How I lost faith in micro four thirds and switched to Sony mirrorless
Jan 18, 2017
Nicholas Goodden
We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.
Share:
If you’re thinking about moving to micro four thirds or buying the E-M1 Mark II… maybe read this first, it may actually save you money down the line.
For the past year and a half I have been shooting both the top of the range MFT and A7RII on professional assignments. Sadly I ended up often quite frustrated by the poor low light performance of Oly’s cameras as well as the lack of 4K which most of my clients ask from me when I shoot for example cinemagraphs.
Therefore since December 2016, I’ve gone 100% for the Sony and dropped MFT altogether to cut my losses invested in this system as well as my cherished Ambassador status (which in reality meant very little).
MFTs are useful cameras for street photography in particular, there’s no denying it. Light, compact and generally gets the job done.
Part of the job anyway.
It’s an old debate, but I have a bit of an edge since I have used both in a professional setting and extensively for a quite a bit now.
It’s all about learning and hopefully I can help others to avoid making the same mistakes I did.
I had great hopes for the micro four thirds format, I really did. So much so that initially I sold my Canon DSLR and “downgraded” to MFT. That was pre-OMD. I say “downgraded” as indeed at the time mirrorless cameras were not quite ready.
Yet I could see the potential, or the marketing made me see it anyway.
Then came the OMD system with the E-M5 and that really upped the game, it was then followed by the E-M10, E-M1 and the rest.
I shot last year some photos for Olympus for the print brochure of the E-M10 MKII, I was in Prague for the release of the E-M5 MkII and my last Olympus camera was the Pen-F which I’ve just sold this week.
So I’ve really used all of them.
As new cameras were released, as much as I was excited and saw plenty of improvements, there were still some major issues which didn’t really get solved for a while and felt like a simple lack of listening to its users.
As an ambassador I’ve never been consulted in over three years or asked by Olympus “What would you improve, or what are your suggestions as a user?”. I think that’s a big omission from them, after all it’s a free market research to ask your biggest and most faithful users.
Ask your users on Twitter or Facebook, I don’t know… just freaking ask.
How long did we wait for 4k?
This has been talked about but if a system is trying to attract the pros, it needs to offer what other pro systems offer. Tired of waiting, this was one of the main reasons I went for the A7RII in July 2015.
When a client asks if you can shoot 4K, you want to say yes. Trust me.
It’s a bit embarrassing otherwise.
Sure some would ask why not go for Panasonic instead who have been offering 4K for a while now. The reason is simple, other MFT failings, which I’ll get to, mean Panasonic would be no better.
Yes, it’s 2017, the E-M1 MKII will have 4K.
Great news Olympus, just on time for other brands to release 8K aka “I was late at the 4K party”.
The high ISO performance has always sucked and still sucks
It’s easy to keep claiming MFT low light performance is good or improved, but it isn’t once you try a full frame camera. I can shoot at ISO3200 or even 6400 on the Sony (it’s not even the A7S) and be more than happy with the results… they’re impressive.
With Olympus I am seriously reluctant going over ISO1000 (dare I say even 800) as all the detail is lost.
The auto-focus just isn’t good enough
Alright alright, the EM1 MkII is out soon and apparently it’s got the best AF in the universe. Similar claims were made with all previous models, beginning with the E-M5… I’m bored of waiting.
Try focus in low light or on anything without a clearly defined contrast and you will be pulling your hair out. I lost my cool recently trying to focus on a simple berry on a branch that was 40cm away so I won’t even explain how many shots I lost in the street from slow focusing.
It says a lot when manual focus is the best option.
The image quality
I know the Sony costs quite a bit more and I’m comparing a Ferrari with a Ford Focus.
Obviously you get what you pay for. But as photographers we all want the truest representation of what we saw when we pressed the shutter.
The Sony A7RII allows that, hence this article and my decision to move on.
The dynamic range is far superior on the Sony
If a camera can help reduce the time I spend in Photoshop pulling out shadows and fixing what it didn’t get properly, it’s a winner.
Not only does the Sony capture more details in the shadows without the need to over-expose your highlights, but it also allows you in “worse case scenarios” to pull an incredible amount of details from shadows if really needed from the Raw files and even the JPEGs.
The endless choice of compatible lenses for the Sony system
Being able to use Canon, Voigtlander, Leica lenses and many more on it with an adaptor is just perfect. Whilst Sony full frame lenses are pricier and yes pretty big, you can still find great deals online for second hand third party lenses.
I particularly like the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 as it’s tiny.
You’ll make new friends
I can’t honestly claim this BUT… people do know that camera!
I spent one morning in Shoreditch and three people stopped me to talk about the A7RII.
You know why that matters? Not for your popularity it doesn’t matter.
But if so many people know about it, I tend to associate this with the good reputation this camera has.
