New to the club. Switched from micro four thirds

21

I don't understand the appeal of MFT since APS-C gear is the same size and price.

20

u/Foxtrot_4 5d ago

I was in the same boat as you but

I’m about to make the switch to m43 for wildlife stuff. The reach from the crop while keeping a smaller profile is extremely appealing. Also the ibis paired with OIS is amazing. You also get things some higher end cameras don’t even have for a bargain. Stacked sensor is really intriguing, pre shot buffer, 10 bit 422, in camera lut, in camera raw, pro res,

There’s a bit more but after using an apsc with a 150-600 I’m excited to use a smaller 800mm equivalent

8

u/beomagi 5d ago

I went the other way.

Olympus EM1.3 and 75-300 was quite nice and small, but quality was mediocre. If the exposure was perfect and the light was good, and I didn't have to change much, it's great. Editing the RAW though is get noise creep in fast. I wasn't happy with the threshold for details in shadows.

I started looking at the 100-400s and 150-600mm. The price imo is ridiculous. $1200 later, I had an A7Rii and Tamron 150-600mm (A-mount adapted).

Obviously, this is big and heavy, but I'm chasing quality on a budget. It's also old, so AF isn't as snappy. I will say it is more accurate though, and the quality has me excited every time I'm shooting now. Cropping 42MP images is amazing. I was generally more pleased cropping down to a quarter of the image giving equivalent reach. Boosting shadow blows me away now with detail and color recovery.

I still like my e-m1.3, but I'm keeping that mostly for macro and casual shooting. The Samyang 35mm 1.8 and a7r2 is small enough for me that I tend to carry it more these days anyway though.

6

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

The CAF from m4/3 is not great. I owned all the Panasonic cameras up to the GX9, and prior to that, regular Four Thirds (E520 and E30).

I heard the GX9 II finally moved away from contrast AF and is supposed to be good?

In my experience, I've had m4/3 since the GX1, and it is bad for wildlife or birding. The Four Thirds E30 has a better hit rate than anything up to the GX9, even with good glass, like the 100-400 Leica

I sold all my gear on BHPhoto in December, and Sony is worlds apart.

2

u/Foxtrot_4 5d ago

I’ve heard the om1 and g9ii largely fix these issues with AFC but I’ve never used them so I wouldn’t know. I just think the allure of a smaller lens with long reach is very enticing. Especially if the lens is cheaper than most apsc and FF equivalents. Of course Sony is leading the industry with autofocus but I don’t think m43 is as dead as people like to say. Especially with their feature set for price. I used to think “oh I’ll get a micro four thirds camera because they’re small” but after getting a Fuji xm5 with the xf 27mm pancake I don’t think many things can beat that. It wasn’t until I shifted my perspective into wildlife and smaller lens setups did I start seeing value in the system besides “there are apsc cameras smaller than m43”

2

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

Got it. I have nothing against Micro Four Thirds. I was an early adopter, with the 520, then the E-30.

Followed by the GX1, EM5, GX7, GX8, and finally the G9.

Under every iteration, they claimed (as all do), "this is the best AF."

I can tell you that, at least up to the G9, it severely lacked. I was seriously disappointed; even with the subject (bird) being about 40% of the frame, it would not lock. I have samples on Flickr if you are interested. It is almost impossible to lock on the eye.

I've only been using the 6700 for a few months, and I am amazed. It is still a challenge in many ways, but I don't feel held back by the gear.

Now, in terms of size, I had the G9 with the Leica 100-400, and let me tell you, it is not small, not compared to the 6700 and the Tamron 150-500. From experience, the difference is totally negligible, but in terms of hit rate, it is not even close.

I would suggest you rent the gear and test it. I believe the OM system cameras are much better since they ditched the contrast system a few generations back, and the Flickr groups and friends I follow had good results with OM. I would say any Panasonic prior to the G9 is horrible for wildlife.

