Geoff D F wrote:
Well I wanted to thank everyone, but also say damn you all!
I was hoping you'd tell me there was not much difference, so I could just keep my Mark1 until it died hopefully in a peaceful way, but now I have some serious thinking to do.
I also want to upgrade my Sony A7 mark II to the Mark III.
I find Sony so far behind Olympus in terms of handling and AF, but it's image quality is great. I hear the Sony A7 III is also quite an upgrade in terms of its handling.
Wilbus wrote:
Why not sell all your Sony gear and spend that on Olympus gear instead? Just to make it a bit easier with your decision making
I'm not selling out of Sony FF until Olympus come up with something that beats it image quality wise, which really means never. I played with a Sony A7III in a store yesterday and I think unfortunately for Olympus that is where my money will go this time.
Part of the decision is that there is still a lot of value in my A7II, so I might as well sell that while I can. My EM1 is pretty beaten and probably over 200K on the shutter, but still does mostly what I need it to.
If you are strictly after image quality there is no better option than the A7R II, III or IV. The IQ from an m43 sensor will never be exceptional, as you quite rightly stated. But for most of us who opt for m43 it's about the total experience i.e. decent IQ with good handling and ergonomics, and just a fun camera to shoot with. I toyed with the A7R II twice before, and didn't like it. And while m43 files are not as good as FF, it's plenty good for me. I shoot competitively and routinely beat off my FF competitors at these photo comps.
Geoff D F wrote:
I'm not selling out of Sony FF until Olympus come up with something that beats it image quality wise, which really means never. I played with a Sony A7III in a store yesterday and I think unfortunately for Olympus that is where my money will go this time.
Part of the decision is that there is still a lot of value in my A7II, so I might as well sell that while I can. My EM1 is pretty beaten and probably over 200K on the shutter, but still does mostly what I need it to.
bobbytan wrote:
If you are strictly after image quality there is no better option than the A7R II, III or IV. The IQ from an m43 sensor will never be exceptional, as you quite rightly stated. But for most of us who opt for m43 it's about the total experience i.e. decent IQ with good handling and ergonomics, and just a fun camera to shoot with. I toyed with the A7R II twice before, and didn't like it. And while m43 files are not as good as FF, it's plenty good for me. I shoot competitively and routinely beat off my FF competitors at these photo comps.
Thanks Bobby. I very much agree with you. I find Olympus overall a more enjoyable shooting experience and its suits my needs for most things. But for landscape work, which I often do when travelling, Sony beats it. That is why I expect to be spread across two systems for the foreseeable future.
That was exactly what I had in mind when I bought the A7R II - strictly for landscape work. But I couldn't get over the quirkiness of Sony or get used to the Sony menu, and it just doesn't handle as well as the E-M1 II. So I gave up. Also traveling with 2 different systems is a royal PITA as you are having to take 2 different sets of batteries, chargers, and more lenses than you really need. Better to know one system really well than 2 systems superficially. So, if you come to like the Sony ... dump the Olympus and focus your undivided attention on the Sony - and learn to use it really well.
Geoff D F wrote:
Thanks Bobby. I very much agree with you. I find Olympus overall a more enjoyable shooting experience and its suits my needs for most things. But for landscape work, which I often do when travelling, Sony beats it. That is why I expect to be spread across two systems for the foreseeable future.
I don't travel with two full systems. If going somewhere where landscape shooting will be in prospect I take the Sony system and throw in the EM-10 with a small zoom and/or prime for the times I will just want something light.
Otherwise I take all M4/3 gear.
I've been using Sony for about 4 years (Oly for longer), so I am familiar enough with it but have never fully warmed to it. I used to have a bit of Fuji stuff as well, which was kind off in between, but sold that when Sony introduced the 24-105 f4G, which met my needs for a good walk-around lens.
It would probably make sense to focus on one system, but as a hobby I enjoy using different gear. Heck, I even have a bunch of old Canon FD primes, and an EOS lens or two, which I occasionally take out adapted to the A7.
