Lenses making me consider switching back to 4/3 system

[EZGritz]

you might consider the 14-150. Not as bright but makes good images, is weather sealed, light and very compact for the range. I won't give it up. Too useful for travel.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

you might consider the 14-150. Not as bright but makes good images, is weather sealed, light and very compact for the range. I won't give it up. Too useful for travel.

Seems to be a very sharp lens, from many images I've seen. As you note, a travel lens to be reckoned with. I'd probably get that over the 12-200, even if I prefer 12 at the wide end, since price and size seem more on point for a compact one-lens kit.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[gary0319]

Today I tried Mono HHHR. Getting images that rival my Pen F with the 25mpx Hi Rez JPEGS.





Even some slow talking was accommodated in the 16 shot burst.

 

[kolyy]

I only ordered the G9 with 12-60 kit. I am rethinking the ultra wide choice leaning toward the 8-25 as I originally planned. What is making the choice tough is debating about using one camera or two. In the past I have always liked using two. If I used one camera the 8-25 is a lens I could keep on the camera. If I used two I would have the extra 2mm on the wide end with the 7-14 and the small lens would offset a little of the weight of the second camera.

I am now thinking of the 8-25 because I would really like to try using the one camera with three lenses - 8-25, 12-60, and 100-300. I probably will not miss losing the 2mm on the wide end. If I am unhappy with my experimental large print and add a second body, then I will probably try and find a used 7-14.

Gary

Well, even if you owned two bodies, would you take them with you all the time? To me, a more flexible lens like the 8-25mm is very valuable, as on some occasions I could only carry a single body and lens.

 

[kolyy]

One of my friends switched from Nikon FF to the SONY 61MP. We shoot together. His Nikon DSLR kit was great. He shoots a lot of 70-200 with the SONY. His Nikon kit produced better images. I told him the SONY lens was old and does not have a good reputation. When we compared images with my EM1.2 and the 40-150PRO f/2.8 not only did the SONY kit produce less detail, he couldn't produce a sharp image. Now he has to buy the new SONY 70-200 and sell the old one. We do a lot of panning. IBIS is essential. He crops I don't have to. The SONY images look OK until you crop. If you don't need to crop you don't need 61MP, aren't using it. You are just processing gigantic files for no benefit unless you are printing barn doors. He bought the SONY kit to print barn doors - 5X8 feet on vinyl. He does not have an image he can print that size out of the SONY. The reason he bought it is because someone printed one for him from a Canon R5 that looks great. MAX MP doesn't help you unless you have IBIS and lenses that are equal to it.

We are both selling event photos. He expected images 3X better than I'm getting because he has 3X the pixels. So far I'm getting better photos than he is. From what I see, if I wanted more resolution I'd go for a Canon kit.

I haven't experienced HHHR, only HRM. However they do it, whatever goes on inside the camera doesn't matter to me. I only have to push the button. The images speak for themselves. They are great. Lots of detail, clean skies, great color fidelity. They are superior images. Not 3X. It doesn't work that way for whatever reason. Maybe the limit of my eyes, my monitor, my printer. You can't point at one link in a chain and think the entire chain is as strong as that link. It's as strong as the weakest. If you go to one of the sites where the photographer posts HHHR images you find they are stunning and missing nothing compared with FF. The detail is great, the color is great, the DR is great.

There are times when 20MP is too much and I reduce the resolution so I don't have to handle files that are so big. I don't want a 61MP camera. I'd rather dial in HiresMode when I need it. I prefer this solution. $6,000 for one body and one lens so I can have 61MP all the time is not appealing to me. I can/did buy a body and an assortment for that.

My friend is not happy. He has to lose money on the lens he bought. He's going to be into this system for more than $7,000 for one lens and one body. Meanwhile, I keep taking photos and nobody ever said to me - that must be a 20MP camera. Not enough resolution. In my travel's I use HRM to take landscapes of areas where the friends I visit live. I give the image to them to print and display on big, high res monitor. They love them. Nobody says - you should have a higher resolution sensor. They think the images are great.

