Olympus vs Sony

<p>I've been backpacking for a few years and have a Sony A7. I've had it for nearly 2 years now, and had nothing but positives to say about it...until recently. It's starting to annoy me how expensive Sony lenses are, and how limited they are (compared to other brands). I know Sony keep promising more lenses, but they've been saying that for a while, and I'm still waiting. I've tried other lenses such as Nikon with it, as I previously had a Nikon D7100 so had some Nikon lenses, but to me personally, you just don't get the quality. And it defeated the point of me swapping to a Sony for lighter gear! Another thing annoying me is the speed of auto focus, and having no image stabilization. <br /><br />Anyways, I've been home for a month or two, and was seriously debating to trade in my camera and get a new one. At first I looked at getting a new Fujifilm, as it's reportedly one of the best on the market at the minute. After borrowing a friends, I hated it, and personally don't see the quality. I've had a look into the Olympus range, and their cameras always caught my eye with the retro look. <br /><br />I've been looking at the Olympus EM10 Mark ii, has anyone got any experience with this camera? I'm aware it's less megapixels, I'd be losing full frame etc, but the speed of auto focus on the Olympus, image stabilization, and the added bonus of having flash built into the camera, I'm seriously considering the swap. I had a look at the Olympus EM5 Mark ii, but reading other forums, and reviews, I think I'm right in saying I'd save money with the EM10, and basically get the same camera? I don't do much video, so the pros of the EM5, I won't benefit I don't think. <br /><br />Any advice greatly appreciated, thanks.</p>

<p>BTW, I'm doing landscape/street stuff. Long exposures etc. Another bonus to the Olympus, its quieter shutter.</p>

<p>I have the EM10. It is a great camera, I'm sure the EM10-II is as well. Most of my photography is while hiking or on vacation, so I need small. I've been using m4/3s since the EP-2 and I've never looked back. The range of lenses is very good and within the range there are budget options that I find to be very good. <br /><br />Before the Oly, I used Pentax APS-C. From that transition, with the latest models, I see no difference in picture quality, but I save about 5 pounds that I no longer have to lug around. You don't save very much space/weight in the bodies, but you save a large amount in the lenses. I also adapt Konica Hexanon lenses to my Oly on occasion.<br /><br />I will probably never go full frame, as I see no benefit to it for my photography. Others will be just the opposite. Take a look on flickr and other sights and get an idea of what your photos can look like, if they suit your needs. You should also try to get your hands on an EM10 to see if the ergonomics works for you, they are small and those with large hands have some difficulties. Personally for me, it is perfect, and far superior to the A7 which quite frankly I hated. <br /><br />On another note, if you get an EM10, do you like shooting zooms or primes, or a mix? The m4/3s line is stronger on primes than on zooms, though there is still a decent selection.<br /><br />flickr.com/photos/mhowardphoto</p>

<p>I understand the point about Sony being expensive... and I don't think we can do anything here.<br /> But - to better understand your question - I'd like to have more details about the limited number of lenses. It was indeed true up to some time ago, but I think the situation has changed - at least for the FF. Furthermore there are many third party manufacturers. What are, in detail, the lenses that you are missing?<br>

BTW, I'm a Nikon converted to Sony too. At the moment I have lenses ranging from 8mm to 600mm and pretty pleased (plus some adapted lenses).</p>

<p>If you have Sony lenses, it might make sense to upgrade your body to an A7ii or A7Rii. In either case, you will gain image stabilization and improved AF speed. Both have an electronic first shutter, which eliminates vibrations which might affect the image. The A7Rii has a completely silent shutter option, which I would not recommend for landscapes or action.</p>

<p>There are over 20 lenses specifically for the Sony. I'm surprised you can't find a combination which suits you. There are no bargains in quality, especially if you want something sharp at the pixel level. With an APS-C or M43 camera, the pixels are even smaller, and wide angle lenses of any quality tend to be larger and more complex.</p>

<p>I don't think the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.</p>

<p>Glass is the most important element of buying into an ecosytem. Fuji has been making some the best lenses for stills and cine for decades now and with out a doubt has the best available for the mirrorless market. The upcoming XT-2, body due out in a couple weeks, will have AF on par with mid-range dslrs. Personally, I'd re-think your Fuji conclusion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, I'm doing landscape/street stuff. Long exposures etc. Another bonus to the Olympus, its quieter shutter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fuji and Sony are silent.</p>