Build quality
That should actually go straight to number one.
I have had three main problems with Olympus cameras.
If you know me you’ll know I am the most freakishly careful with my gear. I never scratch a camera. (I have never in my life broken a mobile phone screen. Enough said).
And yet, each time I have a new Oly camera, it gets scratched in days. Sometimes I fear if I look at it it may get damaged.
And after enough cameras I’ve logically deducted that the paint job is rubbish. Had my Sony for nearly one and half years: NOT ONE SINGLE SCRATCH.
I also had a sensor issue very early on my E-M5 Mark II. The camera had to be sent out and the sensor was replaced but no explanation was given as to why exactly it did fail.
Finally on the Pen-F the battery door is made of the cheapest plastic on a super flimsy hinge and falls off quite easily. Not what I expect from a thousand pound camera.
Who is the genius who placed the tripod screw on the PEN-F?
Just a last one for the road.
Seriously though Olympus??? I challenge anyone to mount the Pen-F on a tripod with the M.Zuiko 12‑40mm f2.8 PRO or most other lenses and not damage them!
The screw is wayyyyyy too far at the front of the camera.
What that means is the lenses get damaged by the tripod plate (that bit at the top of your tripod).
That’s a perfect example of designers that are too detached and don’t actually use cameras.
I know some of you will be surprised by what may seem to them like a 180 degree change of mind on Olympus cameras, others who know me well will be less surprised.
I’ve owned the A7RII since July 2015 so I’ve had time to write this article and think about it.
Olympus has had it coming. They were not interested in hearing my opinion so here it is anyway.
I’ve been for about two years now biting my tongue, still enjoying Olympus cameras but in the knowledge that deep inside I knew very well my time using that system was coming to an end.
It’s not so much dislike as a realisation I need to move on and choose what’s best for me, for my photography and the work I deliver to clients.
If you still doubt what I am saying here, ask yourself this question:
Would a professional photographer move to a new system, lose money reselling camera and lenses which greatly lose value, buy a new camera and set of lenses that costs so much more etc… for no valid reason?
I own a business and trust me I have to make very careful decisions, I sadly have no money to throw out the window!
I now know Olympus, and Micro Four Thirds will just never cut it versus full frame. You only need to use both to understand why.
I actually would predict Olympus will possibly pull-out of this format (they’ll deny it of course) which will eventually disappear as full frame and medium format mirrorless cameras will be reduced in sizes close to MFT.
Size is or was MFT’s biggest selling point.
I’m more confident now delivering photos to clients and actually I compare the results and it’s an improvement.
The camera may not matter, it’s our vision that does, but I want a tool which at least doesn’t make it difficult for me and is a faithful in the reproduction of what I see.
Olympus, if you care, next time aside from filling your pockets with our money, listen to your users and people you list as ambassadors, they’ll no doubt help you get it right.
About the Author
London based Nicholas Goodden is a professional photographer specialising in urban and street photography. He is also a former Olympus Visionary and was voted one of the Top 20 UK Photographers on the Web in 2016. You can find out more about Nicholas and his work on his website, or reach out to him through Twitter. This article was also published here and used with permission.
We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.
Related Posts
A look at the current state of Sony E Mount and Micro Four Thirds adapters and which are worth getting
Yongnuo’s new Android-powered mirrorless camera is Micro Four Thirds with an EF mount
Yongnuo to release the YN450M – A Micro Four Thirds version of their Android-powered mirrorless camera
7Artisans launches fast and affordable lenses for micro four-thirds and mirrorless cameras
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
74 responses to “How I lost faith in micro four thirds and switched to Sony mirrorless”
I have the omd-10 and I feel the same.in low light its very bad. :(
Agreed. Just to much noise above ISO 800. :/
That was heard at the 4/3 era…. Since then the noise performance has gone up by 5-6 stops…. And yet we hear the same thing “Too much noise over 400/800”.
And yet with film cameras people are far more talented and capable to get the shots in any situations almost with ISO 100 and ISO 200 film, and when the fastest was ISO 800 that costed arm and leg!
Since getting my a6500, my E-P5 has been collecting dust on the shelf. :/
….aaaaand that’s what I was afraid of. I have that camera as well. Is it that good? The E-P5 has horrible AF for C-AF.
So, tell me where you get your Glass for your Sony…
I shoot full size sony SLT body and I shoot Tamron exclusively but there is plenty out for the E mount now if you don’t mind manual focus which with a Sony with focus peaking is really easy rokinon has a ton of high quality lenses their 85mm F1.4 lab tested basically rivals the Zeiss 85mm but only costs $300
While in japan i picked up some very cheap a mount lenses. Used with the adapter and focus peaking i dare say its faster than AF and gives amazing results. You do not NEED to spend alot on lenses.
Pretty much everywhere. You can AF any lens on Sony, except some specialized ones like projector and X-ray lenses (which didn’t come from a camera, anyway).
