there's some good Black Friday deals).

It's currently $500 off right now at $1899USD, not sure about other regions. but that's a good deal IMO.

It's maximally compatible with all of my lenses, it's better at everything in every way vs my existing camera body, and it has good reviews. But I could also go for the Panasonic G7 or G9 II, which are better at video than the OM System, but maybe slightly worse at photographs.

The G9 II does great with both photos and video and the Hand Held High Res Mode on the Panasonic is even a little better than the one in any Olympus/OM System body.

I do care about video, but I care about photography more, and generally can't be arsed to buy all the software required for video editing and spend all the time making it look good and splicing it together.

I do very little video, but the OM1.2 is a big setup up over my EM1.3 which is a big step up over something like the EM5.2. You might want to

A wrinkle here is that a Panasonic body wouldn't be as compatible with my lenses; in particular they don't have in-lens stabilization that works well with the Panasonic, so all other things being equal I'm leaning towards the OM-1 Mk II solely because of my existing lens collection.

I've been shooting Olympus since the EM10, I've have 5 of their cameras with a mix of Panasonic, Panasonic Leica, and Olympus lenses with no issues. I know that some lenses offer things like Dual IS or a few other features if you keep like brands together but generally you won't have an issue with interchanging bodies and lenses. The one notable exception is the Panasonic 7-14/4 - don't use that lens on Olympus/OM System bodies - there's a purple blob (flair) issue that can, in a couple of instances, show up. That said my PL12-60/2.8-4 worked perfectly on my Olympus bodies. People use Olympus lenses on their Panasonic bodies without issue too.

But then another option would be to simply sell my lenses and start over, probably with a Sony a7 IV.

That is your choice, it could be a very expensive option - probably upwards of $5000-$6000 or more to recreate everything you have with an A7 IV - as nice of a camera as that is. There might be some additional weight increase too, depending on the setup. I would recommend you think about diminishing returns before jumping into anything else. I can say this because I'm rather guilty of having both a strong case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome and champagne tastes on a beer budget. I've recently finished out my setup that will do pretty much anything I will ever need. I was able to get great sales prices, fair prices for selling some existing gear, and accepted the losses I knew I would take to get what I have. I was able to go from an EM1.2 and a PL12-60 to an EM1.3 + 8-25/4 + 12-100/4 + PL15/1.7 for about $2300. It would have cost me thousands more to get anything else like this in any other format, so for me the cost to just stay and get other lenses that will help me do what I want were enough. I don't print larger than 16x20", I don't need anything more than 4K30p video so this worked for me. This is a long way of saying are there less expensive options that will do what you need and let you keep most of what you have and like?

I'd end up spending a lot more money in total going that route though because the kind of quality lenses I'd want for it would cost MUCH more than the M43 equivalents, plus all the gear in total would take up a lot more space and weigh a lot more. I'm generally just throwing a camera plus an extra lens or two into my existing backpack when I travel rather than bringing a lot of photography-specific gear, which is one of the main reasons I selected M43 in the first place;

I don't think I'd be able to physically fit a full-frame setup without requiring larger/more bags.

I think I have more bags than sense sometimes, and I'm going to get one more - I think I finally found THE perfect bag for my gear. Tenba Solstice V2 12L Sling

But the resultant photos would obviously be better, especially in low light.

That is something to consider - going back to what I said earlier, you can drop $5K–$6K on new gear to take better photos in low light, but would a $900 OM System 25/1.2 or $1200 17/1.2 with a new faster focusing camera get you there for $2000-$3000 less? That's only something you can decide on. I'd probably same money and potentially overall size/weight. But you can weigh those options out.

So, that's where my thoughts are currently at. Does the OM-1 Mk II make sense?

The long and short of it is, It can. But it will be based mostly on what you do and need. While I would like an OM1.2 for the faster processing for HHHR shooting, slightly better IBIS, and the GND filter options... it doesn't make sense for me to drop another $1400 (net price, after selling my EM1.3). BUT if I only had a EM5.2, forking out $1800 would make sense because of everything it has in there that the EM5.2 lacks.

But, and this is something to consider, getting a refurbished EM1.3 like I did (currently around $800) or an OM5 (for $1000), might be all you need too - even as amazing as the OM1.2 is.

Has anyone else faced this struggle before? I'm specifically asking this question in the general gear rec forum rather than the M43-specific forum because I'm looking for neutral opinions.

