Olympus vs Sony: is Micro 4/3 really smaller?

Which makes more sense: an Olympus OM-D body with a faster lens, or a Sony A7 body with a slower lens?

 

Have a look at this. Olympus E-M5II with 12-40/2.8 Pro vs Sony A7III with Zeiss 24-70/4:

 

Link: Compact Camera Meter

 

Not that much difference, is there? Okay, but have a look at the E-M5II with 35-100/2.8 vs the A7III with 70-200/4:

 

Link: Compact Camera Meter

 

Big difference! One more test. This time, we're comparing wide zooms. E-M5II with 7-14/2.8 vs A7III with 12-24/4:

 

Compact Camera Meter

 

Remember that sensor size is one part of the equation. Camera features also play a part in making decisions. I'm very much inclined to move over to Micro 4/3, but the decision is not necessarily a straightforward one. For sports, I'd probably go for Micro 4/3. But that is not my domain, and probably will never be. For macro, there is no question - Micro 4/3 for sure. But for other uses, the bigger sensor might make much more sense.

 

Oh, and one more thing. E-M5II with 12-40/2.8 vs A6000 with 16-70/4:

 

Link: Compact Camera Meter

The two cameras aren't really comparable: 16 Megapixels vs 24; high ISO capability of 25600 vs 204800; and about a 2.5 times difference in price!

 

You have to consider available lens and accessory range as well, and the application. Choosing on size alone is a poor criterion, unless portability is all you care about. But then there are smartphones for that.

For sports, I'd probably go for Micro 4/3. But that is not my domain, and probably will never be

I'd stick to FF for similar reasons. MFT's AF seems to make progress but isn't competitive, yet (according to reviews). While a Tamron 150-600 isn't the most evolved tele zoom ever, it could be had for cheap and should fill a 4K screen.

I've seen not great lenses fall apart on APS-C and believe heading for the box camera concept of bigger sensor behind inexpensive glass is the better idea than buying the best to feed a tinier one.

Since sports is neither our primary interest, nor involving lengthy hikes with the gear, why should bulk matter? Being not experienced yet, I am confident my comparably low frame rate of 6 FPS should keep me happy enough, for a while.

 

When the size of gear is the primary concern, I am leaning towards Leica M and the more compact lenses from film days. I guess MFT has an edge over that combo but it doesn't justify starting yet another system, to me.

As a former Leica M and R owner I can confidently say that I am enjoying my MFT kit quite as much, and prefer its greater capabilities and lower price. The latest MFT cameras have excellent AF. If all you take is birds then you might not agree, I suppose. But as a general shooter who also shoots basketball it is on a par with the Canon 5DIV, so quite good enough for me. I will never pay more than $3000 for a camera. My preference might change in the future, who knows, but that is where it is now.

why should bulk matter? Being not experienced yet, I am confident my comparably low frame rate of 6 FPS should keep me happy enough, for a while.

 

When the size of gear is the primary concern, I am leaning towards Leica M and the more compact lenses from film days. I guess MFT has an edge over that combo but it doesn't justify starting yet another system, to me.

Bulk always matters unless you're at home or in a studio. I think the Nikon F3 could shoot at about 6fps. Lots of great football & tennis photos were taken with that camera. So anything more is a bonus. ;-) The E-M1X can do up to 60fps RAW, and the A9 can do 20. That's insane! The Leica M system is an interesting contrast to both the Sony and the Olympus. Slightly larger body, but noticeably smaller (prime) lenses. Decisions, decisions!

Bulk always matters unless you're at home or in a studio.

Try telling that to medium- or large-format film devotees. Or serious landscape or architectural artists who wouldn't dream of using anything less than a full-frame DSLR or MILC. Not to mention the self-image obsessed fashion shooters who absolutely need to be seen with a 'blad or eye-wateringly expensive 'MF' digital. (Damn it! I told you not to mention them.)

 

'Horses for courses', and 'the right tool for the job' are still good epithets to follow.

 

That’s EXACTLY why I own a Leica M Full Frame and Micro Four-Thirds system combination and toggle back & forth between the two all the time.

 

It’s a fun duo.

Of course, even for Rodeo's list of "important people with important requirements" smaller size is still probably a plus, if they had a choice in the matter.

The Leica M system is an interesting contrast to both the Sony and the Olympus.

A Sony A7xxx and a Leica M9 have nearly the same footprint and profile, except the Sony is about 1/4" taller at the viewfinder dome. Both cameras weigh about 1.5 lbs (657g and 630g respectively). Leica lenses are easily adapted to a Sony body. Having done that, there is little incentive to do so in the future.

Well you can compare the Sony A7R III and Olympus OMD-EM-1X and the price are about the same and the M43 one is bigger.

Not when you add a battery grip to the Sony.

A Sony A7xxx and a Leica M9 have nearly the same footprint and profile, except the Sony is about 1/4" taller at the viewfinder dome. Both cameras weigh about 1.5 lbs (657g and 630g respectively). Leica lenses are easily adapted to a Sony body. Having done that, there is little incentive to do so in the future.

 

TOTALLY different shooting experience though, and those nice super wide Leica lenses like the 18mm f3.8 or 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar can't just be shot on a stock Sony body in terms of optical performance across the frame without adjusting the sensor setup on the Sony.

 

If you've got an Olympus E-M1 Mark II, Sony A series, Canon or Nikon mirrorless camera body, you're basically shooting the same way. The Leica is a completely different shooting experience. Not always perfect, mind you, but a completely different thought process. It's definitely no PHD (point here dummy) camera like those others can be configured to be.