I’m looking at the available glass for the A7rii and the lenses are like at least 1,000$ each.
FE 16-35mm f/4 : 1350$, Sony FE 85mm 1.4 = 1800$…and I’m not even talking about zeiss yet.
OK, I will add my opinion. I’m a pro of many years who uses full frame Nikons for my work. I also have a Panasonic GX8 which I use for travel etc. The Nikons are obviously better at high ISO – full frames just are. With dynamic range, the Panasonic is actually very good, and close enough to my Nikons for me to be happy with. The whole M43 kit is so small compared to full frame – bodies, and lenses. I really like that. I am considering using my GX8 on some jobs, as the quality is good enough, even at 2000iso. Would I consider a Sony? Sure, but I want a tilting rear screen before I drop any money on it. And then the lenses are still big, kinda defeating the object.
The link to Nicholas’ Facebook page in the About doesn’t work. FYI
Might have been a good alternative 10 years ago. Now, not so much.
Never got the whole “lighter and more compact”. Bigger never bothered me. Then again I am a big guy with big hands so I might be biased.
it actually bothers me when travelling – not a fan of discussions with the airport staff because of overweighr handluggage ? not to mention carrying it all day. however your right – when shooting “at home” I don’t care^^
It really depends on the use and the person. For studio work I doubt there are many who really mind the size of a FF DSLR. However, for any kind of traveling where you have to carry your gear smaller gets progressively better. I truly like how versatile set of MFT lenses can be carried in quite a small bag: My camera bag is small and light enough that I don’t mind carrying my whole set of lenses with me, but the lens setup is versatile enough that I still tend to, for example, leave portrait and macro lenses home when I know I have no use for them on a longer trip.
Pixel peepers and equivalents don’t care as camera can comfortably sit in the shelf so it doesn’t get scratches, and they only need to handle the camera when a test shots are required to be taken to show their theories applies in hypothetical situations.
?? GH4 ? .. Lensregain/Speedbooster?? -> GH5 !! ?? kills them all :D
I am considering changing from my Canon 5DMk2 and was eyeing up mirrorless solutions as an alternative.
The problem I have found is that the Olympus sensors aren’t as good in low light and the same with AF (haven’t tried the EM1 Mk2) and the EVF is hard to get used to.
I started looking at the Sony, it it costs a lot more than the Nikons and is almost as big and heavy when you add lenses. Also the native lenses are quite expensive and limited.
I don’t like the new 5D4 and 5Ds as neither beat the D810 which is 15-30% cheaper.
Ultimately there are pros and cons for every camera system, but I am finally narrowing it down. I just need to wait to see what the D820 will be like as the D810 is probably due for a refresh soon.
Agree about low light performance…but af is way superior my friend… Night macro… Af spot-on and instant..my friend with 7dii struggled. Night birding.. Again focus spot-on with torch light..no issues..friend with 7dii and d7200 using mf..
Fujifilm X-T2 :)
Vote!
Try the AF on the EM1 mk2 before you move onward…you might be surprised. The EVF, in my opinion is significantly better than the original. The one commentary here that does make sense is the low light issue with m4/3 however, I’ve shot sunsets, sunrises, star trails, night cityscapes…m4/3 works great. However if you’re dealing with action in low light, the your best bet is full frame. For me, the olympus has really hit it on every thing that matters to me.
I had a few minutes with an EM1 Mk2 yesterday but the John Lewis (UK dept store) had fitted the most basic 14-42mm lens and the security device made it hard to use. Many other cameras didn’t even have a lens fitted. The Pen F was lovely though!
Oh well, hopefully I can find a better shop to better assess the camera!
Lol buying a Olympus and whining about 4k, author doesn’t seem to be too bright. He could have got a few options in panny with 4k with native af. Adapted canon Nikon lenses on Sony and crappy af is not something to shout about. With the wealth of fully compatible af lenses in m43, both from Oly and paint. Fellow must be on crack or something. I know a few pros and they generally have multiple systems and know what to use where.
Agree with the high iso part but if you are a professional shouldn’t you take effort to inform yourself of the Pros and cons before going into a system? Or wait is this a fake post?
Another sneaking suspicion… This so called Oly visionary got sidelined probably, for not performing and is whining out his buthurt…
I owned the Panasonic LUMIX G7 for a year and a half. I just recently switched to Fujifilm.
For me, the greatest benefit of M43s was the variety of lenses. Since Panasonic and Olympus created the standard together, you can stick a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body or an Olympus lens onto a Panasonic body. And since Black Magic and DJI are part of the M43 alliance, you can use M43 lenses on a Black Magic 4K camera or on DJI’s Zenmuse X5 and fly it with your Inspire.