Many of us visit other forums too. :-D
I do try an qualify my opinions, and I like and hate things independent of brand or format. I will call a spade a spade but I've been shooting for 30+ years, I know what I like and what I don't, I know what I'll put up with and what I won't.

I'm happy to help with recommendations or give my thoughts further. I've asked a few questions and I can try pinning things down with other recommendations for you if you would like.

While it looks like I might be completely biased - and yes I do like my gear, and it does a fantastic job for me, I've looked at other systems too. The most interesting outside of M43 for what I do would be these:

Nikon:

• Z7 II (Priced so low for a 45mp camera it's hard to pass up)
• 24-120/4 (there is no better lens in this category, period)
• 14-30/4
• 85/1.8
• 35/1.4 (maybe, I'd need to see some reviews)

Sony:

• A7 IV (really I'd want the A7R V but, I'll use your option for price comparison)
• 20-70/4 (IQ good enough for the 61mp sensors, range is crazy useful for me)
• 70-200/4 + TC (Small and light, would only need to bring with me occasionally)
• 85/1.8 (sharp and small)
• low light 30ish prime.... still undecided

The Nikon setup would cost me an additional $4200 minus the cost of my current gear - I''m sure I'd still be spending $2000+ more (than what I have a the moment) to go FF with Nikon.

The Sony setup would cost me $5300 (there's a bundle at B&H on the A7 IV, 20-70, & 70-200 with some extra accessories too that's on sale an ok price); price doesn't include a 35mm - and again this is the price before selling my stuff at big loss (likely) - so about $3300 would be my net cost to upgrade, oof.

I think I did well just upgrading, you might too - but I need to know more about what you are doing/shooting.

--
NHT

 

[CydeWeys]

I currently have a pretty old Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II with the extra grip attachment to make it more comfortable when using larger lenses (so it's more like the OM-D E-M1 line in size, just without all the features). That camera body is no longer up to snuff anymore; in a few months it'll be a decade since it was released. The autofocus tracking is bad, the low light performance is bad, and I honestly think I can mostly take better photos with my Pixel 7 Pro, so I hardly ever use it anymore. I would like a camera that I'll actually use!

Can you list things you are currently shooting and things you would like to shoot/record so I can get a better sense of what your needs might be?

I mostly use a standalone camera while traveling, so it's a lot of streetscape photography, landscapes, and points of interest. And I do also often enough wish I had more zoom, even though at max zoom with the 1.4X teleconverter my longest lens is 420mm full frame equivalent -- I would definitely use longer in some situations (and have recently been eyeing up the Olympus 150-600mm lens, but that's so large and bulky I would probably only bring it along for specific targeted use cases, like birding, not general travel photography) . I think photography most 'comes alive' for me at extreme focal lengths, or to put it another way, at extremely narrow fields of view, as those are most unlike anything you can see with your naked eye in real life. Think of your stereotypical "it's a person but the moon is larger than they are" kinda photo. Also this is the kind of stuff you can't achieve with smartphones.

The thing is, I have some lovely Olympus lenses that are truly a joy to use, and are fully compatible with the latest body, the OM System OM-1 Mk II. My most used lenses are the M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8, M. Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 w/ 1.5X teleconverter, and M. Zuiko 75mm f/1.8. I also have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, but the autofocus performance on that is disappointing and I'd likely swap it out for an M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, if I'm going to stay on Micro Four Thirds anyway.

Working backwards here, the 17/1.8 is good lens, very fast to focus, it's only "good" in the corners wide open but it's been on sale lately so, value-wise, it's not bad option if you needed faster AF in low light. I recently purchased the Panasonic Leica 15mm F1.7 (got delayed in getting to me - should be here this week) to be my indoor, low light lens on my Olympus E-M1 Mark III.

Your other lenses are fantastic and are good for a wide range of applications. Just out of curiosity do you find that you are missing out on anything with these or have they been sufficient (speaking about the focal lengths only at the moment) for what you are doing now and what you'd like to do.

Yeah, I watched a comparison video on super-telephoto Olympus lenses recently and the 150-600mm seems quite appealing. That would be some serious reach, way further than my current 40-150mm can do even with the teleconverter. "Big White" is an amazing lens for sure, but I'm not willing to spend $7.5k, and the 300mm f/4 prime is nice but less flexible than the 150-600mm, costs more, and with a 2X teleconverter on it to match the max reach of the 150-600mm, it'll have inferior image quality and speed. So the 150-600mm is a decent guess at a lens i'd want to pick up at some point if I go the OM-1 Mk II, especially if I wanted to get seriously into birding. Comparing that lens to Sony Alpha, the Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens costs about the same and has roughly the same capabilities, though of course if you use a high-res body you can achieve even more effective zoom through digital cropping.

