Lenses making me consider switching back to 4/3 system

[gary stepic]

I currently have the Sony a7r4. I have shot a lot of weddings, portraits, sports but now at age 73 am mainly interested in travel and landscape photography. I have owned just about every type of system there is (never owned a medium format system). I could make a long list of brands, cameras, and lenses I have owned but will spare you. Ironically one of my favorite cameras was the Panasonic G9 and my least favorite the Olympus EM5. Yet I am now considering the E-M1 Mark III.

What I love about the 4/3 system is the lenses. I loved the Oly 12-100 on the G9. The 10-25 4.0 Oly seems like a perfect walk around compliment when I would want to go wider instead of longer (my current walk around is the Sony 24-105 with my ultra wide being the 12-24 4.0). I do not shoot birds or much where I need a long telephoto but admit I have a lot of fun and like super long lenses for sunsets and the compression effect. The Oly 100-400 seems like a nice lens I know it is still a big lens but for the range and fun factor I could handle lugging it on trips.

The reason the EM5 was my least favorite is because I get lazy and do not take the time to set up and learn a customizable camera like the Olympus cameras. A reason I like the Sony full frame is on rare occasion I want to be able to produce a 6'x4' canvas print to hang in my living room. Most of my other prints are 30"x20". The handheld high rez mode is very intriguing to me. The large prints I would like to produce are mountain and valley type shots, in other words grand landscapes. There may be an ocean or sea in the background the only movement would be leaves from the wind or waves in the ocean. My one question is how would high rez mode handle this? The kind of high rez shots I am thinking of would have lakes or oceans more in the background, not in the near foreground as I mentioned.

I am also curious about making large prints with a 20 megapixel 4/3 system. For my home I use canvas and I am pretty confident prints up to 40"x30" would be fine, please correct me if I am wrong. My guess is some of the upscaling software can be useful.

For travel and landscapes I think dynamic range and iso performance would be good enough with 4/3, as I know those are strengths of full frame. The viewfinder resolution would be a step down but image stabilization a clear step up. Battery life a step down but keeping spares not a problem. I do shoot some grandkids sports. If I totally got rid of my full frame system it seems like there are some good 2.8 4/3 lenses I could use. I rarely have to go above 3200 iso. I am guessing dust would be less of a problem with a 4/3 system, but again correct me if I am wrong.

I would mainly have to take the time to customize the camera and then make a point to memorize how the camera is set up. I may go months between uses and with my previous Olympus I would forget how I programmed the buttons. My biggest worry now is if my bad eyes would be good enough with the viewfinder, a very big step down from the Sony a7r4. I am not worried about having the best viewfinder experience but as long as I can get a good idea of what I am shooting I am ok.

Probably the biggest factor in helping me make my decision is how much dynamic range would I give up using 4/3 compared to full frame. This is important for travel because sometimes I have to shoot midday when the sun produces a lot of shadows.

Gary

--
http://www.honoringcreation.com

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Hi Gary,

Specific to dynamic range, the 20MP generation sensors and TruePic VIII processor of the E-M5iii will be a big jump from the E-M5 (I had the E-M5 and have the E-M1ii, which shares sensor and processor with the E-M5iii).

No it will not match your Sony but I seldom get images I can't pull shadow detail from even in summer midday sun. Probably the most challenging scenes I get are in the mountains where deep woods and sunlit snow are in the same frame. For times like that I'll take a bracket sequence and/or in-camera HDR, then pick and choose back at home.

I assume a lot of 135-format cameras handle that scenario better than 4/3 can.

But 95% of the time dynamic range meets my needs. And to your point, the lens selection is hard to beat! Once you get into tele lenses, m4/3 are just great: more reach, less bulk and weight.

Good luck,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

 

[ahaslett]

Gary

I have an EM1.2 and A7R4. I prefer lighter lenses, unless they are so heavy I can carry the body on a sling screwed into the tripod foot. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is about my limit and the 90/2.8 macro is beyond it. That would make the 12-100/4 about the biggest lens I’d carry.