The reason why I switched to Fujifilm was for two reasons. #1 is low light performance. Even though it’s APS-C, a lot of Fujifilm users have claimed that the low light performance of X System cameras is on par with even that of full-frame Canon or Nikon cameras. M43 sensors are smaller than APS-C. That was the one thing that kept killing me over and over the past year with M43. The low light performance was the worse I’ve ever experienced.
Reason #2. Fujifilm just entered the 4K race. Now we have Sony, Fujifilm, and Panasonic as affordable choices for 4K mirrorless cameras. They all have their own flat profiles for post production color grading: Sony’s S-Log, Fujifilm’s F-Log, and Panasonic’s V-Log. I originally went with Panasonic because it was cheaper than Sony. But now that Fuji has entered the game, I can get better low light performance at around the same price as Panasonic.
I changed from Olympus MFT, two years ago, and bought Nikon full frame. Never regretted it. I live the idea of MFT but the reality disappoints in a number of ways. Lenses are ridiculously expensive too.
Which lenses are those you speak of? And what are you comparing them to?
I’m a Sony shooter, and I have a few nits to pick with this article.
1. You are comparing a large sensor with a much smaller sensor. You should expect the large sensor to outperform the smaller sensor.
2. 4k has been available for years in Panasonic m4/3s cameras. Olympus is not the only m4/3 manufacturer on the planet.
3. Do not knock E-M1 II until you’ve tried it. Based on the reviews I’ve seen, it is not the best. But, it is also better than some other cameras out there.
4. The native m4/3s lens selection is larger than the native Sony selection, and generally cost less. And, you can adapt Canon and Nikon lenses to m4/3 bodies. Admittedly, the A7rII, a6300, and a6500 will work great with a Metabones adapter and Canon lenses. But, you are also spending over $400 just for the adapter.
Every professional I know who uses m4/3 cameras also has at least one full frame camera as backup for the times they need that capability. Most professionals realize you need to use the right tool for the right job.
All you need for backup to m43 on wide end is A7(etc) +21/2.8 zeiss
Yes you can adapt all sorts of glasses to M4/3. I have an old 50mm lens and an adapter, and it becomes a 100mm equivalent lens. Which may sound cool but I think I would prefer to use it on a 35mm sensor and use the whole image area.
Why not a medium format then? Has surpassed the Sony in the mentioned advantages (image quality), but also in the mentioned (and left out) disadvantages (price, size).
Brett Swain
wow… comparing two systems, from which, one is, like 3x more expensive. Nice. Just plain stupid article.
I went the other way Canon-Sony-Panasonic MFT, so agree Sony at 6400 is good (A7) and 1600 is about the limit for MFT, but AF is appalling on Sony and bearly works on 3rd party glass, which you will need because of the expense and slow speed of over rated Zeiss glass. When it comes to sensor size, its a trade off, bigger is better and bigger. If I went back to FF, I wouldn’t go back to Sony, I’d go to Canon, there would still be compromises. I tire of low light performance bemoaners, either find light or create it. I am not limited by price, but I don’t want to pay more for what I need, and I don’t like weight, though I am not a pro.
I Have Pen F, M1 Mkii and Nikon D500. Author is correct re placement of tripod thread on Pen F and ISO performance is not as good as a full frame. However the IQ is fabulous and matches my APS-C D500 with ease, noise handling up to iso 800 is possibly better on the M1 Mkii. Beyond that D500 noise stays constant through a wider range of ISO. Heres the big shock, my M1 Mkii actually matches my D500 with continual focus on a moving target, that is staggering. Posters here are correct in observing no one tool is perfect for all. I think the Sony is fab, though many complain of overheating sensors when recording 4k, others whine like banshee’s about the customer service from Sony (such as Matt Granger). I love photography, cameras and talking photography with other photographers but I do fid this article a little sour grape and unprofessional as I assume he kept quiet about all these misgivings when he had a relationship with Olympus. Maybe Olympus just didn’t value his opinion because I’ve always found them to be sincerely interested in the views of users. I think this is fall out.
We are living in an amazing age for photography, the kit available to us from many brands is just amazing. Look what Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Fuji and others have produced in recent years, its just amazing. Enjoy em, whining is not conducive to creativity…at least I don’t think it is!
Well said…I won’t knock sony in any way, other than to say it didn’t fit well for my ultimate needs. If you do a lot of street work, the 7rii would fit well. But the gist and tone of this article does sound sour…and I don’t feel some of his points are very valid…but he mentioned several times that Oly never listed to his opinion, and that certainly can could get someone in a twist. Really the best thing is just to move on and be happy. Unfortunately for some people, they might read this and somehow thing it’s valid for them without ever trying m4/3. What a shame. I for one am glad I gave it a go…I’m not longer looking for the best system for me.