A wrinkle here is that a Panasonic body wouldn't be as compatible with my lenses; in particular they don't have in-lens stabilization that works well with the Panasonic, so all other things being equal I'm leaning towards the OM-1 Mk II solely because of my existing lens collection.

I've been shooting Olympus since the EM10, I've have 5 of their cameras with a mix of Panasonic, Panasonic Leica, and Olympus lenses with no issues. I know that some lenses offer things like Dual IS or a few other features if you keep like brands together but generally you won't have an issue with interchanging bodies and lenses. The one notable exception is the Panasonic 7-14/4 - don't use that lens on Olympus/OM System bodies - there's a purple blob (flair) issue that can, in a couple of instances, show up. That said my PL12-60/2.8-4 worked perfectly on my Olympus bodies. People use Olympus lenses on their Panasonic bodies without issue too.

But then another option would be to simply sell my lenses and start over, probably with a Sony a7 IV.

That is your choice, it could be a very expensive option - probably upwards of $5000-$6000 or more to recreate everything you have with an A7 IV - as nice of a camera as that is. There might be some additional weight increase too, depending on the setup. I would recommend you think about diminishing returns before jumping into anything else. I can say this because I'm rather guilty of having both a strong case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome and champagne tastes on a beer budget. I've recently finished out my setup that will do pretty much anything I will ever need. I was able to get great sales prices, fair prices for selling some existing gear, and accepted the losses I knew I would take to get what I have. I was able to go from an EM1.2 and a PL12-60 to an EM1.3 + 8-25/4 + 12-100/4 + PL15/1.7 for about $2300. It would have cost me thousands more to get anything else like this in any other format, so for me the cost to just stay and get other lenses that will help me do what I want were enough. I don't print larger than 16x20", I don't need anything more than 4K30p video so this worked for me. This is a long way of saying are there less expensive options that will do what you need and let you keep most of what you have and like?

Another commenter was pointing out that the obvious way to go on Alpha would be with an R camera body so as to enable a lot more digital cropping, and that logic totally makes sense to me. I'm looking at a sale on B&H right now that is $6.2k (before tax) for a A7R V, basic bundle of SD card/extra battery, and two zoom lenses, the FE 20-70mm f/4 G and FE 70-200mm f/4 Macro G OSS II. That plus the additional digital cropping enabled by the high res sensor would mean I'd be able to do pretty much anything with that setup that my current Olympus setup can do, plus I'd have shallower depth of field, better low light performance, and higher dynamic range available. It's definitely tempting. Of course the equipment is going to be larger, and I would likely end up spending more money on at least one nice fast prime lens, but I feel like that route is at least no compromises (other than size/weight), whereas the OM-1 Mk II route is full of compromises, but is the simplest only because I already have the lenses.

I'd end up spending a lot more money in total going that route though because the kind of quality lenses I'd want for it would cost MUCH more than the M43 equivalents, plus all the gear in total would take up a lot more space and weigh a lot more. I'm generally just throwing a camera plus an extra lens or two into my existing backpack when I travel rather than bringing a lot of photography-specific gear, which is one of the main reasons I selected M43 in the first place;

I don't think I'd be able to physically fit a full-frame setup without requiring larger/more bags.

I think I have more bags than sense sometimes, and I'm going to get one more - I think I finally found THE perfect bag for my gear. Tenba Solstice V2 12L Sling

But the resultant photos would obviously be better, especially in low light.

That is something to consider - going back to what I said earlier, you can drop $5K–$6K on new gear to take better photos in low light, but would a $900 OM System 25/1.2 or $1200 17/1.2 with a new faster focusing camera get you there for $2000-$3000 less? That's only something you can decide on. I'd probably same money and potentially overall size/weight. But you can weigh those options out.

So, that's where my thoughts are currently at. Does the OM-1 Mk II make sense?

The long and short of it is, It can. But it will be based mostly on what you do and need. While I would like an OM1.2 for the faster processing for HHHR shooting, slightly better IBIS, and the GND filter options... it doesn't make sense for me to drop another $1400 (net price, after selling my EM1.3). BUT if I only had a EM5.2, forking out $1800 would make sense because of everything it has in there that the EM5.2 lacks.