I like filling the frame with the image. It's the best way to know if I have the subject framed the way I want it. I appreciate the extra range of the 40-150 PRO. 80-300 is useful. I can see what I'm photographing and I do a lot less cropping, none at all 85% of the time. I have 50% more range in a lens that weighs more than 1/2 lb less than the SONY 70-200. That's appreciated at the end of a long day.

You can do lots of lab tests and lots of calculating but it's the result that matters. I haven't seen my friend with the SONY in a while. I don't know if he has the new 70-200, probably he does if it's available. What did he have to spend for all that? $6,000 for one body and one lens + what he lost upgrading the lens. $7,000? And he carries around a lot more weight. Nothing about this makes me want a SONY kit.

I am sorry, but I suspect your story has a pretty loose connection with reality. In any case, it has quite a loose connection to my post you have replied to.

 

[smith-jones]

For large prints there are advantages to using a full frame 45MP camera. With Nikon and Canon there are also their excellent tilt shift lenses which are not an option with Sony. I am most familiar with the Nikon D850 which automates focus shifting for capturing a scene with maximum depth of field and without the perspective distortion one gets with a wide angle lens.

1) There ARE tilt shift lenses for Sony.

Samyang 24mm and now the Laowa 15mm 4.5 (shift only) which seems to be a highly regarded lens.

You can also use pretty much any TS lens made adapted since so far, all are manual focus.

2) You can also adapt them to M43 and the new Laowa 15mm might be great on M43 and with a reasonably wide field of view if you can use a speed booster with it.

I preferred my Canon 17 TSE and (sold) 24 TSE ii adapted on Sony to on a Canon DSLR.

I am sure I would like the 17 on any mirrorless and it was ok on M43 though I never tried a speedbooster.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Tom,

The main reason I am considering switching back to MFT is due to the high rez option of the EM1 M3. I do not do a lot of printing, but on occasion like to do large canvas prints for my home. For those few times the high rez option is perfect. No other MFT camera has hand held high rez.

Gary

Fair comment.

 

[EZGritz]

If it has enough light it produces very good images and is weather sealed. I wish it was a 12-150. 12 on the wide end is handy. I like shooting at 24MM. It's sharper than the 12-200 from what I've seen and heard and is much smaller, less expensive, and lighter.

It's great if I want to travel light. It's indispensable for traveling in a car when you don't know if the next opportunity will be on the long or short end and will require a lens change I don't have time for half the time.

Usually, in this situation, a photo is better than no photo but often if I see the opportunity for a great photo I have time to mount a better lens. I can think of some times when I wish I had a better or brighter lens to use but had time to mount one. When I didn't have time and I used the 14-150 the results were good. I was happy anyway.

 

[EZGritz]

They look great. You might think you would see blur at the woman's mouth. I don't see any. I don't see much benefit to using HHHR for that image but it's a good test. It isn't a gimmick. It works and it's easy to turn it on and off. I think it's a great feature and better than taking 50MP images of everything. If I had a camera with that much resolution I wouldn't use it. I'd dial the resolution down most of the time. I prefer HHHR. 20MP is more than enough most of the time. I sometimes dial that down to reduce file size when I don't need it. It's a good solution for me. I'll have a body with HHHR eventually. I haven't taken a photo in months. I'm shut-in from rain and snow, rather sit by the fire. I don't need any camera right now.

 

[EZGritz]

Your posts are a SONY infomercial and your assertions of superior SONY lens quality are nonsense unless compared to the worst OLY lenses. OLY PRO lenses are better, lighter, smaller, and much less expensive. They cover more range. You don't need to buy and carry as many. Only the newest SONY lenses can resolve the 61MP sensor. People who buy that body to use with the old SONY lenses have to buy new lenses to improve on the output resolution of lower resolution sensors. They are cheating themselves if they don't and lying to themselves if they think otherwise.

Few photographers need 61MP all the time. HHRM is not the convoluted gimmick you claim it is or an excuse for more pixels when most of the time no more are needed. It works great and it's easy to toggle it, easier than changing resolution on other cameras. Just look at the results. You haven't. If you did you would not say this.

