Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2022 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Uncle Chip
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

I want a small kit for 🥾 hiking,
As I will be starting from scratch
I have looked at crop and mft formats, I previously owned the 6500 but have no experience with the mft system apart from holding an Olympus and Panasonic at the club, and both where bigger than the 6500, this surprised me as I thought they where much smaller,
Lenses for these are confusing me, I have been told several times that the lenses are much smaller but they are comparing both lenses at the same f stop, and my understanding is that you loose nearly a stop, so your f2.8 of the FF will need to be F1.8 on the crop and F1.4 on the MFT (have I got that right?) then the lenses are not so diferente in size,

The only feature required from the camera is image quality and the ability to choose decent lenses, and obviously the size and weight,
Is there a MFT system out there to suit my needs?

I looked at the A7C and A6500 and the size and weight is very close so it would come down to lens choice,

What is your hiking interchangeable lens setup?

Mar 12, 2022 at 12:07 PM

Uncle Chip
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Hmmm this got me to thinking why I sold the 6500, and the answer is that it never got used,
I would go for it and always pick up the FF, I suppose I didn’t see the weight saving enough for the (perceived) difference in IQ,
Not sure how much of that was camera snobbery as the difference in real terms at F8 was minimal,

But if it is snobbery and I can save weight then I need putting straight

Mar 12, 2022 at 12:16 PM

jeffbuzz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Your math is correct insofar as it relates to depth of field and/or achieving comparable ISO noise on the sensors. Really depends on your expectations and intentions as to how micro four thirds (aka mft, aka m43) may work for you. If you are hyper sensitive (pun intended) to ISO noise, you are likely better off getting some small(er) lenses for your existing full frame setup. As you noted, truly equivalent m43 glass is really not much smaller than full frame.

Shooting at or near base ISO on m43 gives very clean results. If you're working in full sun or from a tripod, m43 might be a viable setup. For handheld dusk, dawn or other low light work you need to factor in your tolerance for noise.

Many of the m43 bodies and lenses are extremely well built so are a great option for all weather use. But so are many APS-C and FF options.

Fuji X is a nice in-between option. Same lens math applies. But the sensor noise might not be as obtrusive for you.

I suggest looking closely at what lenses and bodies you would actually want in a smaller sensor format. Compare the sizes and weights to FF and see if the difference is worth it for you.

https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison/1a31f17c_4d239aeb-78dad120_c8deeb08-e1a838c0_7869c6b6-t80

Lenses providing roughly equivalent field of view and depth of field

Mar 12, 2022 at 12:54 PM

Uncle Chip
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Thanks for that Jeff
The comparison chart is very good,

I had several voitglander e mount lenses that I sold for another project (big mistake lol)
Among them where the 21mm colour shloper and the 35mm nokton classic, if I put these on the A7C I can’t find anything that can match for size and weight, hmm I also had the voitglander 15mm and loved this lens,
I justified selling them because my sigma 14-24 is sharper than any of them and the combined weight is more,

But a voitglander on the A7C and 1 in the pocket would make for a very small kit,
Talk about going in circles lol

Mar 12, 2022 at 01:50 PM

galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

I don't think that m43 has much of a size advantage anymore. Unless, you shoot wildlife with longer lenses. The advantages that it does have are:
- excellent weather sealing (especially Oly gear)
- IBIS that is on another level compared to FF. I can literally shoot 1-2 sec shots with no issues (using a shorter FL)
- In body computational photography such as ND filter simulations, sensor shifts for high res shots and focus stacking, just to name a few
- high quality lenses

The graphic above is a little deceiving. There are many smaller lenses than the 25mm/1.2, though I understand the why it is there for comparison. If I were you I would rent first. There is more to m43 than just a size comparison. I still find it to be one of the most fun systems to use - and particularly for travel. You wont be able to understand that for yourself unless you pick up and use a m43 camera.

Mar 12, 2022 at 02:05 PM

jeffbuzz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

galenapass wrote:
. . . The graphic above is a little deceiving. There are many smaller lenses than the 25mm/1.2, though I understand the why it is there for comparison. . . .

My intention was not to deceive. The original question specifically noted the dreaded "equivalence" math. I thought those lenses reasonably illustrated it.