But, and this is something to consider, getting a refurbished EM1.3 like I did (currently around $800) or an OM5 (for $1000), might be all you need too - even as amazing as the OM1.2 is.

I saved a bunch of money by buying the E-M5 Mk II rather than going top of the line and in hindsight I regret it, as I was constantly being hamstrung by the inferior performance of that body but the money saved wasn't particularly meaningful to me. I don't think I'd make that same trade-off again.

Has anyone else faced this struggle before? I'm specifically asking this question in the general gear rec forum rather than the M43-specific forum because I'm looking for neutral opinions.

Many of us visit other forums too. :-D
I do try an qualify my opinions, and I like and hate things independent of brand or format. I will call a spade a spade but I've been shooting for 30+ years, I know what I like and what I don't, I know what I'll put up with and what I won't.

I'm happy to help with recommendations or give my thoughts further. I've asked a few questions and I can try pinning things down with other recommendations for you if you would like.

While it looks like I might be completely biased - and yes I do like my gear, and it does a fantastic job for me, I've looked at other systems too. The most interesting outside of M43 for what I do would be these:

Nikon:

• Z7 II (Priced so low for a 45mp camera it's hard to pass up)
• 24-120/4 (there is no better lens in this category, period)
• 14-30/4
• 85/1.8
• 35/1.4 (maybe, I'd need to see some reviews)

Sony:

• A7 IV (really I'd want the A7R V but, I'll use your option for price comparison)
• 20-70/4 (IQ good enough for the 61mp sensors, range is crazy useful for me)
• 70-200/4 + TC (Small and light, would only need to bring with me occasionally)
• 85/1.8 (sharp and small)
• low light 30ish prime.... still undecided

This is for sure very tempting. If I could bother to get off my ass and sell the existing M43 gear I have, I could probably get $1,500-2,000.

The Nikon setup would cost me an additional $4200 minus the cost of my current gear - I''m sure I'd still be spending $2000+ more (than what I have a the moment) to go FF with Nikon.

The Sony setup would cost me $5300 (there's a bundle at B&H on the A7 IV, 20-70, & 70-200 with some extra accessories too that's on sale an ok price); price doesn't include a 35mm - and again this is the price before selling my stuff at big loss (likely) - so about $3300 would be my net cost to upgrade, oof.

I think I did well just upgrading, you might too - but I need to know more about what you are doing/shooting.

 

[Aizuri]

So the most obvious choice is to grab the OM System OM-1 Mk II

It's not as if that's the only camera in the OM Systems lineup, and there are more affordable models available. Though if it's a metal body you're after, I take it that the OM-1 is the only option now?

I'm mildly sceptical that you get better photos on a smartphone than your existing camera, considering the arsenal of lenses you have for it. And you might be overstating the case for your Olympus camera being outdated. Ten years since release date is not all that long, but it seems people are in the habit of thinking that modern cameras quickly become obsolete. You may also be overconcerned with autofocus - it's always worth remembering that that's not the only way to focus a shot. No doubt a more recent model can outdo it on that particular performance characteristic, but performance can be overrated for those of us who aren't professionals - how many of us amateurs are high-performance photographers? And I also suspect that those few who are can work quite well with the limitations of lower performance equipment, except in very specialized circumstances, such as sports photography.

If you want optimal benefit from the lenses you already own, then staying with OM systems when you get a new camera would make sense - that would be my preference, anyway, rather than moving to Panasonic. But then I couldn't care less about video. If I was thinking of stepping away from all of the gear I (you) currently have and living with the additional cost of getting new lenses, I'd probably just buy a full-frame camera. I'd rather do that than move from M4/3 to APS-C, which seems a bit of a sideways move to me.

 

[NowHearThis]

I currently have a pretty old Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II with the extra grip attachment to make it more comfortable when using larger lenses (so it's more like the OM-D E-M1 line in size, just without all the features). That camera body is no longer up to snuff anymore; in a few months it'll be a decade since it was released. The autofocus tracking is bad, the low light performance is bad, and I honestly think I can mostly take better photos with my Pixel 7 Pro, so I hardly ever use it anymore. I would like a camera that I'll actually use!

Can you list things you are currently shooting and things you would like to shoot/record so I can get a better sense of what your needs might be?

I mostly use a standalone camera while traveling, so it's a lot of streetscape photography, landscapes, and points of interest.

