Downsizing - FF to M43?

[Tobiasstarmose]

Hi Folks,

So a bit of history:

First camera was a Canon 30D, then a 50D - got more and better lenses.

Then got a Sony A7II, with a Metabones mk IV (T) adapter and a batterygrip.

I have a full fleet of canon glass, 24-105 mk I, 70-200 f2.8, 100m macro, Tamron 15-30 f2.8.

I like the images coming out of the sony, but on my last hiking trip (14 days) i did not take any of the sony gear and only had my phone, a LG G6.

I was happy with the handling, but not completely happy with the quality of the photos.

Then in september I look around and found a deal on Panasonic GM5 + 12-32mm, and since then the big Sony have not taken more than maybe 100 shots, the GM5 around 3000. And its all down to the size, i can take i everywhere and no really nottis.

So as the stupid gear head i am i started to look at a "big" m43 camera and what lenses would cover my current gear.

If i sell all my canon/sony gear, i would almost be on line with what a Panasonic G9 + 12-60mm + 8-18mm would be.

Would this make any sens to switch, i mean then i would have only ONE system, and not the two and a half i have currently.

What are your thoughts?

Have other people made this switch and written some thoughts on it?

Thanks

Tobias

 

[Tommi K1]

yeah i understand camera systems, been using em for a few years....... the point was the guy is talking about downsizing, buying multiple bodies and a raft of lenses doesn't sound like downsizing........just saying like

Downsizing means that what you carry with you in this context. Not what you own as collection.

So the Original Poster needs a camera to take with him for hiking etc, that is small and light to carry and keep with. But then he needs a camera that can perform with subjects in faster motion where the size and weight ain't a such limitation.

So, having two systems is not so smart as having one system when the image quality is past the requirement in the first place. So one system that you can split to multiple different combinations for the use, is better than having two systems.

That is the m4/3 huge benefit that you can build a wanted camera from the setup you buy eventually.

 

[Dsnoir]

I find the G9 fits in the hand beautifully, and coupled with the 12-60 is a fast combination capable of good images, but not in low light and high ISO . High ISO? any thing above 800 where you want to retain detail.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

yeah i understand camera systems, been using em for a few years....... the point was the guy is talking about downsizing, buying multiple bodies and a raft of lenses doesn't sound like downsizing........just saying like

Downsizing means that what you carry with you in this context. Not what you own as collection.

So the Original Poster needs a camera to take with him for hiking etc, that is small and light to carry and keep with. But then he needs a camera that can perform with subjects in faster motion where the size and weight ain't a such limitation.

So, having two systems is not so smart as having one system when the image quality is past the requirement in the first place. So one system that you can split to multiple different combinations for the use, is better than having two systems.

That is the m4/3 huge benefit that you can build a wanted camera from the setup you buy eventually.

To downsize is to make something smaller, so going to a single system works in this case, going to a single system and having more gear than before i don't think is the idea.

 

[jwilliams]

yeah i understand camera systems, been using em for a few years....... the point was the guy is talking about downsizing, buying multiple bodies and a raft of lenses doesn't sound like downsizing........just saying like

Downsizing means that what you carry with you in this context. Not what you own as collection.

So the Original Poster needs a camera to take with him for hiking etc, that is small and light to carry and keep with. But then he needs a camera that can perform with subjects in faster motion where the size and weight ain't a such limitation.

So, having two systems is not so smart as having one system when the image quality is past the requirement in the first place. So one system that you can split to multiple different combinations for the use, is better than having two systems.

That is the m4/3 huge benefit that you can build a wanted camera from the setup you buy eventually.

Why go to all the trouble and expense when you really just end up where you started. One system for light weight and another larger one for more demanding work. Keeping what he has gives him better IQ and more options with the FF camera.

The answer to every photography question is not "sell everything and buy all m43".

 

[Tobiasstarmose]

Okay guys, alot of comments, some more usefull than others.

There is alot of comments saying that the G9 body will be to big, but here i must ad that i got the A7ii and made a wooden grip/bottom whitin the first week, and have almost never used it without a grip of some sort. So the ability to have a great handling body, and stil keep the total WAIGHT down i think would suit me better than saving 150g on the body and then not be 100% satisfied with the feel in the hand.