We should have a whip-round and get Karim his much sought after m43 system,

That would be nice! :-)

 

Not to mention the self-image obsessed fashion shooters who absolutely need to be seen with a 'blad or eye-wateringly expensive 'MF' digital.

Now we have the Fuji GFX100, maybe even the MFD scene will change. I'm pretty sure it will, and I'm pretty sure that Fuji is selling cameras to people, pros and wealthy amateurs alike, who otherwise would have bought a D5, D850, 5D etc. It's also worth noting that a Hasselblad 500 is not really any bigger than it has to be. Neither is a Sinar.

TOTALLY different shooting experience though, and those nice super wide Leica lenses like the 18mm f3.8 or 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar can't just be shot on a stock Sony body in terms of optical performance across the frame without adjusting the sensor setup on the Sony.

The 18 and 21 were designed for use with film (and a bulky auxiliary finder). Digital M's have the same issues with short lenses as Sony, plus a decided purple shift. It's matter of degree, not kind. While Leica can't be bothered to design lenses strictly for digital, Sony and its partners have no such problem. The "magical" properties of Leica are mainly cited by those who (a) never owned one, or (b) seldom use anything more modern. You will not become Buddha by using a Leica.

Now we have the Fuji GFX100, maybe even the MFD scene will change.

What's this 'we'?

Do you have one?

I certainly don't have one, and I don't know of anyone else who has one.

Has anyone seen one being used 'in the wild'?

 

10 grand is an awful lot of money to put into a camera body, and for what? An extra 20% print size - if you're lucky.

 

And while I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio over Barnack's daft 3:2 choice, I'd rather see a camera with an affordable 27mm x 36mm sensor than a neither-one-thing-nor-the-other camera pretending to be medium format.

 

A 4:3 'full frame' camera able to use an existing range of lenses might possibly be a game changer, but the Fuji GFX100? Nah! Not until it's at most half the price, or ups its game to be properly medium format.

Edited June 19, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

 

10 grand is an awful lot of money to put into a camera body, and for what? An extra 20% print size - if you're lucky.

The last 10-20% costs the most. According to DPReview's standard test chart, the Fuji matches the Phase One IQ180, which is DPR's benchmark camera. It certainly performs better than the S1R in pixel shift mode. It far out-does the 5DSR or the D850. Even at higher ISO ratings.

Just to answer tread header, micro 4/3 sensor is smaller, when compared to full frame.

What's this 'we'?

Do you have one?

I certainly don't have one, and I don't know of anyone else who has one.

Has anyone seen one being used 'in the wild'?

 

10 grand is an awful lot of money to put into a camera body, and for what? An extra 20% print size - if you're lucky.

 

And while I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio over Barnack's daft 3:2 choice, I'd rather see a camera with an affordable 27mm x 36mm sensor than a neither-one-thing-nor-the-other camera pretending to be medium format.

 

A 4:3 'full frame' camera able to use an existing range of lenses might possibly be a game changer, but the Fuji GFX100? Nah! Not until it's at most half the price, or ups its game to be properly medium format.

 

I settle for the Nikon format of 24x32mm.

congratulations.

"We should have a whip-round and get Karim his much sought after m43 system, he might stop banging on about it (and actually use it "Ludmilla

 

I'll throw in my latest hard core flower photo, and a packet of walkers cheese and onions crisps.....big in the UK those crisps. Word on the street, Boris loves them, and as gesture of good will for international relations Boris is going to share a packet with Donald.

 

That's how you get a proper trade deal.

 

Another thought. How about a Sony A6000? Read the reviews.

 

As small as micro 2/3rd camera but with a large APC sensor. Super in low light, and auto focus,very close to the best of the A7 range of cameras.

 

Bang for buck?

 

Another thought. How about a Sony A6000? Read the reviews.

IMO, the A6400 is the best E mount camera that Sony makes at this point. So yes, an E mount camera is definitely a contender.

 

And I would not object to you sending me food from the UK.

Word on the street, Boris loves them, and as gesture of good will for international relations Boris is going to share a packet with Donald.

I wonder what the chances are of them both simultaneously choking on those nasty little slivers of potato?

 

But don't be mean Allen, send Karim a packet of decent 'hand-cooked' -sounds painful- Aldi's or Lidl's own-brand crisps. Not Walker's rubbishy things.

IMO, the A6400 is the best E mount camera that Sony makes at this point. So yes, an E mount camera is definitely a contender.

 

And I would not object to you sending me food from the UK.

 

Really? You mean the A7 or A9 isn't as good?

Really? You mean the A7 or A9 isn't as good?

E, as opposed to FE. :-)

I am in the middle of switching from DX/FX to m4/3.

As I am getting older, the weight of a DX/FX systems is getting harder on my legs and back.

So in order to keep mobile and shooting, I made the decision to switch to m4/3. Then I keep shooting, rather than leave the heavy DX/FX gear at home cuz it's too heavy to carry.

My m4/3 travel kit reduced the bulk and weight by about 45%. And that made a big difference in how less worn out I felt at the end of my vacation.

 

The only exception to the m4/3 switch is when I shoot FAST sports. My EM1-mk1 was not up to shooting fast sports, so I still use the D7200 for that. However, I understand that the EM1X may have closed that gap. But I really like to use the 70-200/4 lens, and that lens would be hard to give up.