I think you mean the Olympus 8-25/4, a quite different lens to the Panasonic 10-25/1.7. Both are great lenses, with the Panny being video oriented but good for stills too. The Olympus 100-400 is quite a lens, for someone who isn’t keen on tele. The Panasonic 50-200 might be more manageable, although no tripod foot for me.

I’m surprised you are concerned about EM1.3 battery life, there was a big step up with the EM1.2. I’d say the A7R4 and EM1.2 have similar lives in use, the way I have them set up.

I have my C1 to C4 custom modes on the EM1.2 set up for different shooting situations. One glance at the SCP as I switch and I can remember which is which. The SCP and existing button and lever mapping provide nearly all the functionality I need, apart from the My Menu ability to go straight to functions like airline, cleaning and transfer modes that you need to get to quickly.

Olympus IBIS is just better than the A7R4 by some way. I can’t imagine not using a tripod for A7R4 landscapes except in very bright light.

I can’t speak to HhRes mode with only an EM1.2.

If you want a much lighter kit, then an EM1.3 with the f4 Pro zooms is a good choice. After some reflection on what I’d take on a family holiday, I’ve decided my travel kit is 8mm Pro, 12-40/2.8, 20/1.7 and 35-100/2.8 mk i. You could replace the 20/1.7 with the Olympus 60mm macro, if so inclined.


Hilbre Island from Middle Eye


Burbo Bank from Hilbre Island

You do lose DR with the smaller sensor and need to bracket more often. I expected the first image would exceed the A7R4 DR but one of the shots in the bracket fitted perfectly. Nothing can handle a shot like this:





Andrew




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

 

[gskolenda]

Well, I have a complete G9 system with 6 lenses, and I have a Nikon Z6 system with 3 lenses. I also just bought a Nikon Z7II body. I love my G9 System and don't think I will be selling it, it's that good. Why did I purchase the Z-systems? I wanted to compare MFTds to the Z-bodies. Now one thing I will say, there is very little difference when it comes to size in bodies, from the MFTds to Nikon Z's. They have done a great job in this new design.


SInce Covid I'm doing mostly Still-Life shooting in a small studio in my garage, I have currently 36 finished images that have all been printed, in a few sizes, 2-of them pretty large, 1-36x60, and 30x40. To go larger than that, I would have to use the post resizing software options, and they work very well. But the Z6, has very good DRange. Yes better than the G9, same for the Z7II.


To be quite honest, I'm sorting out some things, photographically right now. I do have a little bit of GAS, but I am going to settle down on 2-systems. I'm keeping my MFTds lenses, All Pana-Leica, very wide to telephoto, and I'm waiting to see what Oly, and Panasonic do with new bodies, If I knew they were not going to upgrade the G9, and the GH6 would be a pretty good jump in Dynamic Range, Lower noise and possibly higher resolution, I would get one. My only problem with Oly is I would have to sell a few of my lenses and get Oly, to get the best performance from the Oly bodies.


Right now, I use the Z6 for Astro work, the G9 for some landscape, Still-Life, and love the telephotos I have for many types of shots. The Z-body systems don't have a good telephoto yet, soon I'm sure. But, MFTds is hard to beat in the telephoto world.
My goals for 2022, are to set up an E-Commerce site to sell my images. It's crazy, figuring this all out in regards to Gear. One of the big advantages to the Z7II is the considerably higher resolution, which gives a pretty big advantage in image composition when it comes to cropping.


You should probably wait and see what Oly and Panasonic announce this first quarter.
Personally, I would love to see the in-body processing chips a lot faster, and the cameras move to 16-bit images, then you will see some serious Dynamic-Range, but then we would have to see the printing market change printers that can print 16bit files. Always room for growth! These images are done with G9, 42.5mm Nocitron f1.2, in the studio.

 

[gary stepic]

I can wait a bit. I was going to ask if the current prices are sale prices. I can get the EM1 Mark 3 with the 12-100 for $2,500 and the 8-25 for $1,100. I worry more than a little about inflation increasing the prices.

I would need the gear for 6 week dream trip to Europe starting early June. I will be spending 4 days in Montengro, 5 days in the Dolomites along with 1 night in Hallstatt, and the rest of the time in Croatia and Slovenia. I think I will have a couple of opportunities for a large print to hang over my couch .