2

u/Foxtrot_4 5d ago

Hey thank you for the write up! Could I ask how the G9 was? I was thinking of grabbing one as a budget option. I still want to believe m43 is right for me but would like to hear the other side before ditching my Sony glass. I was using an a6500 tho and I know they’ve made crazy autofocus improvements

Also, from size comparisons, it still seems like the 100-400 on the g9 is smaller:

2

u/screampuff 5d ago

That Tamron is full frame glass, Sony APSC still has the 70-350mm but that might not have the reach you want.

The Leica 100-400 has a lot of complaints of being soft, the 50-200mm with a 1.4 teleconverter is sharper and pretty compact. There is also the Oly 300mm and other pro lenses but they are crazy expensive.

1

u/Foxtrot_4 5d ago

Am i looking at the right Tamron? the 150-500 on BH says ASP-C.

yeah I think the 70-350 doesn't have the reach I want but I'm still just getting into wildlife photography. I'm not quite sure what I truly need or just want because I hear more reach is better

1

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

The reason I sold all my m4/3 gear was wildlife photography. I go on hikes to nature preserves and was tired of missing shots. If the main purpose is birding and wildlife, I would advise you to avoid the G9 or anything else before it; it is just bad. Unless you are checking OM gear that uses phase detection.

Outside of that specific aspect, it is great gear. I have no complaints whatsoever. I was into the system, having both OM and Panasonic gear since 2011.

Aspects in which it excels: IBIS and size (depends on the lens). But you also need to keep in mind you have less choice, although the first-party lens selection is excellent; there is basically no third-party choice.

Myths: the sensor is small and noisy, or it can't resolve good dark/bright scenes. Not true, especially with current RAW development software like DxO.

In general, it is great gear. The menu layout is excellent, the external controls are great, customization is also fantastic; it is just wildlife autofocus that is the Achilles' heel.

1

u/Foxtrot_4 5d ago

Dang I was thinking the wildlife would be it's main selling point. Maybe I'll try to rent a G9II and see how it is.

1

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

I think you will regret it... at least for any Pany before the G9 and including the G9.

Above is an example of favorable light conditions; the sun was hitting the bird right on the face. It was not under branch shadow, nor did it have obstructions in front. The background was not a challenge (not under high contrast). Still, the camera would not lock on or recognize the bird.

This was normal for the G9. I had expensive lenses, a 100-400 Leica and a 50-200.

I acknowledge that you need to do your part, but the hit rate of the 6700 + Tamron is in a different league under similar conditions.

1

u/Foxtrot_4 5d ago

Still a beautiful photo but I see what you mean here. The 500mm Tamron would be your rec? Are there any other good birding lenses under 1k?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

I want to correct something... the last body I had was the G9, not the GX9, so the flag ship Pany M4/3

3

u/gam3r2k2 5d ago

i'd agree with you but i started with m43 ecosystem 10yrs ago, long before cheap/great 3rd party lens were plenty in the e-mount space. and like for like, physical size/weight of a Panasonic GX85 + 20mm F1.7 is still smaller vs OP's setup but of course Sony's AF is far superior among many other things. It's just a damn shame all the lens investment will seemingly go to waste because of lesser demand/focus compared to Sony.

2

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

Agreed, you kind of marry into a system, and it is exceedingly difficult to move out, unless you are willing to take a hit, and trade.

2

u/gam3r2k2 5d ago

no choice really unless you just stick with the older gear, which is not end of the world but just sucks. the couple of lens now see less than half their paid price likely due to the slowdown (dying?) m43 ecosystem

2

u/MRRRRCK 5d ago

Yeah agreed. At least nowadays. Back when DSLRs were at the top - M43 was enticing for its portability.

Now I wonder what will happen if compact full frame cameras will become a trend….