Here's a set of smaller lenses that achieve roughly the same DoF and FoV. No meaningful size difference. However, the Sony G and Zeiss are technically 1/3 stop faster relative to the m43 Pana-Leica. Truly equivalent lenses would be 50mm f/2.8 and 32mm f/2.0.

Mar 12, 2022 at 02:45 PM

Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

jeffbuzz wrote:
My intention was not to deceive. The original question specifically noted the dreaded "equivalence" math. I thought those lenses reasonably illustrated it.

Here's a set of smaller lenses that achieve roughly the same DoF and FoV. No meaningful size difference. However, the Sony G and Zeiss are technically 1/3 stop faster relative to the m43 Pana-Leica. Truly equivalent lenses would be 50mm f/2.8 and 32mm f/2.0.

If you’re working in good light, don’t need fast lenses.

Depending on style you use 14-150 gives you 28-300, 12-200 gives you 24-400, weather sealed for 300 and 455 g respectively. M43 bodies are way more advanced than apsc, hence the size. You can certainly get tiny m43 bodies if you choose.

The reverse equivalent does not exist, there’s two sides to a coin.

Mar 12, 2022 at 03:15 PM

Uncle Chip
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

That’s a good point and why I am asking on here, there is no crop or M34 equivalent to say the voitglander 50mm f1.0 or any 1.2,
But on the other side what you say holds true in practice, maybe the canons 800f11 could be a M43s 400f5.6, but in Sony we don’t have excellent quality FF slow lenses

For me I don’t need longer lenses on the landscape lenses (not when hiking) and I have that end covered with FF, (A9, 70-200gm, 100-400 and the 200-600) so it’s mainly the wider end, and it looks like the FF A7C may be the way to go, especially when I will have a cross over use of the lenses,

Interesting discussion, and thanks for taking the time to contribute

Mar 12, 2022 at 04:47 PM

Uncle Chip
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

I am just wondering about gear snobbery,
I looked at the 14-150 and 12-200 and the “super zoom” springs to mind, back in the day I got the canon 28-300, already has the 70-200f2.8 and the super zoom was very poor in comparison,

But I have no experience with the m34, so why am I prejudging it? I clearly need to check out more reviews

Mar 12, 2022 at 05:08 PM

Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

on the wider end, the advantages are small, there are some interesting specialty lenses

8-25mm f4 pro, that's 16-50mm, which would be nice for landscapes.

hand held ND, you can go tripod free and rely on internal stacking/ND.

IP53 weather sealing for the latest olympus, a real rating, not just "resistant"

other than that, wide end advantage definitely goes to full frame .... mostly, the system is more about being an adventure cam where you are part of the action, rather than hard core dedicated missions.

Long end is where m43 really excels, 75-300mm (150-600mm) is 423g and about as long as the tamron 28-75, compare that with the 150/200-600 which comes in a whopping 2000+g.... it's a lens that you can easily hike with instead of leaving back

Mar 12, 2022 at 06:55 PM

jeffbuzz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

It really comes down to the specific lenses you're interested in. The Oly 40-150mm f2.8 is one of my favorite lenses ever. On paper, it should compare to ~70-300 f5.6 for full frame. But I have never used a 70-300mm of any brand that was nearly as good optically wide open as that Olympus lens.

On the wide end m43 has some inherent optical disadvantages. Comparing the Oly 7-14mm f2.8 to something like the Sigma 14-24mm, Sony 12-24mm f4 or Voightlander 15mm f4.5 and you find the extreme focal length needed to achieve that wide FoV on m43 results in much more distortion compared to the FF options. It's simply the limitations of optical design they have to work around. It is much more difficult to make a rectilinear 7mm lens then a 14mm. And making a good 14mm is pretty darn difficult.

Mar 12, 2022 at 07:04 PM

Blueshound
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Firstly, I would never suggest which system / format someone else should prefer. All have pros & cons. I use both a Sony FF (now A7RIV) and a Panasonic G9 with Pana lenses. Similar to the hiking consideration, I'm always a bit conflicted as to which kit to take for travel, which is when I shoot most.

Were I to choose between a 24mp FF sensor and my G9 et al., the G9 would win, probably every time. The A7RIV however is a different proposition. Note that I don't have much use for long tele reach, and don't shoot much that moves, let alone moves quickly. I also happen to like the 4:3 format, particularly for vertical compositions. However, since I tend to compose in the EVF, I adapt easily to either ratio.

m43 has small, light bodies as well as some that are in the same range as FF cameras. The body size rarely has much to do with image quality, assuming sensors of similar generation. It has more to do with sophisticated features and possibly EVF size and quality. I like the G9, however my A7RIV is essentially the same size and weight.