The high rez mode could be perfect for those few photos I would like to make 6 foot canvas print of. Most of the photos would be for a travel blog and for a few prints no larger than 4'x3'. Again these would be canvas which is more forgiving of loss of detail and I could use enhancing tools with software if needed.

Dynamic range does not have to be the best, but good enough to allow for sharing photos on my website. The scenes that would be special I would try and shoot during optimum times of the day (or use HDR methods).

I think the Olympus is about the same size and weight as my a7r4, which is not a problem. The 8-25 is smaller and lighter than my Sony 12-24 4.0 with a much more useful range on the long end. I think the 12-100 is close to the size of my 24-105 Sony. It is the wide end that has drawn me to 4/3 system, and funny enough this is supposed to be the weakness. I can live losing the 3 mm on the wide end, I think having 25 (50mm equivalent) on the long end makes it an extremely practical lens for me, especially for my Europe trip. All the years I have traveled I have rarely felt I needed anything faster than 4.0.

I have been researching all the 4/3 cameras. I loved my G9 that I had several years ago but the hand held high rez mode could be a very practical feature for the few times I may need it. I also like the ND feature, could be handy for those waterfall shots.

I have typically taken two cameras on my travels, one with an ultra wide zoom and the other with a range of around 24-105. I have some vision issues so I do not feel comfortable cleaning my own sensor, and Sony cameras can gather dust easily enough. Keeping dust out is one reason I would use two cameras, no need to change lenses. Are Olympus cameras fairly good about limiting dust on sensors? If so I can live with just using one camera, especially since the ranges of the 8-25 and 12-100 are so practical.

Gary

 

[Skeeterbytes]

The M1iii+12-100 are a harmonious pair and very, very nice to shoot with.

Someday I'd love to acquire an 8-25 and with those three pieces, plus one fast prime, one has a fantastic travel kit. Add a longer tele if critters or surfers or something distant is of interest.

A happy coincidence is the 8-25 and 12-100 share the same filter size.

Cheers,

Rick

p.s. IMO Oly's dust management system remains the industry standard.

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

 

[Henry Richardson]

A reason I like the Sony full frame is on rare occasion I want to be able to produce a 6'x4' canvas print to hang in my living room. Most of my other prints are 30"x20". The handheld high rez mode is very intriguing to me. The large prints I would like to produce are mountain and valley type shots, in other words grand landscapes. There may be an ocean or sea in the background the only movement would be leaves from the wind or waves in the ocean. My one question is how would high rez mode handle this? The kind of high rez shots I am thinking of would have lakes or oceans more in the background, not in the near foreground as I mentioned.

I am also curious about making large prints with a 20 megapixel 4/3 system. For my home I use canvas and I am pretty confident prints up to 40"x30" would be fine, please correct me if I am wrong. My guess is some of the upscaling software can be useful.

For canvas prints, I would say, you need a lot less resolution than for glossy prints.

See this thread from 2018 and remember that the photos were taken by older cameras. m4/3 cameras of the last several years can in most cases do as well or sometimes better than the cameras used to make the gallery photos from 10-20 years ago).

National Geographic photo gallery big prints

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138

Yesterday I was at a National Geographic photo gallery. It is very similar to the Peter Lik galleries with dim lighting, black walls, and big, beautiful, glossy, very well lit photos. Of course, they are trying to sell them so the presentation is very nice. The info for each photo was a short caption, location, year, name of photographer, and the size in meters (longest dimension) of the print. The smallest prints were 1 meter and the largest prints were 3 meters, but most were 1.5 and 2 meters. Most of the photos were taken 2004-2015, but I saw one that was in 1999 and another in 2002. A few of the photos were landscapes, but mostly animals in Africa and elsewhere. A few photos included people, but not many. I guess it is harder to sell people photos. Of course, they all looked wonderful and I think the prices are pretty high.

No mention of the camera gear used, but I suspect most of them were taken with DSLRs since the bulk of the photos were 2004-2015 of animals, often in Africa. National Geographic galleries believe they have enough megapixels to print 2 and 3 meter prints from DSLRs made even 14-15 years ago.

https://www.natgeofineart.com/

I think all the worry by some about whether a 20mp or 16mp (or even 12mp) m4/3 file is sufficient for fairly large prints is rather ridiculous.