Are you shooting JPG? Because unless you’re not using all the data in the RAWs, or not shooting near ISO 1600 and above, there’s not a chance M4/3 will match any decent APS-C camera (D500, D7200, A6300, A6500, X-Pro2, X-T2). Canon APS-C? Yes, of course. They’re years behind. But not a chance vs a Toshiba/Sony sensor camera. There are enough sample RAWs out there to confirm this.
Hello BlueBomberTurbo, Yes I shoot RAW. And to my eye up to ISO 800 I believe the M1 Mkii has the edge and I put this down to the secret sauce processing (RAW files are still a collection of processed signal). But beyond ISO 800 then the sensor size starts to tell where the processing hits a limit of handling noise. Files are still good but as I said the D500 has a much wider range before I notice a drop in quality. I think you’ll find (I’m not certain) That the M1 Mkii and the D500 are both Sony sensors. But the signal processing will be very different. The M1 Mkii is astonishing at continuous focus shooting and I was truly amazed that it matched my D500. I will add my efforts testing my M1 Mkii were in excellent bright conditions. I know my D500 is absolutely incredible at tracking and nailing focus in any light and ISO and will do so no matter which of the many tracking options are applied. The M1 Mkii can match it in good bright light (I haven’t tested in poor light but expect the D500 to be a lot better) but the M1 Mkii has to be setup correctly for the task and while there are many options I have found just one combination of settings to be staggeringly good and the others just so so. I will add that viewing the images on my colour balanced MacBook Retina display the IQ and not just the noise handling is a nip better on the M1 Mkii (I can’t believe I’m saying that myself); caveat up to ISO 800 and to my eye.
You have said “theres not a chance” of the m4/3 matching any decent APS-C but I’ll say
again “to my eye” it does and detail matters to me. I have a full colour balanced work
flow, shoot raw and print using the highest Dmax inks available at 5760dpi and my eye says it is matched. No bias I own and love both cameras and only use pro glass on both cameras. Truth is M4/3 and APS-C are not significantly different in size. They are both diddy little sensors. Jump to medium format and get the Phase One out then yeah it blows away even full frame. How an image is viewed is a big factor of course, distance viewed, sharpening for the medium viewed on is a huge factor. Here is a shot of my D500, PENF and M1 Mkii just in case you doubt the authenticity of my comments which I hope to be read as simply my balanced view of two cameras I absolutely adore. But its just my view, not offered as sweeping fact, just my reality and experience. My main message in my original post was that we are living in beautiful times to enjoy this wonderful craft. No idea why the image got displayed upside down! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8b21cb41d67b796bafe3f5987f16fb50f6b7f3a049a2e71997743b145d05b138.jpg
Excellent analysis and comparison I haven’t sold my DSLR Olympus bodies and lens yet but they just gather dist at home. I mived to full frame Nikon 2 years ago. Olympus is a very poorly managed company.
Let me translate this article for you. The author got offered more to shoot with Sony so he switched. As for the comments about lenses – this is where I snorted my Pepsi through my nose. Sony’s native lens selection is (being kind) sub-par and the lens quality in 90% of the cases inferior. Yes you can mount lots of third party lenses to a Sony with an adapter just like you can to the Olympus with an adapter. All I need to see from someone writing about Sony is that they love Sony glass and I know their opinion is of no value.
This is pretty stupid IMO. At least four of these complaints are specific to Olympus and the specific cameras you’re using.
1. 4K – Panasonic was the first to do this actually.
2. Autofocus – Panasonic DFD is better than every camera prior to the E-M1 II.
Panasonic’s AF is much better in low light, probably the best around
actually.
3. Build quality – Specific to the Olympus bodies you tried.
4. Tripod screw? Ridiculous. How does this generalize to MFT?
And then there’s this:
5. Adapted lenses – There are also an endless supply of adapted lenses you can use on MFT.
It seems to me that before he generalizes to all of MFT, you at least
tries one Panasonic body. Is that not the rational thing to do?
It’s hard to take this seriously if you refuse to try at least one Panasonic body before upending your whole system and selling off all of your lenses. Quite a few of these complaints would have been fixed IMO.
The sensor-specific complaints are universal in the system though.
The Sony does have better high ISO, so, if you need that, then a switch
might be warranted. But it’s completely inappropriate to generalize to a
whole system based on only one of the brands.
As an m43 user the author makes a valid argument, albeit with some exaggerated frustration perhaps stemming from his ties to Olympus. Unlike most I didn’t get into m43 for the size and weight benefits. I got into it because of lens compatibility and affordability and because of the Olympus’s ibis which absolutely shreds Sony and everyone else. Throw in the articulating touch screen and the speed and AF capabilities of the em1 mark ii and you have an incredibly capable camera, m43, apsc, full frame or otherwise. It’s ibis for video gives the illusion that I’m using a gimbal. It’s that good. But to his point, last night I did some astrophotography and I tried everything to get the em1 ii to match the performance of my XT2 and I couldn’t. And I was using Pro lenses on the Oly and the kit lens with the Fuji. That tells you a little about low light and ISO North of 800.