Since much of that (not all) is usually taken in good lighting, most cameras do extremely well even up to very large print sizes. Most of my shooting ( greater than 90% is either in good light or a situation where I can use a tripod with ease) so I'm don't feel like M43 hold me back ever.

And I do also often enough wish I had more zoom, even though at max zoom with the 1.4X teleconverter my longest lens is 420mm full frame equivalent -- I would definitely use longer in some situations (and have recently been eyeing up the Olympus 150-600mm lens, but that's so large and bulky I would probably only bring it along for specific targeted use cases, like birding, not general travel photography) .

Two other good options are the 100-400 M43 lenses. The Panasonic Leica version is a little smaller than the OM System one, but the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction of your other Olympus lenses - that can be annoying. The Olympus 100-400 is a very good lens, not 150-400 good, but you can find plenty of great images made from it.

I think photography most 'comes alive' for me at extreme focal lengths, or to put it another way, at extremely narrow fields of view, as those are most unlike anything you can see with your naked eye in real life. Think of your stereotypical "it's a person but the moon is larger than they are" kinda photo. Also this is the kind of stuff you can't achieve with smartphones.

I get this. It sounds like you're a long zoom shooter, you like compression (pulling the background up closer to your subject). This is where M43 can help. Some APS-C camera can do a nice job with lenses like the Sigma or Tamron superzooms. I prefer M43 over APSC because of the features of the cameras and the lens options that work for me.

The thing is, I have some lovely Olympus lenses that are truly a joy to use, and are fully compatible with the latest body, the OM System OM-1 Mk II. My most used lenses are the M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8, M. Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 w/ 1.5X teleconverter, and M. Zuiko 75mm f/1.8. I also have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, but the autofocus performance on that is disappointing and I'd likely swap it out for an M. Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, if I'm going to stay on Micro Four Thirds anyway.

Working backwards here, the 17/1.8 is good lens, very fast to focus, it's only "good" in the corners wide open but it's been on sale lately so, value-wise, it's not bad option if you needed faster AF in low light. I recently purchased the Panasonic Leica 15mm F1.7 (got delayed in getting to me - should be here this week) to be my indoor, low light lens on my Olympus E-M1 Mark III.

Your other lenses are fantastic and are good for a wide range of applications. Just out of curiosity do you find that you are missing out on anything with these or have they been sufficient (speaking about the focal lengths only at the moment) for what you are doing now and what you'd like to do.

Yeah, I watched a comparison video on super-telephoto Olympus lenses recently and the 150-600mm seems quite appealing. That would be some serious reach, way further than my current 40-150mm can do even with the teleconverter. "Big White" is an amazing lens for sure, but I'm not willing to spend $7.5k, and the 300mm f/4 prime is nice but less flexible than the 150-600mm, costs more, and with a 2X teleconverter on it to match the max reach of the 150-600mm, it'll have inferior image quality and speed.

I would love to have the 150-400, I'll never be lucky enough to own one, but maybe someday I'll at least rent it and experience it's awesomeness.

So the 150-600mm is a decent guess at a lens i'd want to pick up at some point if I go the OM-1 Mk II, especially if I wanted to get seriously into birding. Comparing that lens to Sony Alpha, the Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens costs about the same and has roughly the same capabilities, though of course if you use a high-res body you can achieve even more effective zoom through digital cropping.

You still have weight and size to deal with, for many that's a non issue, but it's worth mentioning again. If you could swing it, and if one is available to rent... might be worth the $70-100 to rent it for a few days to see if its what you need. The 100-400is small and light enough (if you can call these types of lenses light) that I might save up for it to buy a few years down the road - or rent it on my next big travel trip. I'm not saying it's the equal to the Sony, I'm just saying I can't afford to switch and this would be, for me, the next logical lens (or the 150-600) if I needed a long zoom. YMMV. Renting would be the least expensive way to see if you need the 1200mm equiv, if it works for you, if you like the amount of compression you get with that much reach or if you can get away with a little less or a lot less reach (and just crop in the case of the Sony).

A wrinkle here is that a Panasonic body wouldn't be as compatible with my lenses; in particular they don't have in-lens stabilization that works well with the Panasonic, so all other things being equal I'm leaning towards the OM-1 Mk II solely because of my existing lens collection.