Actually, most of the worry I see sometimes here about print size is asking about making something like 24x30 or 30x40 inch prints -- that is 0.762 meter or 1.016 meter prints. Just a very small number of the National Geographic prints were 1 meter. Almost all were 1.5 and 2 meters, but several were 3 meters. So, above where I say 'fairly large' that is not really correct. Most people asking and worrying about print sizes here are talking about the smallest or even smaller prints than what they have at the National Geographic photo gallery.

If you don't remember what were the common, high end Nikon and Canon DSLRs back in 2003, 2004, 2005 era that were probably used for many of the photos from 2004, 2005, and 2006 then look back and see. Nikon was selling only APS-C models, but Canon had FF, APS-H, and APS-C. And the megapixel counts would seem modest compared to current m4/3.

Later I received an email advertisement from the National Geographic Fine Art Galleries. In it there was a mention that their prints start at $4600. This 2010 one is $4900:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63169520

This 2007 one is $6750:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64219750

 

[gary stepic]

After spending the last hour and a half looking at YouTube reviews of the EM1 3 I am not at all worried about making large prints now. There was one video strictly on the high rez mode and it appears to be very impressive, even improves high iso performance. After the link provided and reading other posts I think even without the high rez mode large prints would look good, even a canvas print as large as 5 feet wide. I really appreciate the comments.

Gary

HONORING CREATION

My faith is my passion, it is a passion that challenges me to capture God's beautiful creation through photography. I personally believe all human inspiration comes from God, which means His created...

www.honoringcreation.com

 

[gary0319]

After spending the last hour and a half looking at YouTube reviews of the EM1 3 I am not at all worried about making large prints now. There was one video strictly on the high rez mode and it appears to be very impressive, even improves high iso performance. After the link provided and reading other posts I think even without the high rez mode large prints would look good, even a canvas print as large as 5 feet wide. I really appreciate the comments.

Gary

http://www.honoringcreation.com

You are correct, tripod mode produces a raw file that is 10,368 pix on the long side. That's 34" at 300 dpi, and I suspect you could get by with less than 300 dpi for canvas. My favorite, however, is the HHHR JPEGS that are almost the equal of the raws and a lot more versatile. The interaction of the sequenced image stabilization with my own hand shake is pure genius, producing sharp detail at even slow shutter speeds.

A couple of recent examples, shot with the 12-100 f/4

This is HHHR JPEG with the white building being 1.9 miles distant. The second image is a crop from the first.





This HHHR.....16 shots at shutter speed of 1/4 second each (4+ seconds total). Not bad for 77 year old hands.

 

[MEDISN]

After spending the last hour and a half looking at YouTube reviews of the EM1 3 I am not at all worried about making large prints now. There was one video strictly on the high rez mode and it appears to be very impressive, even improves high iso performance. After the link provided and reading other posts I think even without the high rez mode large prints would look good, even a canvas print as large as 5 feet wide. I really appreciate the comments.

Gary

http://www.honoringcreation.com

Hi Gary,

I very much agree with what Rick and others said above. If you want some ideas of High-Res in use, I have thrown some images in a gallery here:

https://www.mitropoulos.photography/High-Res/

I had an A7RII I carried with me for shots like these but after High-Res came along, I offloaded the Sony.

Safe travels!

 

[Henry Richardson]

Probably the biggest factor in helping me make my decision is how much dynamic range would I give up using 4/3 compared to full frame. This is important for travel because sometimes I have to shoot midday when the sun produces a lot of shadows.

You probably already know this, but just in case. To get the maximum DR shoot at the base ISO 200. Don't use the lower or higher ISO settings. Shoot raw, of course. ETTR and adjust brightness in your raw processing software. Ever since Adobe introduced their new raw process version in 2012 for Lightroom and Photoshop/ACR they have had the best highlight recovery. I am not sure if that is still the case, but from time to time I see software reviews and comments on the forum that indicate it still is true.

By the way, I international travel a lot (well, I did, before the pandemic) and I have been using m4/3 since April 2012. I have not found dynamic range to be a problem and I don't always shoot at ISO 200.