All the talk about equivalence, im well aware of the problem, but whats the point os a 70-200 f2.8 if it never leaves the house.

I have thought about the Sony route, but that would cost me alot of money even after selling the canon glass. And the wallet is not really up to the task now, but a system switch for basically 1:1 trade is more apeeling..

Ill think long and hard about it, and will probably write when i find a conclusion

 

[Lu1Wang]

If you like telephoto works, M4/3 can definitely give you huge focal length coverage with a fraction of the cost and weight of FF equivalent. DOF isn't really an issue when shooting at that long anyways IMO, as I often have to stop down to f8 anyways.

 

[samtheman2014]

If you like telephoto works, M4/3 can definitely give you huge focal length coverage with a fraction of the cost and weight of FF equivalent. DOF isn't really an issue when shooting at that long anyways IMO, as I often have to stop down to f8 anyways.

I hate to upset the apple cart but I suspect if you can find FF lenses slow enough to be truly equivalent to m43 lenses you might be surprised . The only fly in the ointment is that most slow FF lenses are low end offerings for example marketing a 200-800mm F/8-12.6 that would be truly equivalent to the Panasonic 100-400mm F/4-6.3 would I think be difficult

Here is a Sony A7r II with 70-300mm F4-5.6 which is equivalent to a m43 35-150mm F/2-2.8 the closest m43 lens being the 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO .

Of course if you ignore sensor size and its unavoidable consequences you could get a camera with a 25-600mm FF equiv AOV with constant F/2.8 across the board for a fraction the price and weight of a m43 kit

--
Jim Stirling

 

[jwilliams]

Okay guys, alot of comments, some more usefull than others.

There is alot of comments saying that the G9 body will be to big, but here i must ad that i got the A7ii and made a wooden grip/bottom whitin the first week, and have almost never used it without a grip of some sort. So the ability to have a great handling body, and stil keep the total WAIGHT down i think would suit me better than saving 150g on the body and then not be 100% satisfied with the feel in the hand.

All the talk about equivalence, im well aware of the problem, but whats the point os a 70-200 f2.8 if it never leaves the house.

Sell the Canon f2.8 and get the Sony f4 version. Great lens from all reports. You'll be money ahead also. I use 3 F4 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) on a FF 6D. To me a FF camera wth f4 zooms is the best compromise of size vs IQ on the market. No need for the f2.8 zooms of the film era.

Here is sort of an example of the journey you are contemplating. I have thought of doing similar things, but when you go thru the logic it just doesn't make sense.

Why would I want to sell something like my Canon 70-200 4L IS and get something like the Oly 40-150 2.8? Both have great IQ so no real gain/loss there. The Oly is just as big and heavy. The Canon is effectively one stop faster. The Oly goes to 300 mm equivalent, but I can just crop the 70-200 image down to 300 mm effective and still have more image area than a m43 sensor.

I'm gaining nothing if I switch. Just spending money and wasting time.

I have thought about the Sony route, but that would cost me alot of money even after selling the canon glass. And the wallet is not really up to the task now, but a system switch for basically 1:1 trade is more apeeling..

See above.

Ill think long and hard about it, and will probably write when i find a conclusion

 

[samtheman2014]

Okay guys, alot of comments, some more usefull than others.

There is alot of comments saying that the G9 body will be to big, but here i must ad that i got the A7ii and made a wooden grip/bottom whitin the first week, and have almost never used it without a grip of some sort. So the ability to have a great handling body, and stil keep the total WAIGHT down i think would suit me better than saving 150g on the body and then not be 100% satisfied with the feel in the hand.

All the talk about equivalence, im well aware of the problem, but whats the point os a 70-200 f2.8 if it never leaves the house.

Sell the Canon f2.8 and get the Sony f4 version. Great lens from all reports. You'll be money ahead also. I use 3 F4 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) on a FF 6D. To me a FF camera wth f4 zooms is the best compromise of size vs IQ on the market. No need for the f2.8 zooms of the film era.

If you like ultra wide angle the Sony 12-24mm F/4 is a great performer at a very reasonable price and more importantly size

Here is sort of an example of the journey you are contemplating. I have thought of doing similar things, but when you go thru the logic it just doesn't make sense.