Obviously in astrophotography the m4/3 sensor are going to suffer. But there are very good lenses in the system that provide a good result even wide open. I do not have the phenomenal Panasonic 12mm f1.4 (I would like to), but I do have the Voigtlander 10,5mm f0.95, and although wide open suffers a lot from coma, at f1.4 things get really nice. Here I let you some examples what I get with the old EM1 and the Voigtlander:
https://flic.kr/p/Ch9BFZ
This shot was taken at ISO 200 in Tromso, on December 2016. I went there with som friends who were shooting with a couple of Nikon D750, and a 5d mk3, all of them needed to rise thi ISO way up, and also needed more time of exposure. So all in all, the IQ was matched between all the cameras.
And here I let you another shot, this time a Milky Way. ISO 800 in a very polluted sky…
https://flic.kr/p/JJKbk1
Finally a Milky wiht high ISO. ISO 5000, 5 seconds exposure. Probably f1.4 with the Voigt 10,5mm.
https://flic.kr/p/y4noMH
My guess is that he got a better deal to become a Sony Visionary or
Ambassador and part of the deal was to publicly break his ties with
his prior company, in this case, Olympus.
That’s the only way this makes any sense. There had to be some kind
of falling out with Olympus for him to be airing his grievances publicly
like this. A normal person, if they find a system better suited to
them, would just quietly switch systems. They wouldn’t go with the
histrionics this guy is doing. This is especially true if you had some
relationship with the company in the past. If this were an amicable
partnership, there’s no way he would be behaving like this.
I think it’s far more likely he’s looking to got a better deal with Sony than that he actually finds the system better suited to him.
Pretty sad actually. Sort of reminds me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlOZYJ3l9SA
It’s all about the money and nothing to do with the actual product.
Have you seen GH5 4K video sample? Are you really a professional photographer or is it just a bait title?
He is comparing apples to elephants. I just bought the O-MD E-M1 and love it. I sold all Nikon equipment and after a lot of reading decided on the Olympus system. I have printer that prints 13″x19″ and the prints don’t look any different than the ones from my Nikon cameras. You cannot compare micro four thirds to full frame. It is not a fair comparison.
“I have printer that prints 13″x19″ and the prints don’t look any different than the ones from my Nikon cameras. You cannot compare micro four thirds to full frame. It is not a fair comparison.”
But you just did ;)
Seriously, you can compare a m4/3 cameras results to results from any FF camera.
But you can’t do that via pixel peeping or unrealistic high ISO values like 102400 etc.
What you need to do is to get cameras with identical values (not equal) like 1/1000, f/2.8 and ISO 3200 and shoot sports with lenses that gives same field of view (ie. 150mm vs 300mm). Then process the files as you would anyways as best you can.
And here comes the crucial moment:
Put the photos in the actual context how they are being viewed? For Online the photo is about 800-1200 wide by size at max as it goes to web page or so. On news paper it is less than A5 printed on cheap recycled paper with mushy cheap ink!
Do a A5 A4, A3 and A2 size prints and view them from corresponding distances.
And what you find out? There is no difference in image quality at A6-A2 sizes that would be spotted like pixel peepers think it is. Lower the ISO value from 3200 to 200-400 and you can go on A1-A0 print sizes very easily.
And that requires you have correct workflow for post process and skilled to do it right, you know the printing process and you can maximize the print material quality to the digital file.
We do hundreds of billboards of full human size in very beautiful quality from just 12-16Mpix cameras that are from m4/3 cameras and even when the scene is taken side by side with 36Mpix FF cameras, you don’t see the difference unless you go to pixel peep to few millimeter size details, focusing only a .0x% area and rejecting all 99.9x% in the photograph!
Larger the print, further you look at it. And the space rules what size print you are going to put there so it is pleasure to look.
One of the most expensive places where you can put your photograph is airport tax free shops. And there you can have a big photos that are really required to look excellent. And how many has really looked those prints close by? Meaning gone to check them from a 10-20cm distance and noticed the print quality? We are talking from a few megapixel files there! Far less than m4/3 cameras produce!
By the way, for those who can’t afford the authors £120 prints of London, I’ve got thousands, I’ll knock them out for £50 (signed), many shot on 1/2.3 :-)
Mmm…..
Lots of relevant and reasonable observations but reading between the lines this reads like an inevitable divorce after a marriage entered into with unreasonable expectations.
No system is perfect – how each of us adapts to the compromises inherent in our equipment and system choices is an interesting story. So thank you for sharing.
For me, I am happy to stick with your ‘divorcee’ – it’s what got me enjoying my photography again!