 

[justa1972]

After spending the last hour and a half looking at YouTube reviews of the EM1 3 I am not at all worried about making large prints now. There was one video strictly on the high rez mode and it appears to be very impressive, even improves high iso performance. After the link provided and reading other posts I think even without the high rez mode large prints would look good, even a canvas print as large as 5 feet wide. I really appreciate the comments.

Gary

http://www.honoringcreation.com

You are correct, tripod mode produces a raw file that is 10,368 pix on the long side. That's 34" at 300 dpi, and I suspect you could get by with less than 300 dpi for canvas. My favorite, however, is the HHHR JPEGS that are almost the equal of the raws and a lot more versatile. The interaction of the sequenced image stabilization with my own hand shake is pure genius, producing sharp detail at even slow shutter speeds.

A couple of recent examples, shot with the 12-100 f/4

This is HHHR JPEG with the white building being 1.9 miles distant. The second image is a crop from the first.





This HHHR.....16 shots at shutter speed of 1/4 second each (4+ seconds total). Not bad for 77 year old hands.

Wow that really is impressive - who really needs better image quality than that ?

Thar crop is amazing !

 

[Velmarshal]

Ive tried several FF bodies (A7III, 5D4 and D3) and as far as I've seen, the situations where MFT DR would get blown, but FF wouldn't are extremely rare as those scenes (that blew MFT DR) usually had dynamic ranges even medium format cams wouldn't be able to fully handle.

In my experience, FF makes sense if you want 20mpx+ (whether you need it is another topic), want to shoot action in low light (In which case I'm assuming youre using an f1.4~1.2 lens and SS is as low as it can go without blurring motion) or want maximum bokeh (I won't comment on this as a lot of photographers are very sensitive about pointing out their overreliance on it).

 

[softmarmotte]

The problem with DPR is that you will get responses writing theoretically about stops, dynamic range, IBIS...Just look at the photos that are being taken with MFT

My contributuon for 2021 is here. I don't claim to be the world's best photographer but you can see the technical results and make your own decisions

 

[gary stepic]

Very nice photos! I am not worried about dynamic range anymore. I live in New Mexico where the sun is very bright and midday I agree any camera could struggle some with dynamic range. As I already mentioned I will try and make a point to take my "special" shots when lighting is good (special meaning those I want to make a large print of).

I am curious if the EM1 iii allows for HDR shooting. I am talking about where you can set the camera up to take three continuous shots using the self timer at a stop or more apart. I remember having one camera, cannot remember if it was G9 or EM 5 that could not do this. Also curious if there is a panorama mode.

I am rethinking my long telephoto option. The Pany 100-300 seems more practical than the 100-400 Oly, since my main goal is to make my bag lighter. I did own this lens once and liked it.

Crud, am I the only one on this forum who has sold gear and then ends up buying the same gear again? I admit I have done this more than once.

Another question, is the 7-14 Pany the only Pany lens with the purple blob issue on Olympus bodies? I am glad I saw the thread about this issue with that lens because I was considering adding it at some point. I typically try avoiding changing lenses because my Sony cameras seem to pick up dust easily. Cleary this should be less of a problem with the Olympus from what I read about their dust removal process. The 8-25 would be more practical for me but there may be times I would want wider, the Pany is not that expensive and is pretty small, so I was considering eventually having both. Too bad Pany and Oly have no non fisheye 7mm primes.

Well, I guess since I am asking questions, I will ask just one more. Are there any good kindle books on the EM1 Mark 3?

Gary

 

[Dan]

The OM-D E-M1 Mark III has plenty of HDR modes...super nice hit the button once and it takes them all. Will even do it's own HDR blending with two modes which I've used occasionally and was pleasantly surprised.

Good luck...I am sure you'd be happy with Mark III and some lens.

Dan

 

[EZGritz]

HiRes mode also improves color and makes clean skies. A slow shutter speed smooths water and limits artifacts. The mode will probably improve with new models with faster image processors.

 

[gary0319]

HiRes mode also improves color and makes clean skies. A slow shutter speed smooths water and limits artifacts. The mode will probably improve with new models with faster image processors.