For travel I have to consider the overall kit size and weight. For my Sony option, I almost always leave the 24-105/4 at home, instead taking a couple of lighter primes. The only zoom that I consider high enough IQ combined with reasonable weight is my 12-24/4.

However my favorite Panasonic zooms are small and light, and give excellent results, IMO. So with the m43 body I can take the wide zoom (8-18), a normal zoom (12-35/2.8) and a tele zoom (35-100/2.8) and the zooms give more focal length flexibility, if that's important. Note that many of the best Olympus lenses are appreciably larger & heavier, one reason why I've avoided them.

m43 is a less desirable option for those who are looking for very thin depth of field. I'm the opposite, I prefer deeper perceived DOF. If you shoot a lot for subject isolation, you may not like m43. If you would like more things to appear to be within the depth field, you would probably like m43.

Brian

Mar 12, 2022 at 08:24 PM

Uncle Chip
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Some great comments so thanks, user experience beats charts every time,

I have been on the size comparison site and listed side by side the 3 zoom lenses I use the most with the Panasonic equivalent (aperture notwithstanding) and there is a significant difference,

On the FF option I was drawn to primes to keep the size and weight down, while hiking I did find changing lenses regularly was a pain in the ass, and found I didn’t bother as much as I should especially if it was windy, so I really need to think about this,
I still haven’t solved filters on the FF yet, as I don’t have a solution that works on everything, I have a set of lee 100mm filters (only use the polariser and big stops,5 and 10, but these don’t work on the sigma 14-24, had the big dustbin lid filters when I had the Sony 12-24 and hated using them due to the size, so went with the rear filter on the siggy, they work, but a pain especially with wet gloves and no polariser, when I had the primes my smaller set wouldn’t fit on the 15mm, (didn’t want to cut it) hmm,

Another consideration is the cost, a quick eBay search gives me the g9 and trinity of lenses for about 2 K £, the A7C and 4 good primes are closer to 5K, and that doesn’t cover anything longer

I am going to do 2 things now, handle the G9 to get a real feel for it and address my camera snobbery, I have never pixel peeped, so why do I have a prejudice towards anything not FF? Especially when I know that I won’t be able so see any difference in the type of images I will be taking with it. Silly isn’t it.

Mar 13, 2022 at 05:42 AM

Blueshound
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Before I handled the G9 I had drawn the conclusion that it was too large. This was from internet perusals, of course. But once I handled it, and realized how great it felt in the hand, my opinion changed.

And also the EVF, which is large and a great experience in use. Lastly, the placement of controls on the body, especially the WB, ISO & +/- buttons just behind the shutter release button is brilliant. Altogether I find the ergonomics just a bit better than my Sony A7RIV.

None of this is to diss the A7R series, by the way. Two of my favorite features of the A7RIV are the ability to switch quickly between 3:2 & 4:3 ratios, and to switch quickly from full resolution to APS-C crop mode, which is useful with primes, effectively giving the user two focal lengths without switching lenses. (Assuming that you're OK with the crop mode being 26mp files.)

Brian

Mar 13, 2022 at 07:53 AM

FJR1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

I just made the switch from exclusively Sony (a1 - a7rivA) to Sony (a7rivA) and Olympus (OM-1). I have not experienced a significant difference in body size, but now that Covid is finally waning, the Olympus system will be my go-to travel kit: 12-100 f/4 zoom with the 9-18 Olympus or a couple primes (15, 45, 60). The OM system also allows some wildlife/bird options with the 100-400 zoom or 300 prime (FF FL equivalent of 200-800/600) that is available to me in a much smaller form factor relative to lenses.

Mar 13, 2022 at 08:21 AM

palmor
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Uncle Chip wrote:
I am just wondering about gear snobbery,
I looked at the 14-150 and 12-200 and the “super zoom” springs to mind, back in the day I got the canon 28-300, already has the 70-200f2.8 and the super zoom was very poor in comparison,

But I have no experience with the m34, so why am I prejudging it? I clearly need to check out more reviews

Both those lenses are excellent even if they are superzooms. Like the Tamron 28-200 on Sony they punch above their super zoom class.