The bitterness runs deep in this one. Pathetic article dressed up as an informative comparison, but really just an excuse to bitch at Olympus for dropping him as a ‘visionary’.
“THE ENDLESS CHOICE OF COMPATIBLE LENSES FOR THE SONY SYSTEM”
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Yeah I thought I misread that, but seems the author actually believes this!
Technically, it’s true. You can meter and AF a lens from the late 1800s if you want.
AF circa 1900, a little known historical fact.
Nah, more like AF circa 2010. ;)
https://youtu.be/nCIsBvLoHks
Facile argument. There’s a reason the photo shows bodies without lenses. Because the only thing small about the Sony mirrorless is the body. The lenses are massive. Yes, noise is a problem at times. But the trade off is, where you going to get the equivalent of the 40-150 2.8 in a Nikon or Canon lens? Nowhere. And you wouldn’t want to carry it or pay for it.
And the E M-1 Mark II isn’t coming. It’s here. And the AF blows Canon and Nikon out of the water. (I use it.) It’s limited mechanical 15 fps (raw) is faster than their full speed. Its 4K can be clean. it has a Mic Input, built-in WIFI. It makes Nikon and Canon look silly.
Sony’s good. The G lenses are outstanding. But this reads like someone who cares about certain issues and claims their choice is the only logical one to make.
I purchased A7ii when it was first released to replace my Nikon so I could reduce the size of my gear and loved the results with my 55 1.8 and 35 2.8 Sony lenses. I eagerly awaited the release of the 24-70 2.8. What I didn’t fully appreciate was physics. Damn,that thing is large. I have subsequently purchased a pen f with some primes and the 12-40 2.8, which is a fraction of the size of the Sony 24-70 2.8. Sure I sacrificed some DOF and lowlight performance, but I can strap on a f.95 lens and get a light gathering advantage without such razor thin DOF. Also, the Pen and 12-40 2.8 fits easily in my backpack with some small primes for travel, skiing, hiking etc. I still have my Sony but find that the vast majority of shots are with my Pen-F, limitations notwithstanding. It’s 90+% as good as my Sony FF and is more fun to use and a heck of a lot easier to lug around.
I have a Em1 mk1 and a Sony A7.
The IBIS of the Olympus crush any difference in most of the situations with the bigger sensor of the Sony, even the DoF can be sorted out with the fast m4/3 lenses (Pana 12mm f1.4; Zuiko 17mm f1.8; Zuiko 25mm f1.2; Pana 42,5 f1.2; Zuiko 75mm f1.8, not to mention the phenomenal Voigtlanders f0.95).
And for those who say High ISO is poor, of course allways a FF it is going to be around two stops better, which does not mean High ISO performance of m4/3 is bad.
ISO 6400, OMD EM1, lens Samyang 85mm f1.4, 1/100: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca4e3d9ee7985fc78ca24b0cf914ad7fd1333e7176c18b085f8b1166ca589694.jpg
Hey DIY-photography, why do you lend yourself for this garbage?
It is sad to see useless posts like this. Just pick a tool that is best for your and skip the ranting part. Others may have different needs and end up with different choice. Something like this article is not helpful in making any kind of decisions.
http://www.43rumors.com/dxo-tests-the-new-olympus-e-m1ii-it-has-the-best-mft-sensor-yet/
MFT sensor are on par with APS-C sony ones (and better than canon)
That’s not to shabby me think.
new A7II body is $1300. that’s so much cheaper than Olympus EM1.2
I’m in the process of selling my Olympus and lens, not because I want another system, because the rendering is too sterile and digital.
Your problem started with wrong expectations and inability to choose the right tool for the right job.
Focus on your photography instead of complaining about the tool, and making yourself a tool for “format wars” and “brand wars” unless they are paying you very well for writing articles.
Daidō Moriyama used an APSC point and shoot camera, and his work is featured in exhibitions all over the world, he has never complained he had less image quality or smaller sensor than full-frame/medium formats.
It is those who’s work is not strong that tend to complain about the tool. If your work is not strong, perhaps you should re-invest the time you use on writing stuff to your photography instead.
Use the right tool for the right job, MFT is an excellent camera for travel, street, and digital publishing for social media, it’s never meant to replace a pro camera in the studio or serious pro work, the price range is totally different, the market and target consumer is totally different.
Sony makes some very good cameras and they don’t see MFT as a competitor, traditional full frame DSLRs from canon, nikon are the market they are going after.
Full frame mirrorless will never beat the size advantage of MFT, they can make the body very small but the lenses will always be bigger because it is proportional to the sensor size.
I have a medium format Fujifilm, sure the image quality is excellent, but I don’t bring it for travels, it’s just stupid.
I have a MFT panasonic, I would not use it to shoot a wedding.