I have experienced all of the above. I suspect it might also work for providing some smoothing of waterfalls without having to resort to as slow a shutter speed. I’m looking forward to giving it a try.

 

[gary stepic]

My experience with the G9 really gave me a good impression using MFT system. My biggest concern was the very few times I want to make a large print. The high rez handheld mode solves that problem for me. I am aware of the limitations and can work around them. I am excited about going back to the smaller, very sharp lenses. What I especially like about a couple of the lenses is the extended range without losing image quality.

For about twelve years I was one of the sports photographers shooting for the University of New Mexico. Had a lot of fun, got to know some well known athletes such as Holly Holm, an MMA fighter who upset Rhonda Rousey several years ago. Even had my one second of fame as a book cover photo I took for Katie Hnida (first female to kick extra point in Div ! football) was flashed on national television for about a second. Now I just want to shoot grandkids sports so not worried about the best gear anymore. For now that may the main reason I still hang on to my Sony gear. I think the EM1 3 would probably be close to a7r4 for focus. I know there is a 12-40 and 35-100 2.8 for sports, so down the road could completely go MFT. The Tamron 17-70 on the a7r4 using crop mode has me a little spoiled for my granddaughter mid school basketball games. I would love something like the Tamron 25-150 equivalent for MFT system.

 

[john isaacs]

I currently have the Sony a7r4. I have shot a lot of weddings, portraits, sports but now at age 73 am mainly interested in travel and landscape photography. I have owned just about every type of system there is (never owned a medium format system). I could make a long list of brands, cameras, and lenses I have owned but will spare you. Ironically one of my favorite cameras was the Panasonic G9 and my least favorite the Olympus EM5. Yet I am now considering the E-M1 Mark III.

I had the Panasonic G5 and the Olympus EM5. I didn't like either of them. Especially the EM5 had the small buttons that were up against the LCD and were hard to press. The EM5 mk II was a HUGE improvement; loved that camera.

The E-M1 mk III is awesome. I use Live ND a lot. The AF is vastly improved. They added "My Menu" and enhanced custom modes with the "Hold" feature. But I don't like that they moved the Menu button to the left side, and that you can't change the EVF sensor setting with the front control dial.

What I love about the 4/3 system is the lenses. I loved the Oly 12-100 on the G9. The 10-25 4.0 Oly seems like a perfect walk around compliment when I would want to go wider instead of longer (my current walk around is the Sony 24-105 with my ultra wide being the 12-24 4.0). I do not shoot birds or much where I need a long telephoto but admit I have a lot of fun and like super long lenses for sunsets and the compression effect. The Oly 100-400 seems like a nice lens I know it is still a big lens but for the range and fun factor I could handle lugging it on trips.

The Oly 8-25 f4 is on my upgrade list. I have the Oly 7-14 f2.8, but rarely use it in favor of the Pana 8-18 f4 which is smaller, lighter, and takes screw-in filters. I have filters for the Olympus lens, but they are large and a bit of a pain to use. What the Oly offers is about the same size (but 30% heavier) and the manual focus clutch, as well as top notch weatherizing (but shooting an ultra wide angle lens in rain or snow is a problem because the lens hood provides no protection).

The Olympus 100-400 is significantly larger than the Panasonic 100-400. It does allow use of TC's and will work with ProCapture L. I have both, and plan to keep the 100-400 because of its size. I can take the Pana 8-18, Oly 12-100, and Pana 100-400 with E-M1 mk III in a LowePro Flipside 200. A very narrow bag that is ideal for skiing or snowshoeing.

The reason the EM5 was my least favorite is because I get lazy and do not take the time to set up and learn a customizable camera like the Olympus cameras. A reason I like the Sony full frame is on rare occasion I want to be able to produce a 6'x4' canvas print to hang in my living room. Most of my other prints are 30"x20". The handheld high rez mode is very intriguing to me. The large prints I would like to produce are mountain and valley type shots, in other words grand landscapes. There may be an ocean or sea in the background the only movement would be leaves from the wind or waves in the ocean. My one question is how would high rez mode handle this? The kind of high rez shots I am thinking of would have lakes or oceans more in the background, not in the near foreground as I mentioned.