I have experience with m43 (Panasonic) and various FF cameras (most recently the Nikon and Sony mirrorless). Last year I decided to consolidate and ended up with Sony and sold all my Nikon and most of my m43 (G9, GH5 and most lenses but I kept a GX9, GX850 and some smaller lenses). I got great images from all 3 systems but it was time to trim things down, my primary photography these days is wildlife and I opted to go full in with the Sony kit.

Back to M43, I had decided that if I was using the G9 and the larger "pro" lenses that I was OK also bringing my FF kit. For the hiking I was doing, the small amount of extra weight was not an issue (for me), however everyone definition of hiking is different and for some even a few ounces makes a big difference (for me it almost always day hikes up to ~14 miles). I did keep the GX9 and GX850 for when I truly want a smaller kit then I can get with the Sony system.

Anyway, I think the question to answer is what do you want to get out of your photography while hiking and what lens coverage (both in terms of focal length and brightness) do you NEED for that type of photography. I noticed in another reply you are going to look at the G9 (great camera) but really look at what you need for lenses and decide how much of a size/weight difference there really is.

For what it's worth if I was going to keep a completely separate kit for hiking I would never have sold my Nikon kit. The Z6/7 with the 14-30 f4, 24-70 f4 and 70-300 AF-P was an absolutely great kit. Throw in a fast prime if you need it and your set to go. Since I've consolidated when I hike right now (not that I've had a chance to travel because of the Pandemic) I'm bringing my Sony A1 or A7c with the Tamron 28-200 and the Sigma 14-24. Honestly the Sigma is overkill and I miss the Nikon 14-30

Mar 13, 2022 at 10:11 AM

ruthenium
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Uncle Chip wrote:
I want a small kit for 🥾 hiking,
As I will be starting from scratch
I have looked at crop and mft formats, I previously owned the 6500 but have no experience with the mft system apart from holding an Olympus and Panasonic at the club, and both where bigger than the 6500, this surprised me as I thought they where much smaller,
Lenses for these are confusing me, I have been told several times that the lenses are much smaller but they are comparing both lenses at the same f stop, and my understanding is that you loose nearly a...Show more →

To answer your question, my hiking setup is A1 with the Tamron 35-150 in a holster bag, and either 16-35GM or a long telephoto (100-400 or 200-600) in the backpack (depending on the expected use). This is for 10 to 15 km hikes; I am in my early 60's.
When starting from scratch, consider that your preferences may change. I switched from Olympus to Sony almost exactly three years ago. The reason was that at that time I liked the idea of compact and light camera systems, and the release of Olympus OM-D E-M1X offended me - I felt the camera was a monstrosity (still feel this today). I looked around and to my surprise (yes, Olympus made me believe that the FF cameras are considerably bigger and heavier) I realized that Sony A7III was practically as compact and light as the OM-D E-M1 Mark II. I bought A7III together with the small Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA lens (total weight with A7III is 770 g) - this is a nice, relatively light and compact package. When I started using this new camera system, I really liked the IQ. This motivated me to add new lenses. I still remember first looking (in a store) at the 24-105 G and thinking that lens was sooo big! I was wrong of course, the 24-105 G is practically the same length as the popular Olympus 12-100 F4 lens (113.3 mm vs 116.5 mm). I ended up buying the 24-105. Today, it actually feels small and light compared to my current walk about lens the Tamron 35-150. Do I care? Not as much as when I started with Sony three years ago. I am now used to handling long and relatively heavy lenses.
At the end, it is nice to have all of the choices of the different camera systems available to us these days. These choices are often deeply personal, e.g. the idea to sell my A1 to buy the OM-1 would seem totally unreasonable to me, whereas the OM-1 may be "more fun" vs A1 for others. Along these lines, the majority of people taking pictures apparently feel that using their smartphones is much fun as well. There is like a "ladder" from a smartphone camera to the top professional camera systems. People choose where they want to be on this ladder. If one wants the top professional gear, for whatever reason: professional or pleasure, that typically is neither light or compact, even for the M4/3 systems. For example, for wildlife photography, check Olympus M.Zuiko 150-400 F/4.5 Image Thread. The latest images I see posted are from E-M1X with OLYMPUS M.150-400mm F4.5 lens. This system is as long as A1 with the 200-600, and the difference in weight is probably insignificant.

