Micro 4/3 vs Sony FE: which makes more sense, cost aside?

[Karim Ghantous]

I'm a very happy Olympus user. I have three pro bodies and all the lenses I need to be able to do my job properly (although I do want a few more...). Anyway, I got to thinking if the Sony FE system makes more sense than the Olympus. So, I will present an argument in a couple of visual comparisons, then go through a brief argument as to why I think the Sony system might be the better one, all other things being equal.

Stardard zooms on both cameras:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.1042,826.1085,ha,t

Telephoto zooms on both cameras (the Sony lens telescopes, the Olympus lens has internal zooming):

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.444,826.581,ha,t

That, to me, is actually a fair comparison. I am concentrating on size, so the Sony lenses will be 'slower'. And that's how I'd shoot them, too. I like the DOF that the Olympus lenses give at f/2.8, and so it follows that I would prefer the Sony lenses to be f/4 or f/5.6. But... if that is the case, what's the difference? I propose that there is a difference, on one condition: you choose a high resolution Sony body.

If you're using an A7R IV, you have 60Mpx with your widest lens. With the OM-1, you have 20. And let me show you something. 70-200/4 vs 40-150/2.8:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#826.581,840.444,826.392,ha,t

The 70-200 is larger than the 40-150, and only loses a stop. However, if you wanted a tighter AOV, equivalent to 300mm, you just go into APS-C mode. If you do, your resolution is now 26Mpx, slightly more than the OM-1, and about the same as the G9 II.

And, about the 70-300: it has a sliding aperture, but you can turn it into a constant aperture by setting it to f/5.6 at the wide end.

There are other considerations, too. OM cameras have LiveND (basically frame-averaging) which give you clean RAW files, even handheld. But the Sony cameras arguably don't need it. And you can do frame-averaging in post. OM cameras are arguably superior for astrophotography, and definitely superior for macro - Sony cannot match the OMS 90mm macro at this time. 

Of course, if the OM cameras get higher resolution sensors, now we have to redraw the whole equation. But for now, it seems that the high resolution Sony camera is actually the better one, given that you're getting more resolution for the same kit size. Just be prepared to pay for it.

[SCL]

I have an older OM micro 4/3 which served me well, and when I found a good deal on the Sony added that to my collection. It is now my go-to body for most of my work. You should try out both to see which best works for your personal style of photography.

[Ken Katz]

Unfortunately, your math and logic are both hard to dispute, and I say that as a long time M43 user.  The Fuji option may also now be compelling. I find it difficult to consider any additional investment into m43, though I just bought an EPL-7 from EBAY, as a backup when traveling after my EM-5iii became inoperative in Croatia.  Just large enough (barely) to hang the 12-40f2.8 on if needed.

[Karim Ghantous]

15 hours ago, SCL said:

I have an older OM micro 4/3 which served me well, and when I found a good deal on the Sony added that to my collection. It is now my go-to body for most of my work. You should try out both to see which best works for your personal style of photography.

I used to shoot with a Sony A7, BTW. It's dated and a bit slow, but the image quality is still pretty darned good, and in some ways better than some new bodies. I won't be going back to the A7, needless to say!

[Karim Ghantous]

A quick addition. If I'm shooting the Olympus at ISO 200, I would have to shoot the Sony at ISO 800. Have a look at this:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III,Sony ILCE-7RM4

Nominal DR for Olympus at ISO 200: 9.74

Nominal DR for Sony at ISO 800: 9.07

Perhaps it pays to have both systems: one for wide angle lenses, the other for telephoto.

Edit: let's not forget the resolution advantage of the Sony!

Edited August 9 by Karim Ghantous
Forgot a detail.

[Ken Katz]

11 hours ago, Karim Ghantous said:

Perhaps it pays to have both systems: one for wide angle lenses, the other for telephoto.

Besides the cost and the weight to carry, I would have trouble switching between 2 different system's operating methodologies on the fly.  Similar noise/DR performance of your longer zoom package, but still 3x the pixels with the Sony.

Is there any pro support for OM in Paris like there is for Canon, Sony & Nikon? 

[Gerald Cafferty]

it all depends on what you do with the images produced, if they are to be posted on line the equipment you had 10 years ago would be good enough.