Large canvas prints are no problem with the 20mp images due to the reduced resolution requirements. If you shoot at base ISO, prints as large as 40"x30" can be excellent. I don't print that large; but I do print 24" x 16" on my Canon Pro 1000 and they are wonderful. So, if you want to print 30" wide, then don't expect to crop much, and get adept at ETTR. I tend to bracket a lot if I want a lot of dynamic range; usually I just pick the best exposure, sometimes I do HDR processing if the dynamic range needs to be higher.

I am also curious about making large prints with a 20 megapixel 4/3 system. For my home I use canvas and I am pretty confident prints up to 40"x30" would be fine, please correct me if I am wrong. My guess is some of the upscaling software can be useful.

For travel and landscapes I think dynamic range and iso performance would be good enough with 4/3, as I know those are strengths of full frame. The viewfinder resolution would be a step down but image stabilization a clear step up. Battery life a step down but keeping spares not a problem. I do shoot some grandkids sports. If I totally got rid of my full frame system it seems like there are some good 2.8 4/3 lenses I could use. I rarely have to go above 3200 iso. I am guessing dust would be less of a problem with a 4/3 system, but again correct me if I am wrong.

Dust is a problem with any ILC mirrorless camera. Travel with a rocket blower, and don't change lenses in adverse conditions. On the other hand, mirrorless cameras have technology for shaking dust off the sensors.

I would mainly have to take the time to customize the camera and then make a point to memorize how the camera is set up. I may go months between uses and with my previous Olympus I would forget how I programmed the buttons. My biggest worry now is if my bad eyes would be good enough with the viewfinder, a very big step down from the Sony a7r4. I am not worried about having the best viewfinder experience but as long as I can get a good idea of what I am shooting I am ok.

Customization options on the E-M1 mk III are a whole lot more than on the E-M5. But there are web sites and spreadsheets to help. I do recommend using a spreadsheet to keep track of your settings. In addition, I use custom modes to define a baseline for certain types of shooting. I have one mode for normal/landscape shooting, one mode for studio/flash shooting, and one mode for sports/wildlife. I "recall" settings from the appropriate custom mode for use in each type of situation. The E-M1 mk III has added an ability to specify that changes made to a custom mode be preserved ("Hold"). I use a fourth mode with that feature, with a function button that switches to/from that mode. I use it to switch between my standard sports/wildlife and a ProCapture setup.

On nice feature with Olympus is the Super Control Panel, which has a button that shows function button settings, so it's easy to remind you of what you've set.

I also use the My Menu feature to save each menu setting that I may change frequently. That makes for a quick review of what I've set for each shooting situation.

Of course, much of what I do is in response to the fact that Olympus doesn't provide a capabilit to store settings to a menu card (which I use on my Nikons).

Probably the biggest factor in helping me make my decision is how much dynamic range would I give up using 4/3 compared to full frame. This is important for travel because sometimes I have to shoot midday when the sun produces a lot of shadows.

I can't address whether you will be satisfied with the normal dynamic range. As I said, you should be shooting ETTR to maximize dynamic range. The live view highlight/shadow display will color regions where highlights are blown or shadows are crushed, based on JPG processing. ETTR will show some highlights blown when they are fine in the RAW. I use this all of the time. When it shows I have a lot of dynamic range in the image (the histogram, or a little spin on the exposure compensation dial, will show this) then I bracket.

Olympus has two bracket options, and I use both. One is the BKT function, which allows +/-1EV brackets, which are taken with each press of the shutter or all are taken if the drive mode is burst. The other is the HDR function, which allows +/-2EV brackets taken with high speed mechanical shutter. I use the HDR function if I'm in single shot mode and I just want a quick bracket. The bracketing options are not as good as Panasonic or Nikon, but Nikon does not have one-touch bracketing and Olympus (via HDR) and Panasonic do. I say Panasonic is best, Olympus is good, Nikon is more flexible but I prefer one-touch bracketing.

For Olympus, I have the direct function right arrow set to change drive mode, and bracketing functions set to the front two buttons. I can switch from single silent to high speed silent with two presses of the right arrow button, activate bracketing with a press of a front function button, and the bracketed set is taken so quickly it's hard to notice.

Gary