<p>I should have written, "I don't think the <strong>glass</strong> is always greener on the other side of the fence."</p>

<p>Between Sony and Zeiss, there are some world class lenses in the Sony lineup. While Nikon and Canon still have some relative bargains among prime lenses, in the $500 category, most of their premium lenses are $1K and up. You would look long and hard to find better lenses for landscapes and nature than the Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and Sony 90/2.8 Macro. The Sony 28/2, 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 are outstanding too, if you need/want AF.</p>

<p> "Fuji has been making some the best lenses" Eric</p>

<p>Indeed. I've used Sony lenses and Zeiss and methinks they are in a lower division compared with Fuji.</p>

<p>A photo from the cheapest Fuji lens and camera.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Heavily cropped.</p>

<p>Fuji x-al 50-230m... plastic all the way. </p><div></div>

<p>The reality is most modem cameras are very capable of producing superb images regardless of format.</p>

<p>If the pixel count is your thing...be happy and count.</p>

<p><strong>Laura</strong> - may I ask what it was about the Fuji you hated? Was it ergonomics or results, or both? Could you please elaborate? I'm not being critical, just curious - I don't have a Fuji digital camera, but I've heard good things about them.</p>

<p>Street photography is not particularly demanding, in a technical sense anyway. Getting out of Dodge is another matter.</p>

<p>For the heavily cropped image, did you add the 15 degree tilt, or leave it undisturbed?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Indeed. I've used Sony lenses and Zeiss and methinks they are in a lower division compared with Fuji.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I swear my $450 16-55 Fuji kit lens is sharper than my $2200 24-70 2.8 nikor. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I swear my $450 16-55 Fuji kit lens is sharper than my $2200 24-70 2.8 nikor.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p>I think that is the conclusion of anyone who has had the opportunity to compare Nikon lenses with native lenses on the same body. I'm not familiar with that particular lens, but Fuji has an excellent reputation for optics. One could forgive the awkward focusing of an AF lens relegated to MF if there were any advantage to using legacy glass on an high resolution mirrorless camera. Sadly, there is none.</p>

<p>For that matter, I haven't found any Leica lens I like better on a Sony A7Rii than native lenses I've chosen to purchase.</p>

<p>I'm comparing Nikon glass on Nikon bodies and Fuji lenses on the XT-1. I shoot between 700 and 900 hundred images a day at work with a Nikon D810/D4s coupled to a 24-70 on one shoulder, and a Fuji XT-1 with 16-55 kit lens on the other shoulder. Later when I am home and in Lr, something seems to stand out with the raf files and I'm really pleased with that 16-55 kit lens. I can't wait for the XT-2 and the improved AF abilities so I can put done that heavy dslr. </p>

<p>I second the OP taking another look at Fuji.</p>

<p>You would have to consider the differences between bodies, sensors and image processing, in addition to the lenses. Fuji has a different color filter on the sensor, X-Trans, which should produce less color aliasing, hence sharper images. Furthermore I see a lot of difference between they way Nikon, Sony and Leica render colors. I don't have a Fuji for comparison, but I can use Nikon and Leica lenses on the Sony. I presume you can do that with a Fuji too, although with a cropping factor. If you have a Nikon 16-35 or 12-24, the field of view would be comparable to that of the 16-55.</p>

<p>I do not have the latest, greatest Nikon lenses. I bought my 28-70/2.8 in 2001 and have use it on a succession of film and digital Nikons. The only Nikon lens in my collection with acceptable sharpness on the Sony is a venerable 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. The long back focus distance of SLR lenses negates the effect of the thick Sony cover glass. If there are problems, they are inherent in the lens.</p>

<p>Just for curiosity, I think that we slightly shifted the topic. In the end, if you ask me, all camera systems are fine enough and they don't limit the photographer. Unless one has very specific needs (very very large prints, birds in flight, etc...) we have enough of megapixels and AF. Then one might have different preferences in functions of the ergonomics, size, weight, etc...<br>

But the original question was about the lack of lenses in the Sony system. I'd like to understand which lenses are actually missing from the Sony system at the moment, of course also considering all the third party manufacturers.</p>

Coming from a street shooter/backpacker pov. The

oly/panny has one major advantage: small size,

especially the lens

es. The Sony and Fuji are most likely better in most area

regarding the bigger sensor. However, when you add it

all up. The smaller M43 system is to Sony/Fuj, as the Sony/fujii to dslrs iin size mo.. The epl5/7 is barely bigger than my rx100/lx7, with small primes. The em5/10 has live pictures (good for time lapse landscapes). But they are bigger due to the EVF, of course.