Why would I want to sell something like my Canon 70-200 4L IS and get something like the Oly 40-150 2.8? Both have great IQ so no real gain/loss there. The Oly is just as big and heavy. The Canon is effectively one stop faster. The Oly goes to 300 mm equivalent, but I can just crop the 70-200 image down to 300 mm effective and still have more image area than a m43 sensor.

I'm gaining nothing if I switch. Just spending money and wasting time.

I have thought about the Sony route, but that would cost me alot of money even after selling the canon glass. And the wallet is not really up to the task now, but a system switch for basically 1:1 trade is more apeeling..

See above.

Ill think long and hard about it, and will probably write when i find a conclusion

 

[Chi Pham]

As a complete system, given the sames FOV coverage as the OP wanted, the bag will have be bigger because of the lens in the APSC format.

Otherwise, Fuji would be another option

 

[jwilliams]

If you like telephoto works, M4/3 can definitely give you huge focal length coverage with a fraction of the cost and weight of FF equivalent. DOF isn't really an issue when shooting at that long anyways IMO, as I often have to stop down to f8 anyways.

You can ALWAYS crop a FF or APSC down and use the same image area as m43. Magically your 200 mm lens becomes a 400 mm lens. Neat huh?

 

[SkiHound]

I'm kind of in agreement with the folks suggesting you go smaller. Or at least don't put all your eggs in one basket. The G9 is almost as large as the Nikon d7500. It's a little shorter and a little lighter. And the 12-60 lens would be smaller and lighter than comparable lenses for the Nikon, but it's not really a small, light, discrete camera. It seems to be an excellent photographic tool but if you're taking the GM5 all the time because it's small and light ... G9 as part of a system with smaller bodies would seem more viable. I have an E-M1i and an E-M10ii. The E-M1i is a better photographic tool. Ergonomics are certainly better. And it handles larger lenses much better. But I find I use it mostly when I go out explicitly to do photography. The E-M10ii, OTH, goes with me just about everywhere.

 

[Winmeister]

Because I like to make large landscape prints and some sports pics, I started with FF>APS-C>MFT when I realize the perceived 'negative' of MFT is actually very good 'positive'. actually.

For large DOF, I have to use f8/11 with Nikon for landscape shots, so you are not letting much light in to the sensor and body isn't stabilized, which mean very steady tripod, remote release, etc. With Olympus and it's Pro lens, that's f4/5.6 (sweet spot of lens) for same DOF but having more light into sensor, I can use slightly higher shutter speed on STABILIZED body too! Which means, I now often use three pics photo-stacking method for EVEN greater DOF with EM1 i & ii, hand-held, using touch screen quickly (use PP in post for stacking). I can't do that with Nikon or Fuji. I will need to setup tripod and delay release timer or remote to take even three pics with live view. Much easier/quicker with Olympus/MFT. Attach pic was hand-held, stacked 3 pictures taken with touch-screen exposure on EM1 (stacked in PP), focusing 1 pic at bottom left leaves, 2 pic at flowers middle of frame, 3rd pic at the building at top left. All in quick successions. Very large DOF at f5.6.

When I want large prints, I use panorama head for for stitching multiple pics in LR or PP. Pano head for Nikon is nearly 2 kg and small Pano head for Fuji/Oly is about 450g. So, big weight saving just with carrying pano tripod head. My Nikon setup is 12Kg, Fuji about 9.5 and Olympus about 6.5kg!

Many reasons to like MFT. I am not selling my Nikon or Fuji yet. There is a time and place for each system but I am happy with with Oly/MFT cameras can do for me.

Quick screen grab. EM1 Mark i + 12-40 lens @ f5.6. Stacked 3 photos in Photoshop for large DOF

 

[jwilliams]

For large DOF, I have to use f8/11 with Nikon for landscape shots, so you are not letting much light in to the sensor and body isn't stabilized, which mean very steady tripod, remote release, etc. With Olympus and it's Pro lens, that's f4/5.6 (sweet spot of lens) for same DOF but having more light into sensor,

If f8 is needed for the FF sweet spot and f4 is needed for m43 then you just raise the ISO on the FF 2 stops, get the same shutter speed and the same IQ because the larger sensor lets you go 2 stops higher in ISO and maintain the same IQ as the m43 sensor at 2 ISO stops lower.