I've been shooting Olympus since the EM10, I've have 5 of their cameras with a mix of Panasonic, Panasonic Leica, and Olympus lenses with no issues. I know that some lenses offer things like Dual IS or a few other features if you keep like brands together but generally you won't have an issue with interchanging bodies and lenses. The one notable exception is the Panasonic 7-14/4 - don't use that lens on Olympus/OM System bodies - there's a purple blob (flair) issue that can, in a couple of instances, show up. That said my PL12-60/2.8-4 worked perfectly on my Olympus bodies. People use Olympus lenses on their Panasonic bodies without issue too.

But then another option would be to simply sell my lenses and start over, probably with a Sony a7 IV.

That is your choice, it could be a very expensive option - probably upwards of $5000-$6000 or more to recreate everything you have with an A7 IV - as nice of a camera as that is. There might be some additional weight increase too, depending on the setup. I would recommend you think about diminishing returns before jumping into anything else. I can say this because I'm rather guilty of having both a strong case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome and champagne tastes on a beer budget. I've recently finished out my setup that will do pretty much anything I will ever need. I was able to get great sales prices, fair prices for selling some existing gear, and accepted the losses I knew I would take to get what I have. I was able to go from an EM1.2 and a PL12-60 to an EM1.3 + 8-25/4 + 12-100/4 + PL15/1.7 for about $2300. It would have cost me thousands more to get anything else like this in any other format, so for me the cost to just stay and get other lenses that will help me do what I want were enough. I don't print larger than 16x20", I don't need anything more than 4K30p video so this worked for me. This is a long way of saying are there less expensive options that will do what you need and let you keep most of what you have and like?

Another commenter was pointing out that the obvious way to go on Alpha would be with an R camera body so as to enable a lot more digital cropping, and that logic totally makes sense to me. I'm looking at a sale on B&H right now that is $6.2k (before tax) for a A7R V, basic bundle of SD card/extra battery, and two zoom lenses, the FE 20-70mm f/4 G and FE 70-200mm f/4 Macro G OSS II. That plus the additional digital cropping enabled by the high res sensor would mean I'd be able to do pretty much anything with that setup that my current Olympus setup can do, plus I'd have shallower depth of field, better low light performance, and higher dynamic range available. It's definitely tempting. Of course the equipment is going to be larger, and I would likely end up spending more money on at least one nice fast prime lens, but I feel like that route is at least no compromises (other than size/weight), whereas the OM-1 Mk II route is full of compromises, but is the simplest only because I already have the lenses.

It's still a compromise, but it's just a different set of compromises. An A7RV with the 20-70/4 and 70-200/4 II Macro is a dream setup but the cost is substantial will, weight is more and just goes up from there,... I won't go through the full list of stuff, as I like both setups but can only afford one at the moment.

Size is at least close, the Olympus setup can, like you said get you to 420mm with the TC, the Sony will get you to 280mm with a TC (not included in the price below). 61mp might get you to about 420mm with cropping to 20mp - I haven't done the math but it should be somewhat close. It the price and features compelling enough for you. It sounds like you have the cash....



Now the last thing I might ask is what size images do you print. The larger you print, the better the value the Sony kit will become. If you don't print anything bigger than 16"x20" I don't see the benefit of any FF gear - as a broad brush generality - especially speaking for myself. Now if you are making 24"x36" prints or bigger (and 61mp is certainly capable of wall size prints), then, if you can afford it and don't mind the weight, the Sony setup would be nice.

I'd end up spending a lot more money in total going that route though because the kind of quality lenses I'd want for it would cost MUCH more than the M43 equivalents, plus all the gear in total would take up a lot more space and weigh a lot more. I'm generally just throwing a camera plus an extra lens or two into my existing backpack when I travel rather than bringing a lot of photography-specific gear, which is one of the main reasons I selected M43 in the first place;

I don't think I'd be able to physically fit a full-frame setup without requiring larger/more bags.

I think I have more bags than sense sometimes, and I'm going to get one more - I think I finally found THE perfect bag for my gear. Tenba Solstice V2 12L Sling

But the resultant photos would obviously be better, especially in low light.

That is something to consider - going back to what I said earlier, you can drop $5K–$6K on new gear to take better photos in low light, but would a $900 OM System 25/1.2 or $1200 17/1.2 with a new faster focusing camera get you there for $2000-$3000 less? That's only something you can decide on. I'd probably same money and potentially overall size/weight. But you can weigh those options out.

So, that's where my thoughts are currently at. Does the OM-1 Mk II make sense?