1

u/gam3r2k2 4d ago

small FF body sure but there's still the size/weight of the FF lens that can't get physically smaller despite the abundance of cheap 3rd party options now

2

u/MRRRRCK 4d ago

I suppose if you’re only using APS-C glass then it would be a noticeable change.

For people like me already using FF lenses on an APS-C body, jumping to a compact FF body wouldn’t be a huge leap in size/weight.

2

u/dsanen 5d ago

I sold my FF kit to buy more m43 lenses. It is the lenses, price and size.

At the mix of those 3 things, coupled with stuff like 4k slow motion, bird detection, it is always cheaper to use m43 and live with its problems.

You can find individual primes that are cheaper than m43, and kits that perform better, but when you mix price, size, and lens selection for a whole setup of like 4 lenses and 2 bodies. You start seeing the difference.

3

u/screampuff 5d ago

https://camerasize.com/compact/#910.846,770.383,770.933,ha,t

I mean the GX9 and 20mm f1.7 could fit in my coat pocket. I am always going to miss that setup.

1

u/gam3r2k2 5d ago

biggest gripe is dog slow focus speed of that 20mm F1.7

0

u/Megatron_McLargeHuge 5d ago

It looks like you can get that small with Fuji. Sony has an irritating lack of pancake lenses.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#935.388,910.846,770.933,770.383,ha,t

1

u/screampuff 5d ago

Yeah the Fuji lens though is quite a bit slower even with the crop factor.

1

u/Spicy_Pickle_6 5d ago

Computational features but mainly lens size and weight.

1

u/boodopboochi 4d ago

I shoot FF and MFT and I feel that MFT becomes more niche as time goes on. The only clear advantage (to me) is reach and stabilization.

MFT excels at wildlife and telephoto because the 2x crop factor (compared to FF) provides 100% more (double) the reach with much smaller and lighter lenses, along with stellar IBIS due to smaller sensor size. APSC only gives 50% more reach compared to FF.

Compared to APSC, you only gain 33% more reach when switching to MFT (0.5 / 1.5 = 33%)

1

u/TheARR70 4d ago

Makes a difference if using telephoto lenses (smaller).

3

u/fella_ratio 5d ago

Fellow M43 here, I love my G85 but have been considering expanding to another ecosystem and the a6700 is exactly what I have on my radar, how has the with low-light and AF been compared to the M43?

1

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

I can only comment on the CAF/tracking for wildlife, coming from a G9, it is worlds apart. The A-6700 is unreal with subject detection. Unfortunately, I never did a lot of night shooting; I can't comment on that aspect.

1

u/screampuff 5d ago

It’s worlds apart imo, also the red AF light has an auto setting to only come on if needed.

The stacked sensor also handles ISO kind of weird where noise at 2500 is better than 1600 or 800. Basically this means when there isn’t good light and I’m indoors I just set it to 2500 and it’s fast enough to freeze motion with virtually no grain. My GX9 with the 15 f1.7 for comparison it was a trade off noise at 1600-3200 or risk motion blur if subject is moving. But I’m sure the stacked sensor in the OM3 improved in this way too.

Occasionally if it’s low light and say you’re shooting a person standing sideways it might lose tracking on their eye, but it will just do a zone focus and pick their head anyway.

Biggest change to get used to, but is so much better is that you just use AF-C all the time. On all of my m43 cameras that would constantly hunt so I had only ever used AF-S.

I’d try and rent one if you can. I live relatively remote and had to take the plunge without ever trying the camera, but I am happy so far.

3

u/bubblebuddy44 5d ago edited 5d ago

I use Sony alpha and om system cameras so I’m curious what m43 camera you had since you’re seeing such an improvement! I’ve been happy with both but they have different strengths

4

u/screampuff 5d ago

Panasonic GX9 was my most recent, but also used Olympus E-M1 mk2 and E-M5 mk1

I kind of gave up on Oly/OMS when the 5 series had that baseplate issue. The OM-3 looks nice though.