 

[TorsteinH]

...I will make a large print before I leave on my big Europe trip in June. If am happy with the quality, then I sell my a7r4. If I am not, I may get the Olympus EM1 3 and play with the HHHR mode. I will hang on to my a7r4 for a little while to use for sports (I use the 17-70 and 70-180 Tamrons in crop mode) and use my MFT for the majority of times when I just want to share photos on my website.

Gary

I just have got a 120 x 80 cm ( 47" x 31.5" ?) canvas )print from my E-M1II that I'm very happy with. In my experience I do not need very large files to print big.

Anyway, if you go for a m43 system I can highly recommend DXO PL Elite with it's Deep Prime noise reduction. That is a game changer for higher ISO shots.

 

[kolyy]

Your posts are a SONY infomercial and your assertions of superior SONY lens quality are nonsense unless compared to the worst OLY lenses. OLY PRO lenses are better, lighter, smaller, and much less expensive. They cover more range. You don't need to buy and carry as many. Only the newest SONY lenses can resolve the 61MP sensor. People who buy that body to use with the old SONY lenses have to buy new lenses to improve on the output resolution of lower resolution sensors. They are cheating themselves if they don't and lying to themselves if they think otherwise.

Where did I compare Sony and Olympus lens quality? You are making stuff up. But let me react to your claim that Oly lenses "are better, lighter, smaller, and much less expensive. They cover more range." My typical setup is Sony A7C + Sony 16-35mm/4 + Tamron 28-200mm/2.8-5.6 and it weighs 1.6kgs. Show me an Olympus setup which covers the same equivalent focal range and physical aperture range (not f-number). How much it weighs and how many lenses it needs? Can it be even done?

Few photographers need 61MP all time. HHRM is not the convoluted gimmick you claim it is or an excuse for more pixels when most of the time no more are needed. It works great and it's easy to toggle it, easier than changing resolution on other cameras. Just look at the results. You haven't. If you did you would not say this.

Where did i claim this?

 

[EZGritz]

One of the considerations is distance. The bigger the print the further away you stand to look at it. Superfine detail disappears because your eyes can't see it at viewing distance. We have reached the point where resolution can exceed vision or come close enough to it so that more resolution doesn't make much of a difference. Consider also you may not be viewing big prints side by side to try to figure out which is better. When you aren't doing that the print looks good or not. The math doesn't produce the delta in results it suggests. 2-3X more pixels when you compare with 20MP is noticeable but doesn't make as much of a difference as the numbers suggest. You're going from fine detail to super fine detail, high resolution to very high resolution, not low resolution to high resolution.

 

[Henry Richardson]

Henry,

I enjoyed the article, thanks. I have always loved traveling, seeing new places. I had a good marriage for 38 years with the best times being our vacations, hate to say this, but best vacations were the empty nest ones where my wife and I could enjoy each other. When my wife passed nearly five years ago my love of travel grew even more. At first it was to get recharged and forget about the pain, then it just became really fun traveling by myself. What made it fun was the people I met, which your stories reminded me of. This is a reason I want to travel lighter and focus more on the experiences and less on taking thousands of photos. I want to use my travel blog to share my experiences.

Best of luck! I hope we get past all the travel restrictions and difficulties with international travel soon.

And I think you are on to something when saying the people photos can be more interesting than the landscape shots. I went on a little get a way to Hermosa beach. I shared a Facebook photo of me with four young ladies (I am 73) that saw me sitting by myself at a bar while listening to live music and they invited me to dance with them. I got far more likes and comments on that photo than any beach or scenic photos i posted.

I am really looking forward toward my 6 week trip to Europe starting June. My sister was going to travel with me but had to bail out. I am actually a little glad because i have found when I am by myself it is much easier to meet people, even at my age. I spent four years in Germany while serving in the Air Force during the early 70 years. I still cherish the memories I have of the friends I made from countries all over Europe and other parts of the world. Again thanks for sharing your blog, as I mentioned brought back some great memories.

Gary

I hope by June travel will be getting easier!