The long and short of it is, It can. But it will be based mostly on what you do and need. While I would like an OM1.2 for the faster processing for HHHR shooting, slightly better IBIS, and the GND filter options... it doesn't make sense for me to drop another $1400 (net price, after selling my EM1.3). BUT if I only had a EM5.2, forking out $1800 would make sense because of everything it has in there that the EM5.2 lacks.

But, and this is something to consider, getting a refurbished EM1.3 like I did (currently around $800) or an OM5 (for $1000), might be all you need too - even as amazing as the OM1.2 is.

I saved a bunch of money by buying the E-M5 Mk II rather than going top of the line and in hindsight I regret it, as I was constantly being hamstrung by the inferior performance of that body but the money saved wasn't particularly meaningful to me. I don't think I'd make that same trade-off again.

Fair enough. I understand the "Pay once, cry once" philosophy. I've done that with a few purchases and never regretted it.

Has anyone else faced this struggle before? I'm specifically asking this question in the general gear rec forum rather than the M43-specific forum because I'm looking for neutral opinions.

Many of us visit other forums too. :-D
I do try an qualify my opinions, and I like and hate things independent of brand or format. I will call a spade a spade but I've been shooting for 30+ years, I know what I like and what I don't, I know what I'll put up with and what I won't.

I'm happy to help with recommendations or give my thoughts further. I've asked a few questions and I can try pinning things down with other recommendations for you if you would like.

While it looks like I might be completely biased - and yes I do like my gear, and it does a fantastic job for me, I've looked at other systems too. The most interesting outside of M43 for what I do would be these:

Nikon:

• Z7 II (Priced so low for a 45mp camera it's hard to pass up)
• 24-120/4 (there is no better lens in this category, period)
• 14-30/4
• 85/1.8
• 35/1.4 (maybe, I'd need to see some reviews)

Sony:

• A7 IV (really I'd want the A7R V but, I'll use your option for price comparison)
• 20-70/4 (IQ good enough for the 61mp sensors, range is crazy useful for me)
• 70-200/4 + TC (Small and light, would only need to bring with me occasionally)
• 85/1.8 (sharp and small)
• low light 30ish prime.... still undecided

This is for sure very tempting. If I could bother to get off my ass and sell the existing M43 gear I have, I could probably get $1,500-2,000.

That would help offset the $6200 a little bit.

The Nikon setup would cost me an additional $4200 minus the cost of my current gear - I''m sure I'd still be spending $2000+ more (than what I have a the moment) to go FF with Nikon.

The Sony setup would cost me $5300 (there's a bundle at B&H on the A7 IV, 20-70, & 70-200 with some extra accessories too that's on sale an ok price); price doesn't include a 35mm - and again this is the price before selling my stuff at big loss (likely) - so about $3300 would be my net cost to upgrade, oof.

I think I did well just upgrading, you might too - but I need to know more about what you are doing/shooting.

This image is nothing spectacular, I missed the leaves changing here a couple of weeks ago but I wanted to go back today and just shoot the last remnants of Autumn before this place gets too snow covered. I'm posting it here, because of what I EM1.3 allowed me to do. I didn't have my filters or my tripod, but the IBIS and the Live ND let me handhold this shot at 3.2 sec without stopping my aperture down too far. I can't do stuff like this with anything else. And while this is no Pulitzer, and not even DPR challenges worthy, I said to myself after getting this image "I love my camera". It's nice that simple EM1.3 and an 8-25/4 just make shooting so much fun. Whatever you get or upgrade to, I hope it brings you both happy memories and fun.


ISO64, Live ND32, Shutter Priority, 3.2sec, F4.5, 19mm (38mm equiv). EM1.3 + 8-25/4 | Hand held

--
NHT

 

[Eightace]

I've seen the OM1 ii from a good grey market dealer that i've bought stuff from before for £1350.

When you look at its specs, aside from the physical size of the sensor, it seems like a good deal when compared to bells and whistles full frame cameras. The A7rV is £1000 more from the same dealer. Better yes but more expensive.

Its not really fair to compare it to the more budget full frame offerings when its such a great camera with a ton of features.

For me its a camera people who own a big collection of M43 lenses use to go along side their GX9 or OM5.

Its maybe doesn't quite make as much sense for someone who is new to the system. But again its a very capable camera and its not that huge or heavy compared to the full frame flagships.