<p>I switched from Nikon to Oly EM-5 (not the mk II) a couple years ago. I'm delighted. You don't appreciate the advantage of the very small size of everything until you have it all in front of you. The 45mm f1.8 Oly takes great photos and is just amazingly small, the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 just about LIVES on my camera, it adapts well to other glass (although, imho, only for controlled careful manual focus work.<br /><br />My tiny bag has a EM-5, 14-42 zoom, 40-150 (used very seldom), the 9mm fisheye lens cap (not a great lens, but seriously fun), the 45mm and 20mm primes, the on-camera flash and a nicer Olympus flash...<br /><br />...all in the space that used to house a D90, kit lens, flash, and one extra prime.<br /><br />For me, the limitations of the smaller sensor are far outweighted by the fact that now... my camera is always with me again.</p>

<p>I switched from Fuji (XT1, XPro1) to Sony (A7R) but in your case Laura I would say go with Fuji since you want high quality at low cost and weight (relatively speaking). The issue with any FF camera is that the lenses have to cover FF and are not likely to be significantly smaller than DSLR versions. For your landscape/street work I would suggest the 10-24 zoom, the new 23/f2 and the 55-200 zoom. If you want all primes, the 14/f2.8, 23/f2, 35/f2, 56/f1.2 and/or 90mm.</p>

<p>But, but, but she does not like Fuji, as she clearly stated. Not sure why, but there is it. Also there's not a lot a point of bringing up premium Sony lenses, because they are in general very large and heavy and as she would probably say it, defeats the point of swapping to a Sony for lighter gear.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Also there's not a lot a point of bringing up premium Sony lenses, because they are in general very large and heavy and as she would probably say it, defeats the point of swapping to a Sony for lighter gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "premium Sony" lens to which you refer are the exceptions, not the rule. They exist because Sony is in full-front assault on the primacy of Canon and Nikon. Fuji and Olympus are out of the fray, or they would have "premium" lenses of comparable stature.</p>

<p>Mirrorless cameras compete with rangefinder cameras, particularly Leica, in the realm of size and quality. Among Leica lenses, the smallest lenses are 35 mm. Shorter or longer, the size goes up exponentially, limited mainly by the ability to focus lenses longer than 90 mm with modern, 0.68x viewfinders. Leica lenses which properly address issues with digital sensors tend to be larger than in the past. Witness the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM lens, which is 3 or 4 times the size of a Summicron 35/2.</p>

<p>The Summicron 90/2 is a big, heavy lens, comparable to the Sony 90/2.8 Macro. For that reason it was not popular amongst dedicated Leica users. The Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 is much smaller and lighter than either of these lenses, and it is AF to boot.</p>

<p>The point is, if you stick with medium speed (i.e., f/2) prime lenses, a mirrorless system, including Sony, will be about half the weight of a comparable Nikon/Canon DSLR system. In the real world, we need zoom lenses, which change the equation, but not entirely. If f/4 zoom lenses are acceptable, a comparable mirrorless system will weigh about 30% less than a DSLR system, and fit the next size smaller bag. F/2.8 zoom lenses and lenses longer than 90 mm will be about the same size and weight for either system.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>"If f/4 zoom lenses are acceptable, a comparable mirrorless system will weigh about 30% less than a DSLR system"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It can be true and it can be false. It depends on the details. When I switched I really achieved a substantial weight saving. But some alternate choices - e.g. with MFT - would not deliver any substantial saving (I still have the maths to prove the point). When I added a 150-600mm, that lens of course doesn't save weight with respect to its previous counterpart - or it saves just a bit, it depends on what we want to measure. Point is that long teles are still heavy with APS-C and FF, while MFT is lighter, but MFT has very heavy, good wide angle lenses; heavier than APS-C and FF systems. <br /> <br /> That's why I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to stay generic (also because just a few people will buy an "average system") and one must enumerate the lenses she would like to have. Until the OP doesn't provide some more details, this thread is going to die with generic sentences and praises of everybody's own system.</p>

Fuji definitely makes the worst lens caps.