 

[GodSpeaks]

If size is your reason for switching, then the G9 is NOT the best choice. Perhaps you should be looking at the GX85, as it is much smaller than the G9. Or if you truly want the smallest size possible, look at the GM series cameras.

I do not have a G9, but I do have the GH4 and 5 cameras, and while somewhat smaller than my Nikon D800E, I would not call them small. The GX85, on the other hand IS small.




D800E with 24-120mm f4 vs GX85 with 12-60mm f3.5-5.6

The GM cameras are smaller still.



--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

 

[Thomas Kachadurian]

I have both canon ff and m43 systems. I rarely use the Canon stuff.

Tom

 

[JaKing]

If only it were that simple ...

Check out Bill Claff's site photonstophotos and do some comparisons with his real data.

Judging from your many comments in this forum, I suggest that you should be securely seated when you do so - it might just overturn some of your erroneously held beliefs.

 

[upptick]

If i sell all my canon/sony gear, i would almost be on line with what a Panasonic G9 + 12-60mm + 8-18mm would be.

Would this make any sens to switch, i mean then i would have only ONE system, and not the two and a half i have currently.

What are your thoughts?

The "Pro" level micro 4/3 camera bodies are about as big and as expensive as the FF equipment, and the Oly Pro lenses are quite large and heavy. In my opinion, the sweet spot with the micro 4/3 system are the mid level cameras, like the GX85 or the Pen F, with the 14-140 and a fast prime in your pocket (i.e. 15mm f1.7) for indoor use. Makes for an awesome travel package.

 

[Great Bustard]

jwilliams wrote:

For large DOF, I have to use f8/11 with Nikon for landscape shots, so you are not letting much light in to the sensor and body isn't stabilized, which mean very steady tripod, remote release, etc. With Olympus and it's Pro lens, that's f4/5.6 (sweet spot of lens) for same DOF but having more light into sensor,

If f8 is needed for the FF sweet spot and f4 is needed for m43 then you just raise the ISO on the FF 2 stops, get the same shutter speed and the same IQ because the larger sensor lets you go 2 stops higher in ISO and maintain the same IQ as the m43 sensor at 2 ISO stops lower.

If only it were that simple ...

Check out Bill Claff's site photonstophotos and do some comparisons with his real data.

Judging from your many comments in this forum, I suggest that you should be securely seated when you do so - it might just overturn some of your erroneously held beliefs.

Clearly, not all sensors of the same size, even of the same generation, are equal in all respects. For example, there's a rather massive differential in resolution between the 20 MP Canon 6D with AA filter and the 50 MP Canon 5DsR with a cancelled AA filter. Of course, I've heard someone claim that they could see every hair on a person in an environmental portrait at 17x22 inches from an E1 (5 MP 4/3 DSLR), so the resolution differential between systems is surely trivial for such people.

With regards to noise, however, the differential is much smaller except as we approach the extremes, such as very long exposure times (where differences in thermal noise can play a major role), heavy shadow pushing at base ISO (where differences in the electronic noise of the sensor and supporting hardware play a major role), and in very low light, such as when one might be using ISO 6400+ (due, again, to differences in electronic noise).

So, as photography approaches the extremes, we will see where differences in the sensors becomes more important. However, for the vast majority of photography, the noise differential is due to the amount of light making up the photo. And since sensors of the same generation record roughly the same proportion of light falling on them regardless of size, brand, or pixel count, then we see that a FF sensor with one fourth the exposure will record the same amount of light as an mFT sensor and thus have basically the same noise (with perhaps more variance for extreme situations as discussed above).

In short, examples like this are the rule, not the exception. For sure, exceptions do exist, but, well, they are exceptions, except for those whose photography typically lies in the extremes.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I can only tell you what I did and give you my honest reply. Get the MFT camera. I have had two now and I am crazy about my small Olympus cameras and lenses. The image quality is stellar. So light so easy to pack around. I really don't think most people need the big cameras anymore. My honest opinion others may differ.