 

[MustAg]

What can it do better than A6700, R7, R8 or Z6 III? I feel like any of these would be a much better idea.

 

[Matthew39]

You have some very nice lenses there and the OM-1 would work well with them but AF tracking would still be pretty bad. The OM-1 excels at things which are facilitated by subject detection; unless you photograph trains, planes, cars, birds and animals, you won't get the full benefit. Of course, the OM-1 does offer a stacked sensor so you can use electronic shutter without rolling shutter effects. You may like the "computational features".

The reason that I sold my MFT gear is that OM System seems only to have released things that were either already in the pipeline from the Olympus days or are a rehash of an existing product. Now Panasonic has released the G9ii, which looks like an S5ii with a smaller sensor and they have discontinued all of the nice, small bodies like the GX8 and GX9. So I have little optimism for MFT going forward.

The thing about full frame is the size of the telephoto lenses; the field of view covered by your 40-150 would require a lens that zoomed to 300mm and if you want the same quality of lens it's going to be pretty big and heavy. The only really compact quality option is the Sigma 90mm f2.8. For zooms, there's the Tamron 28-200 or 50-300. I haven't used those, but I'd be surprised if they were anything like as good as your 40-150. There is no direct Sony full frame equivalent for the Olympus 75mm f1.8, but the 135mm GM is probably closest. It weighs nearly a kilogram.

Sony AF tracking is very good. You could get a Sony full frame to go with the smaller lenses and use APSC (or crop from a high megapixel camera) for the telephoto stuff.

There is also the Fuji system. I don't have any of that but it looks nice.

 

[Hope1943]

Admittedly I have not read the other advice on this forum. You have some very nice lenses. I cannot imagine why you would consider starting over. My advice is get the OM camera and be happy.

Of course if you have lots of money and just want to spend it, then go for something different, but I doubt you will ever find any better lenses then what you already have.

John

"A bird in hand is worth two in the bush."

 

[t2490jh]

I just went through this same process this past six weeks. I'm just a serious amateur not a professional photographer. I was looking at upgrading from the G9 to G9II. I had the G9 for five years. Prior to that I had the Pentax K5II. Before I go into my decision process, I will say that all my glass was outstanding - all zooms were Leica and all primes were Olympus f1.2.

I have the Panasonic S5II coming my way. I just like their ergonomics and build quality. You would get this with Panasonic or with OM systems. Where M4/3's can't compete is in low light conditions, ISO performance and dynamic range. I also struggled with the G9's AF capabilities. Hopefully - bringing phase detect to G9II and S5II will see increased AF performance.

As others have mentioned, camera bodies are virtually the same size regardless of system. So, it really comes down to what lenses you want. For primes, Panasonic and the Sigma i series lenses are quite compact in size and weight. Very similar to the Olympus 1.2 primes. Any full frame f1.2 prime will be bigger and heavier.

For zooms, F4 glass will bring the weight, size down and cost down. But it will still be bigger and heavier than 4/3. If you want fast 2.8 full frame glass the lenses will be bigger, wider heavier, and costlier still. There is no free lunch when physics is concerned.

I've decided to invest in fast f2.8 zoom. Probably the Sigma trio. I just acquired the Sigma 14-24 F2.8. The others I'm in process in purchasing. I had three primes and three zooms in my old 4/3 system. Hoping the Sigma trio image quality is good enough to me not to miss having prime lenses. Even though I loved the image quality from the Olympus primes, I just found them to be too restrictive. My goal is to only carry no more than two lenses with me at any time. Hopefully, this reduces the need to change lenses, increases shooting flexibility, and overall reduces the overall weight of my carry bag.

In the end I saw micro 4/3's getting bigger and heavier and full frame cameras getting lighter and smaller. The reason I went 4/3's in the first place. So why not make the change to full frame.

 

[Hope1943]

With your nice m43 lenses I think starting over is not an option. Upgrade your m4/3 camera, use you existing lenses and be happy. My $.02.

John

 

[robbo2]

You have the right to pick whatever camera you want. However, if you want to use your great selections of MFT lenses, you might (if you have access to the website) consider getting the OM1 (version 1) as it's selling for half price till December 3. Here in the US that's $1100. I posted a link in the MFT forum several days ago. I don't have this camera I don't work for OM Systems and have nothing to gain from posting the link. I have a G9 II and am happy with it. However, if I didn't have it, I would certainly consider this deal.

Here is the link: Buy OM-1 From OM SYSTEM USA