Now, I can tell you a Cayman 718 is faster than Honda Odyssey, but that’s stating the obvious. Cayman 718 does’t work when you need to carry your mother-in-law, wife, kids and dogs.
I am also frustrated with the M4/3 system. It is quite nice. But it is basically the same sensor across all the cameras. Which is really nice because you can get that top image quality for $300. But then you realize that you must essentially pay $500 more for 2 additional function buttons and one dial.
I can eventually get over that, but the problem now is that most people (I did anyway) got into this system in great part because of the image quality/size ratio. And this is not evolving at all, compared to competitors.
Again it is a nice system. Black Magic make it even more interesting. It just looks like it is mainly becoming a system for video and some particular types of photography.
I like it, it is what it is, it’s just that the marketing claims “it’s as good as DSLRs but without the weight” just are not true. DOF for example is one difference. It is just SOMETHING ELSE, let’s not lie.
So those who went M4/3 instead of the DSLR that they were thinking of buying, they were disappointed. True.
I shoot lowlight wedding reception situations at 6400 ISO all day with my OMD cameras. We need to stop zooming in 200% to complain about noise and view the overall composition of the image. 95% of people out there will not complain about noise if the image you give them is an awesome image. Capture One Pro handles noise from Olympus sensors so incredibly well. So with great software and a great M43 sensor, I am not afraid of a little noise. I am attaching a sample of an image taken at a reception and a couple others. The bride is a cosplayer so we had to do a fun ring shot in a dimly lit reception center before their exit. The shots below are ISO 3200 to 6400 and I love the grittiness the noise brings to the images. I think it only enhances the overall look. People care way way too much about perfectly “clean” images. I say the composition matters so much more because like I said, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2098904909ffa551deade93b93f7f6083b317732efc8a97dcb30fc292799c0a.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c627fccecd0c2602fd25a67c89fff38e065f6e7890c856f2a10afa3b6b7ed9ce.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0feaee2673aa8d71773a659a70954d25768790963a16eb73b48bd3baa1652be.jpg most of my clients don’t zoom in 200%.
Me 2
Left em5-2 and went Sony Full Frame A7r-2
Loved mft for so much but…
Same. Low light performance!!
maybe learn your gear better before trashing it.
Think Olympus are better off without you to be honest. Switching systems without a trial period to determine whether it’s a sensible move, lots of whining, trouble seeing the difference between a good product and a hyped product…
As a Sont user I know Sony don’t listen to customers and intentionally cripple cameras, just like everyone blames canon/Nikon/Olympus etc for doing
The author has only one valid point: full frame is better at high ISO or low light. Sure. I agree. Like a lot of pros shooting M4/3, that’s why I also have a full-frame system for that kind of work. Anything under ISO 800 and the difference between the two formats is minimal if close to nonexistent – and certainly my clients can’t tell the difference. If he can’t get those kind of results, then he’s definitely doing something wrong.
The problem with full-frame is the bulk and weight. If I’m shooting handheld work and carrying a camera system on my back all day, why would I want to carry 40 pounds of glass and metal when the same system in Micro Four Thirds is a third that weight?
The misplaced tripod socket issue is bogus too. It’s there because the diminutive camera design didn’t permit putting it anywhere else. I also have the PEN-F and I apply two solutions: My Gariz half case has its own tripod socket built into the stainless steel base, and I simply add a mini Arca tripod plate. It works fine for most purposes, but when I know I’ll be doing a lot of tripod work, I also have a tiny Really Right Stuff Arca-style L-bracket.
I don’t mean to bash Sony. They’re fine cameras. But the author goes on at great length about Olympus not offering 4K until recently. Does he know that Sony didn’t even offer lossless compressed to their lossy-only raw option until 2015? How’s that for late to the “pro” game?
On the one side You are complaining of the autofocus system (“THE AUTO-FOCUS JUST ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH”) and on the other side Your are candy-coating the lense offering by praising the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 which is a manual focus lense!
Sony salesman? In retrospect, a silly article with many invalid points.
I love many things about Sony but let’s keep it real, shall we? BTW, where’s the 8K touted in the article?
I am also frustrated with the M4/3 system. It is quite nice. But it is basically the same sensor across all the cameras. Which is really nice because you can get that top image quality for $300. But then you realize that you must essentially pay $500 more for 2 additional function buttons and one dial.
I can eventually get over that, but the problem now is that most people (I did anyway) got into this system in great part because of the image quality/size ratio. Sadly this is not evolving at all, compared to competitors.
Again it is a nice system. Black Magic make it even more interesting. It just looks like it is mainly becoming a system for video and some particular types of photography.
I like it, it is what it is, it’s just that the marketing claims “it’s as good as DSLRs but without the weight” just are not true. DOF for example is one difference. It is just SOMETHING ELSE, let’s not lie.
So those who went M4/3 instead of the DSLR that they were thinking of buying, they were disappointed. True.