Also traveling with 2 different systems is a royal PITA as you are having to take 2 different sets of batteries, chargers, and more lenses than you really need. Better to know one system really well than 2 systems superficially
Agree. I have two systems and in the past in the film area ran 3. Such a waste of mental effort and money. Best to concentrate on just one. It's bad enough having to select from a set of lenses each time you go out. I always think it is best to think whether you are a photographer rather than someone who basically just likes camera stuff.
I actually enjoyed my time with the Mk1 more than with the Mk2. In the end, I decided just to keep my Mk1 and the 60mm for macro photography and sold off the Mk2 and my pro lenses.
Why? The Mk2 has so many options and is so versatile that I spent more time than I cared playing with the settings. It is a little bigger and heavier. And for me, there was not a dramatic difference in final image quality. Another factor was I used the Oly as my vacation camera, and I've found that for casual photography a current iPhone delivers good enough (sometimes remarkable) results. I used the proceeds from the sales to acquire a Sony.
Sounds like you would rather have a simple prosumer camera than an advanced/complicated full-systems pro camera. The 3-lens iPhone 11 Pro might be a better option then.
DES-1 wrote:
I actually enjoyed my time with the Mk1 more than with the Mk2. In the end, I decided just to keep my Mk1 and the 60mm for macro photography and sold off the Mk2 and my pro lenses.
Why? The Mk2 has so many options and is so versatile that I spent more time than I cared playing with the settings. It is a little bigger and heavier. And for me, there was not a dramatic difference in final image quality. Another factor was I used the Oly as my vacation camera, and I've found that for casual photography a current iPhone delivers good enough (sometimes remarkable) results. I used the proceeds from the sales to acquire a Sony.
bobbytan wrote:
Sounds like you would rather have a simple prosumer camera than an advanced/complicated full-systems pro camera. The 3-lens iPhone 11 Pro might be a better option then.
Yes, but a 'simple' prosumer camera is bit of an oxymoron, right . I missed the output of my former Canon 5dsr so I picked up a Sony a7rIII, very pleased with the output. I did upgrade my 8+ to the Pro Max.
I still hold the opinion that the Oly has the best software and build quality of any camera of its size. Same for those Pro lenses.
Speaking of pro lenses, if anyone is interested in selling his or her Olympus 17/1.2 or Panasonic 12/1.4 or Voigtlander 10.5/0.95 lens, please PM me. I need a fast w/a lens for this weekend!
Why do you want to to ugrade? What do you shoot and where do you shoot? Is the v1 limiting your style, your images, your print size? Is the em1.2 a better camera, yes undoubtably as so many attest to; with more pixels, better technology, more features, better dual IBIS etc. But I ask: do you NEED to upgrade, probably not. Ask yourself what you hope to gain from the upgrade as opposed to maybe spending that money on new glass or a trip someplace to create fantastic images or maybe education like classes or videos? All of these are probably a better use of your money long term than a camera body upgrade.
As a bonafide GAS man myself I have to constantly remind myself of these questions so I ask the same of others. I made the switch from the em1.1 to the em1.2 but in all honesty the v1 did about 95% of what I needed in my camera to do already for the type of shooting I do (mostly Landscape). Soif I am being honest I did not NEED to make the jump but am I happy I did, yes for the most part but I probably could have ut the extra $1,000 to better use.
Geoff D F wrote:
Thanks Bobby. I very much agree with you. I find Olympus overall a more enjoyable shooting experience and its suits my needs for most things. But for landscape work, which I often do when travelling, Sony beats it. That is why I expect to be spread across two systems for the foreseeable future.
If you are a landscape photographer, I am surprised that nobody mentioned the 80mp raw files you get in hi res mode in the em1 mark2. I don’t think that the A73 would beat the IQ that you get out of the hi res files. How big do you print?
The Mk II is significantly better IMO and the upgrade is definitely worthwhile, especially at the price you can buy it for today. Check out the differences here:
Well to end the story I did purchase the Sony A7III. The EM1 II will have to wait for another day. The AF of the Sony is something to behold. I am quite amazed by its ability to track, which is and will come in handy for the new family puppy.
The hi res mode of the EM1 II interests me, but from what I understand it doesn’t work well for moving subjects, eg waterfalls, which I shoot often enough.
How big do I print? Well very occasionally I print up to 1.2 m. Most of the time I don’t print that big but the ability to do so when needed is important to me.