Mar 13, 2022 at 02:21 PM

BlueBomberTurbo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

Ugh, I've been on a "small camera for hiking" wild goose chase for the past few years. While I haven't been picking up the latest gear for this (my $$$$ goes into work gear), sensors haven't improved much compared to what I've been using, and IQ is relatively important to me (with AF at #1). I went to m4/3, Canon APS-C, and even a DSLR (cheap FF) to find a hiking kit I liked. m4/3 IQ just wasn't there. Mainly because the color casts in the shadows destroyed the DR. You'd have to be a JPG shooter to get any decent level of DR. And high ISO was plain rough. 1" sensors weren't too far off, but m4/3 was a good step down from APS-C.

My favorite ended up being the DSLR (D700), but the weight was killing my shoulder. In a last ditch attempt, I picked up a Canon G1X III, but the lack of DOF made me want to pick up an M5/M50. There, the lack of lenses and surprisingly poor high ISO were the issues. Otherwise, the G1X III was very competent.

In the end, I decided to just use my favorite lens from the D700 (28/1.8G) adapted to a Sony body: the A7R II. That way, I have a relatively small and light body, which can use both APS-C and FF lenses effectively, depending on my need. I can also use it for work, having excellent IQ, good AF, being FF, and working with the lenses I already have for my A7 III and A6300.

I will say that, besides the D700 (favorite mainly for AF just working and controllable DOF), my 2nd favorite was the original Olympus E-M1. The body was small but felt good in the hand (nice grip), with lots of controls to stay out of the nightmare Olympus menus. IQ is surprisingly good for being so old, with more usable DR than almost any m4/3 I've owned or tested RAWs from. AF was just so-so, and lens selection was limited and pricey for such tiny lenses. I'd consider the E-M1 II, but the DR took a dive, for whatever reason. And then there's also the limited shallow DOF potential, which was another issue with the G1X III (basically using a sharp kit lens with poor MFD).

IMO, Sony APS-C is the sweet spot. Good IQ, good to great AF, large lens selection (many small FF E lenses), adequate DOF control. Lots of people complain about the bodies, but they get the job done effortlessly, without the drama of a lesser system. If you NEED a bigger body, the A7R II/III/IV are there with crop mode. You don't NEED to use larger lenses with them all the time. I'm still keeping my A6300 (previously my main backup) for a 3rd camera for work, and for longer telephoto hiking use (Canon 55-250 STM is excellent and light), while my A7R II goes hiking and working with me.

Mar 13, 2022 at 07:18 PM

Slalom
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

I came from a Canon 5DII looking for less weight as I hike. The Sony A7 now is accompanied by A7RII, A7III and A9.

I can spread the weight with a Black Rapid Sport strap (amazon), and finding an L bracket with a 35mm thread on the short arm means my right hand can support the hand grip and almost any lense. Issues on stiles, I let go of the camera, leaving it on the strap, get to the top of the stile where the left hand can keep the Camera from clouting anything. Get down on the other side and resume Right hand support of the camera. There are many alternative straps.

Now I have a tour planned, Tour de Mont Blanc, so I have acquired some peak design clips and other bits, Hoping to not get too far behind finding the other lens, with all the photo opportunities. Tried it out skiing last month, only when changing position so I got a better picture.

Does supporting the Camera differently could change jour Question, as you may keep some of your existing kit.

Oh! forgot I am getting my state Pension from the government.

Edited on Mar 15, 2022 at 05:38 AM · View previous versions

Mar 14, 2022 at 06:25 AM

formula4speed
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · FF-Crop-MFT rambalings

If we are talking about pure size, it's hard to beat the small m4/3 primes. I would usually carry the 12mm f/2, 20mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/1.8 and they make my reasonably sized Sony primes seem huge in comparison. I really appreciated that when traveling internationally, jumping on small planes and what not.

For day hikes, I'm more than fine carrying my Sony A7III and a couple lenses. The Tamron 28-200 is surprisingly not terrible at all and fairly light for the range. You could add a small wide angle (Samyang 18mm f/2.8, Voight 21mm f/3.5 etc.) and call it a day if you aren't worried about low light shooting.

You probably need to decide what range of lenses you want, and then pick a system based on what covers that the best. It's not like anyone is really making bad cameras these days.

Mar 14, 2022 at 06:51 PM


FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.