 

[gary stepic]

I think somewhere in this thread I mentioned large poster sized photos of former basketball players in our arena taken with the 4 megapixel D2H that looked fine. They are hung from the ceiling, so no one is going to be pressing their nose against to print to examine detail!

I am in the process of booking a two night trip to one of the lodges in Grand Canyon National Park (5 hour drive from my home). Even though I am starting to feel pretty comfortable about making that rare large print, there will be nothing like seeing one with my own eyes though. I should be getting my G9 soon so this trip will give me a good excuse to go out and play with the camera. Hopefully I will get at least one large print worthy photo from a place pretty hard not to get good pics.

I just got the Oly 8-25 which will be perfect for trip, besides the Pany 12-60 2,8-4 lens. I also ordered the Pany 100-300. I remember on a previous trip using the Sony 16-35. I was surprised that most of the time it was too wide and not long enough. It will be interesting to see how the 8-25 fares.

Gary

 

[Impulses]

As someone that still actively shoots both systems, I don't see much of advantage at all (and plenty of downsides) to shooting UWA thru normal on M4/3... Don't get me wrong btw, I loved my PL8-18 and it's probably the best feeling lens I've owned (subjectively), and I still own a bunch of wide M4/3 primes; but the extra processing / light gathering / cropping leeway w/the A7R4 even on my 17-28 is just preferable for me. Never mind the better tracking and broader selection of wide primes that can often be just as small as the M4/3 stuff. E mount can scale rather well these days.

Now, where the rubber meets the road is teles, and that's largely why I also still shoot M4/3. 28-200 vs 12-100 would be a side grade at best with different pros/cons to each (higher res & more DoF control vs better stabilization and extra width, etc.). The M4/3 tele primes and longer zooms are just unbeatable if you're trying to keep things relatively compact tho. I still use my 42.5/1.7 (for the short MFD as much as anything) and 75/1.8 very very often w/a tiny GX850.

Heck I bring that combo and a fisheye out alongside the FF gear when I use my largest bag (10L Sling), or I might swap to the 35-100... Realistically you should be able to do anything that you can do with it with the 28-200 even, but the internal zoom and rendering of the Pana has it's appeal. Anything longer on FF just becomes pretty unwieldy fast whereas something like a 100-300 for the occasional super compressed landscape is still pretty cheap and compact. Oly tracking isn't anywhere near Sony's tho (and Pana C-AF is being Oly's)...

I miss Live Composite and the auto switching of EFCS on my Sony body, amongst a few other things, but as someone that shoots primes a lot I just prefer it to my E-M5 III and I don't see the calculus being very different for shorter zooms. For longer teles the systems diverge a lot lot, the shooting envelope for Sony is broader but you'll pay for it (literally and in bulk). I'm still deciding whether I wanna get a tele zoom at all or not for E mount, sticking w/the M4/3 stuff and/or a cheap little Canon FD 135/3.5 for now (just for the res, the Oly 75/1.8 is nicer for candids and concerts cause AF, duh).

My 2c, dunno if my experience is of any use to you since we may have different use cases etc, but for me it's often about about the lenses first. I think practical things like lens choices, how much you crop, tracking/C-AF (I think you'd miss Sony's when shooting grandkids) and how portable you're looking to go are ultimately worth more than a bit more DR here or there; and that's before all the subjective preferences over things like EVF (OLED vs LED), tilt vs fully articulated screens, etc. You can massage lower res files to print large or use HR mode, that was never the biggest sticking point for me.

I'll likely keep straddling the fence myself for the foreseeable future, even if I were to get a long FF tele zoom I'd be hard pressed to let go of my M4/3 tele primes and I'd still opt for them often for a variety of use cases where there's just nothing comparable in FF land.

 

[kolyy]

As someone that still actively shoots both systems, I don't see much of advantage at all (and plenty of downsides) to shooting UWA thru normal on M4/3... Don't get me wrong btw, I loved my PL8-18 and it's probably the best feeling lens I've owned (subjectively), and I still own a bunch of wide M4/3 primes; but the extra processing / light gathering / cropping leeway w/the A7R4 even on my 17-28 is just preferable for me. Never mind the better tracking and broader selection of wide primes that can often be just as small as the M4/3 stuff. E mount can scale rather well these days.