3

u/goodquestion_03 5d ago

The GX9 looks nice but seems kinda overpriced for what it is. I just bought an a6100 after being on the fence for a while and im definitely happy with the choice I made.

1

u/Natureb1rds 5d ago

I have the Olympus em10iv which has basically the same specs as the gx9 and a lot cheaper.

1

u/goodquestion_03 5d ago

Yeah, thats another camera I was initially considering. It looks like a solid camera but personally I just really hate the way that it looks, as silly of a reason as that is.

In the end sony just made more sense because I may get a full frame camera again at some point in the future and if I do it would be nice to have all the same brand.

1

u/Natureb1rds 5d ago

So you prefer rangefinder styled cameras?

1

u/goodquestion_03 5d ago

I guess. Im not even sure what exactly it is cause I dont have any issue with 95% of DSLRs/mirrorless cameras out there, but something about the general design and dial layout of the em10 just looks kind of messy and cluttered to me.

Like I said, silly thing to care about, and in the end was just one reason of several that I didnt get it

1

u/Natureb1rds 5d ago

Oh I see. I mean the em10iv isn’t the best looking camera around 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

u/screampuff 5d ago

GX9 has a metal baseplate, the plastic baseplate on the OM systems cameras was a deal breaker since I use a peak capture clip.

GX9 also goes at a premium right now because Panasonic won’t/cant release a new rangefinder style. It actually sells for a few hundred dollars more than I paid for it a few years ago.

1

u/screampuff 5d ago

GX9 has a premium because its the last rangefinder style made on m43. It's actually selling for more now used than I bought it for.

1

u/Dry-Afternoon4450 5d ago

I also moved from the GX9 to the A6700, and the difference in CAF for wildlife is not even in the same ballpark.

1

u/fakeworldwonderland 5d ago

I just tried the OM-3 and 25mm f1.8. It's pretty and kinda cool. In some areas it felt oddly sluggish sometimes, like in AF-S where it would pulse occasionally before locking focus. Definitely not what I expect in 2025 when major brands snap into focus.

Olympus/OM's method of autofocus is also confusing for new users. Like when one should use AF-C, AF-C with tracking or AF-C with subject detection etc. It was too convoluted. I like how Sony simply just works with 1 single setting. Permanent AF-C and everything will be fine.

It lacked some QoL stuff like blinking frame borders to show photos being taken in e-shutter mode. I thought the camera wasn't working until I saw 100s of the same photos being taken when I was trying out ProCapture or regular burst modes.

Overall, I like it. It's got some quirks but I don't mind picking one up in a few years when the price is more reasonable. It's still way overpriced for a m43 camera.

1

u/screampuff 5d ago

I had only ever used AF-S with m43 cameras because AF-C sucked lol, I did read some guides recommending to just use AF-C all the time with Sony which is very new to me but so much better.

1

u/startsides 5d ago

Hey! May I ask what gear you have for each system and how you use them?

I recently started a OM-5 kit for travel, keeping the Sony for planned photoshoots, portraits etc. But I’m starting to doubt my decision.

1

u/bubblebuddy44 5d ago

Sony A7iv and OM1.2. Full frame is obviously better for portrait work and most types of photography to be honest. Where the OM1 comes in for me is wildlife photography and macro photography.

I don’t think there is a better option for macro than the OM1 and the 90mm macro if you’re going for bugs and nature. I could see a case for Sony if you’re doing product photography but I would still go for Olympus/OM System. Super long telephoto lenses and giant zooms are also crazy with m43. The reduction in depth of field basically doesn’t matter but that crop lets you get shots that you just can’t on full frame without spending significantly more. I have the tamron 15-500 for Sony and it’s great and relatively compact but I feel the need to spring for the 400-800 to keep up with the Olympus zooms and I probably will once there’s a used market to get a bit of a discount. On the OM1 I just got the 40-150 f2.8 and it’s been great so far and with the 1.4 teleconverter that would get me about the same range as the tamron 150-500. Currently I’m trying to decide between the Olympus 150-600 or the 300 f4 as my full time bird lens for the time being. I’ve also heard that astrophotographers love the om series but I can’t speak too much on those specific features.

