Qba007

Sorry, my mistake but A7RIV has worse IQ than A7RIII at higher ISO.

It is interesting that Sony A7RIV has one percentage more than Sony A7RIII in the final assessment despite being worse in most categories in compare mode. In addition, more pixels do not translate into better image quality. So what was the point of creating the new sensor? Should anybody buy this camera just because it has more megapixels which adds nothing to the resulting jpg?

It seems that Sony A7RIV is to attract customers only by high sensor resolution. But why to buy such a camera if increasing the resolution does not increase the image quality? In a few months, the A7IV will probably appear with comparable image quality, better autofocus and better video features at much lower price tag than A7RIV . Hope, increasing the resolution of the A7IV's sensor improve the image quality of the A7III as I plan to switch from the m43 system to Sony FF system.

I do not like the idea of selling the old sensor in the new flagship camera model like in Fuji X-H. However, in case of Olympus, we have a camera for completely different purposes than E-M1: sport and wildlife. But do not understand why Fuji has created the X-H series instead of adding stabilization to X-T as X-T3 has strong video capabilities.
The colors are the most important in photography so I considered Fuji and Olympus. But just the lack of stabilization in X-T2 prompted me to enter the MFT system because I do not use a tripod.

I see that the image quality of E-M1X in the studio scene for ISO 200 (which I usually use) is clearly better than of default selected: Fuji X-T3, Nikon D500 and Olympus OM-D E-M1 II. But the camera is to heavy for me. I'm glad, the reviewers confirmed my observation that Olympus has great (best) jpg colors. I wonder what the OM-D E-M1 II successor will offer.

I just wanted to compare lenses with comparable optical quality. The comparison can be changed to better fit the lens aparature:

SONY A7 III 650 g 1 998 $
Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G 565 g 1 648 $
Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS 426g $898
Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS 840g $1,498

Total: 2 481g 12-200mm 6 042 $

and it does not change much.

Previously I haven't taken into account the 24-70 f/4 lens because it is not very good and I would not buy it. For the same reason, I haven't considered the Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS lens. That's why I couldn't take the best Oly's zoom lenses: 12-40 f / 2.8 and 40-150 f / 2.8. So I took 12-100 f/4.

My conclusion is that there is no reasonable equivalent for the 12-200 range in FF, let alone for the 14-300 range, which I use in m43. And for this reason I do not see an option for myself to go FF as I really would like to gain a greater DOF. FF makes sense when you use one, max two lenses, including one fixed focal length lens IMO.

It doesn't make sense to compare body-only size and price but the entire system:
Olympus OM-D E-M1 II 574 g 1 599 $
M.ZUIKO 7-14mm F/2.8 PRO 534 g 1 199 $
M.ZUIKO 12-100mm F/4 IS PRO 561 g 1 257 $

Total: 1 669 g, 14 - 200mm, 4 055 $

SONY A7 III 650 g 1 998 $
Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G 565 g 1 648 $
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM 886 g 2 198 $
Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS 1 480 g 2 598 $

Total: 3 581 g, 12-200mm, 8 442 $

The weight and price of the Sony FF system are twice as high as of the Olympus m43 system. Is the image quality of the Sony or other FF camera twice as good as Olympus? Even with the speculated price and of course heavier weight of the new Olympus OM-D E-M1X, the Oly system looks more attractive IMO.

It doesn't make sense to compare body-only size and price but the entire system:
Olympus OM-D E-M1 II 574 g 1 599 $
M.ZUIKO 7-14mm F/2.8 PRO 534 g 1 199 $
M.ZUIKO 12-100mm F/4 IS PRO 561 g 1 257 $

Total: 1 669 g, 14 - 200mm, 4 055 $

SONY A7 III 650 g 1 998 $
Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G 565 g 1 648 $
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM 886 g 2 198 $
Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS 1 480 g 2 598 $

Total: 3 581 g, 12-200mm, 8 442 $

The weight and price of the Sony FF system are twice as high as of the Olympus m43 system. Is the image quality of the Sony FF twice as good as Olympus? No. Even with the speculated price and of course heavier weight of the new Olympus OM-D E-M1X, the Oly system looks more attractive IMO.

Sony EF 70-200 mm f / 4L USM weighs 705 g plus 650 g of A7 II is 1355 g. Somewhere must be the limit for a perfect hand holding of camera.

Because I am aware of Olympus's noise level at higher ISO, I take practically all pictures at ISO 200, benefiting from an excellent stabilization. I am afraid of buying a heavier equipment for two reasons. First of all, it will be harder to take a sharp picture; the Sony A7 III has weaker IS, and the Fuji XT-3 probably will not have it at all, like the XT-2. Secondly, I might lose the pleasure of photographing I have today.
As I look at the placement of buttons and knobs on the A7III, I have the impression that they were fixed in a random arrangement. And it's annoying to have this empty space on the left side of the viewfinder :)
A7III has 'only' a better sensor...

Does it make sense to switch from Olympus OM-D E-M1 II + 12-100mm 4.0 PRO + 7-14mm 2.8 PRO + 17mm 1.2 PRO which I have, to new Sony A7 III + 16-35mm 2.8 GM or 12-24mm 4.0 G + 24-105mm 4.0 ?
I will gain a (much?) better IQ but I will lose extra focal length (I do not intend to buy a 70-200mm lens because it is too heavy for me as I don't use tripod),

The second option is new Fuji XT-3 + new 8-16mm 2.8 + 23mm 1.2 + 40-150mm 2.8

The third option is to stay with my current system and buy new body next year when Olympus will celebrate its 100th anniversary, so I may expect something special.