[Sanford]

Whatever system you choose you have to have a backup camera. It would make more sense to have just one brand so you don't need two sets of lenses.

[paddler4]

It would drive me nuts to switch back and forth between two brands with different ergonomics and menus. And, of course, it would not make me happy to duplicate lenses.

One thing missing in this discussion is what you are shooting and how you are displaying the results. Gerald pointed to that. For example, are you printing very large or cropping severely? If not, the extra MPX isn't likely to have much of an impact, if any. Are you photographing landscapes or action shots? More MPX is more useful for the former than the latter. it's no accident that many of the cameras designed for sports photography have relatively low-density sensors. It all depends on what you do.

I routinely print up to 17 x 22 (roughly A2) with cameras ranging from 22 to 30 MPX and have gotten only positive comments about print quality. On the other hand, I do field macro (bugs), and sometimes one can't get close enough. In those cases, extra MPX would be very handy, just so I could throw away a lot and have enough left. And I have one acquaintance who often prints even larger than I do, and for him, a camera with more MPX than my current camera (R6 II) is worth it.

 

[Sanford]

20 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

It would drive me nuts to switch back and forth between two brands with different ergonomics and menus. And, of course, it would not make me happy to duplicate lenses.

One thing missing in this discussion is what you are shooting and how you are displaying the results. Gerald pointed to that. For example, are you printing very large or cropping severely? If not, the extra MPX isn't likely to have much of an impact, if any. Are you photographing landscapes or action shots? More MPX is more useful for the former than the latter. it's no accident that many of the cameras designed for sports photography have relatively low-density sensors. It all depends on what you do.

I routinely print up to 17 x 22 (roughly A2) with cameras ranging from 22 to 30 MPX and have gotten only positive comments about print quality. On the other hand, I do field macro (bugs), and sometimes one can't get close enough. In those cases, extra MPX would be very handy, just so I could throw away a lot and have enough left. And I have one acquaintance who often prints even larger than I do, and for him, a camera with more MPX than my current camera (R6 II) is worth it.

 

Even switching back and forth between a Fuji X-E1 and a Fuji X-Pro1, two cameras considered identical in most ways, can be maddening. They are nothing alike!

[AJG]

I don't own a mirrorless camera, but I have always had least  2 identical models  of any cameras that I used for professional work, precisely because of the mistakes that happen when switching between different models/brands, etc.  To the OP:  choose one or the other after considering what your usage will be and what your output needs to be.

[Karim Ghantous]

I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem switching between Leica S and MFT and Sony and Pentax etc.

However, having two identical cameras is an advantage. And by identical, I do mean identical. I wouldn't have an E-M1 Mk II as a back-up to a Mk III for example. I do, in fact, have a pair of Mk III's, plus a Mk II, plus a few secondary cameras.

[Sanford]

9 hours ago, AJG said:

I don't own a mirrorless camera, but I have always had least  2 identical models  of any cameras that I used for professional work, precisely because of the mistakes that happen when switching between different models/brands, etc.  To the OP:  choose one or the other after considering what your usage will be and what your output needs to be.

Yes, that was the traditional way, two identical cameras, a chrome body for color film and a black body for black & white, but what fun is that.

[AJG]

1 hour ago, Sanford said:

Yes, that was the traditional way, two identical cameras, a chrome body for color film and a black body for black & white, but what fun is that.

Professional photography isn't usually about fun--getting useable pictures for a client on the first try is what's crucial.

[hjoseph7]

About 10-15 years ago nobody complained about lens or camera sizes... 

[Karim Ghantous]

On 8/10/2024 at 10:45 PM, AJG said:

Professional photography isn't usually about fun-

It is for some of us. But hashtag not all.

On 8/11/2024 at 11:28 AM, hjoseph7 said:

About 10-15 years ago nobody complained about lens or camera sizes... 

We didn't have as much choice. Now, thanks to progress in technology, we are seeing more possibilities. As in, "Hm, maybe I don't actually need a 600/4 anymore."

[hjoseph7]

On 8/10/2024 at 8:28 PM, hjoseph7 said:

About 10-15 years ago nobody complained about lens or camera sizes... 

Actually I did complain, when I noticed that AF lenses were getting more and more humongous.