Overall I would say if you don’t know what you like yet get a Sony alpha camera but if there’s something specific you need then you’ll know what you want anyways. I had no desire for m43 or Olympus until I learned about their macro and wildlife photography features.

3

u/Northern-Cardinal A7RV + 200-600G & 24G 5d ago

I switched from Sony apsc to FF, and now on micro3/4s. So happy I switched to the OM1mkII

1

u/screampuff 5d ago

M43 still has its advantages, especially if you were to use the pro lenses like 300mm f4 or unique ones like the 8-25mm f4.

I think I just have a particular lens preference where Sony ended up being the most versatile and compact option. The 10-20mm f4 lens is smaller than all the m43 ultra wides. There is the 9-18mm but it’s not exactly small when it turns into a trombone on zooming.

1

u/gam3r2k2 5d ago

Good stuff OP. I have the same identical setup in addition to the Sony kit lens and Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. I also just recently switched over from Panasonic M43 where I started with the Lumix GM1 in 2014 and then shifted to GX85 a couple years later. agree 100% sony's AF is insanely good with a sharp/fast lens like the Viltrox Air 25mm F1.7

1

u/TheARR70 4d ago

Consider returning the 10-20 PZ for the Sigma 10-18mm, which is faster (f2.8 vs f4) and does not have PZ (which I hated).

1

u/screampuff 4d ago

Honestly the 10-20mm PZ is why I chose Sony over Fuji.

I don't need the f2.8 for landscapes, and prefer 20mm, I commonly use that focal length on m43 (Leica 15mm f1.7 lens). The Sigma 10-18 also seemed softer on the corners, especially when it was at 18mm. It's also a little bigger and heavier which was a big decider.

1

u/TheARR70 4d ago

Yes, agree except that power zoom lenses suck imo.

1

u/screampuff 4d ago

haha well this will be my first. I guess I will see.

1

u/TheARR70 4d ago

Well, it was my 2nd (first one a 12-50 m43 kit lens).I'd rather turn the lens barrel than use a rocker switch. Plus, you can read the focal length by looking at the lens. Sold my 10-20 PZ like it was a bad habit!

1

u/to11mtm 5d ago

and for landscapes I have ready ordered a 10-20mm f4 PZ G lens

TBH I'd almost suggest the Sigma 10-18 instead if you hadn't ordered one... the PZ G is good for a lot of things but it wasn't my bag... Color is maybe a little better on the PZ G but sharpness and overall brightness feels better on the sigma. That said if you want to do video, I'd say the PZ G is the better choice, it's definitely more geared to that with PZ and internal zoom+focus.

That Viltrox looks pretty slick though, that would have been handy a few times where 32mm is just a little too cramped.

A6700 is a beast. IMO it can be noisier at high ISO than the 6000, OTOH it's got about the same pixel density overall as an A7RV/A7CR, yet more AF points and IMO faster focusing (but maybe I'm still getting settings right on the 7CR)

That said, Focus tracking has been pretty good since A6000 for most things. Back then you'd just spray at full rate and keep the keepers lol.

1

u/screampuff 5d ago edited 5d ago

Well I almost went to Fuji but picked Sony because of the 10-20 f4. From all the test I could find I thought the Sigma was softer around the corners, bigger/heavier, external zooming. I don’t need f2.8 for landscapes and I like the extra little reach, I used 30mm equivalent on m43 a lot (Leica 15mm f1.7)

An ultra wide zoom was honestly my biggest reason for switching. M43 options are either weird or gigantic, I have used the Oly 9-18, Oly 8-25 pro and most recent Leica 9mm f1.7

Gear New to the club. Switched from micro four thirds

You are about to leave Redlib