Now, where the rubber meets the road is teles, and that's largely why I also still shoot M4/3. 28-200 vs 12-100 would be a side grade at best with different pros/cons to each (higher res & more DoF control vs better stabilization and extra width, etc.). The M4/3 tele primes and longer zooms are just unbeatable if you're trying to keep things relatively compact tho. I still use my 42.5/1.7 (for the short MFD as much as anything) and 75/1.8 very very often w/a tiny GX850.

Heck I bring that combo and a fisheye out alongside the FF gear when I use my largest bag (10L Sling), or I might swap to the 35-100... Realistically you should be able to do anything that you can do with it with the 28-200 even, but the internal zoom and rendering of the Pana has it's appeal. Anything longer on FF just becomes pretty unwieldy fast whereas something like a 100-300 for the occasional super compressed landscape is still pretty cheap and compact. Oly tracking isn't anywhere near Sony's tho (and Pana C-AF is being Oly's)...

I miss Live Composite and the auto switching of EFCS on my Sony body, amongst a few other things, but as someone that shoots primes a lot I just prefer it to my E-M5 III and I don't see the calculus being very different for shorter zooms. For longer teles the systems diverge a lot lot, the shooting envelope for Sony is broader but you'll pay for it (literally and in bulk). I'm still deciding whether I wanna get a tele zoom at all or not for E mount, sticking w/the M4/3 stuff and/or a cheap little Canon FD 135/3.5 for now (just for the res, the Oly 75/1.8 is nicer for candids and concerts cause AF, duh).

My 2c, dunno if my experience is of any use to you since we may have different use cases etc, but for me it's often about about the lenses first. I think practical things like lens choices, how much you crop, tracking/C-AF (I think you'd miss Sony's when shooting grandkids) and how portable you're looking to go are ultimately worth more than a bit more DR here or there; and that's before all the subjective preferences over things like EVF (OLED vs LED), tilt vs fully articulated screens, etc. You can massage lower res files to print large or use HR mode, that was never the biggest sticking point for me.

I'll likely keep straddling the fence myself for the foreseeable future, even if I were to get a long FF tele zoom I'd be hard pressed to let go of my M4/3 tele primes and I'd still opt for them often for a variety of use cases where there's just nothing comparable in FF land.

It seems like quite a bit of a stretch to me to say that the 28-200mm is a side grade from 12-100mm, even if one looses 24mm equivalent (neither has optical stabilization). You can't ignore the massive 1-3 stops of advantage in light gathering (equivalent to 14-100mm/1.4-2.8 on M43). As you can see, the 28-200mm doesn't just replace the 12-100mm/4, but also the 35-100mm/2.8 and a whole bunch of primes, starting with a 14mm/1.4, which does not even exist on M43.

 

[EZGritz]

The G9 looks like quite a camera. One of my friends will be getting one soon.

 

[EZGritz]

I agree on wide to normal, anything up to 200mm. I shoot so much above 200mm the equation flips for me. Under 200mm (FF) M43 is adequate and a little lighter. Over 200mm high-quality lenses are too big and heavy for me. That forces me into M43 which is OK, I like it. I don't feel the need for a bigger sensor for shorter FL. I'd rather not take two systems to an event. So far I can do everything with M43. I do lust for a FF system but I don't see how it would help me. In my case it's GAS. So far I've managed to resist it. When I feel myself slipping all I need to do is pick up a 500mm FF prime or a fast 100-400. That does it.

 

[EZGritz]

Each system has some interesting solutions. No 75 f/1.8 in FF. That lens knocks me out for clarity, sharpness, brightness compact size. No 40-150 f/2.8 that weighs 1.67lbs. and has 1.4X and 2.0X TCs.

The Panny has a 14 f/2.5 compact that's pretty good. OLY has the 12 f/2, 17, 25, 45, 75 F/1.8s that are very small and light and not too expensive except for the 12 and the 75. I have the 12-45 f/4 but I like shooting with primes. These are so small and light it isn't a burden to take one or two of them along.