fredmiranda.com
Login

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

1       2              4       5       end
  

Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?

  
 
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


I want to add one more comment that may help the OP as he makes the decision about getting the OM-1 II. For me personally, one of the things I like about FF (and even larger formats) is that it of course has a smaller sensor built in. Every FF sensor can be cropped to the size of a m4/3rds sensor. I often take advantage of that smaller sensor built into the lens by cropping. I use my 21mm f/1.4 as a 28mm f/1.8 and as a 35mm f/2.5 for example. When I do so, I know I can't turn the ISO up as high because noise and lack of dynamic range become more of a problem when I crop.

Using a m4/3rds sensor is really nothing different than a permanent crop, but a pretty big one. The m4/3rds sensor is literally a quarter of the size of a FF sensor, so when you use that sensor you can't turn the ISO up as high as on a FF sensor and expect the same results. In fact, for similar results you will need to keep the ISO two stops lower.

In practice, I think this means if you crop a lot to get the exact compositions you end up end up using, as I do, then m4/3rds won't work as well with your style. I think this is part of the reason m4/3rds doesn't work as well with much of my shooting as this is my style.

In contrast, if you always fill the frame or come close to doing so and rarely crop, then m4/3rds can provide a quite compelling option and especially if on FF you like small lenses with smaller apertures. So if you like lenses like the Sigma 24 f/3.5 i-series lens over the Sigma 24 f/2 i-series lens or like the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8 over something like the Sigma 35 f/2 i-series or Sony 35 f/1.8 then m4/3rds will provide you with lots of options like those smaller slower aperture FF primes. In addition, if you shoot FF f/4 zooms and you always wished they were just smaller and you would sacrifice shallow depth of field and/or shutter speed in some situations to get smaller zooms, such smaller zooms are available for m4/3rds and such small zooms with slower apertures just don't exist for FF.

I know you value having a small kit a lot. Personally, it matters to me, but it isn't a top priority and what some people really value as a small kit, I find too small (I find the Sony A7C and A7Cr too small for example), so m4/3rds is less of a good match for me. If you value small, however, and the sacrifices of less dynamic range at base ISO or near it and not having as much room to crop don't bother you, then m4/3rds can be an excellent option.



Aug 04, 2025 at 08:22 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


SpecFoto wrote:
….blah, blah, blah… more equivalency bs.

Since 2008 I have taken over 100,000 photos with models for swimsuit, clothing and jewelry manufactures with Nikon D300/D500 APS-C and Olympus M4/3 cameras and NEVER once have I thought that I had to make a crop sensor DOF match the output of a FF camera. They are different and I accepted that back in 2002 when I bought a D100. Long before Sony ever thought about making an 50 mm FF f1.2 lens I was enjoying the benefits of using such super fast primes with crop sensor cameras and manual lenses. When
...Show more

Hey, I am trying to help the OP. No need to call me a pinhead as you basically are in that post. Kind of nasty and pointless. You may not care what I have to say and that is fine. It is not bs and I am sharing my personal experience as well, which does not match yours and I too have shot the Panny/Leica 42.5 Nocticron and didn't find it as compelling as you do. That is my experience and I have every right to share that as you do your experience. So, enough with trying to silence people who disagree by derogating them.

Oh, and for the record I never suggested you or anyone else should try to make a crop sensor DOF match the output of a FF camera. What I said is that if you appreciate the increased depth of field you get with a m4/3rds system, you can get that same depth of field using a FF system all you have to do is stop down two stops and turn the ISO up two stops on the FF system, and that is pretty easy to do and of course that will give you the same shutter speed. That is of course true and nothing really all that technical about that statement. I don't think it is a matter of controversy either. You may not care that it is true, but some very well might.



Aug 04, 2025 at 08:26 AM
SpecFoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


Steve, I did not mean to be derogatory to you and after rereading my post I added "dpr pinheads", but you had already responded. However to be honest your posts discussing M4/3 vs FF have always put me to sleep. Maybe just better to Hide me as that is what I have done with you. Even though I been a FM member here for 15 years and a photographer for 56 years, I wrote 7 paragraphs and rather than add anything positive to my post, you had to pick on 1 item and go into length about something that the far majority of photographers don't care about. Like I needed this info.......

I stand by my original statement, the added DOF is an advantage for M4/3 over FF. Why would I want to shoot at f2.8 or f4 when I can be at f1.2 or f1.4? With faster lenses and better IBIS (than FF) I can remain at the base ISO far longer into the Golden Hour than I can with FF.



Aug 04, 2025 at 09:19 AM
Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


johnvanr wrote:
Very general I think that if someone likes a camera like the Sony A7C or A7Cr and picks the smaller Sony lenses, one can have a very nice, high IQ kit in a small package. A kit that beats MFT in many aspects.


Then again it goes the other way as well. We can have a micro 4/3 camera and enjoy a great experience using a series of very good or great lenses.
It's a personal choice and very much more so than getting the one and only camera capable of doing something unspecified (often about a not very well thought out "need").



Aug 04, 2025 at 10:29 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


SpecFoto wrote:
Steve, I did not mean to be derogatory to you and after rereading my post I added "dpr pinheads", but you had already responded. However to be honest your posts discussing M4/3 vs FF have always put me to sleep. Maybe just better to Hide me as that is what I have done with you. Even though I been a FM member here for 15 years and a photographer for 56 years, I wrote 7 paragraphs and rather than add anything positive to my post, you had to pick on 1 item and go into length about something that the
...Show more

It sounds like you should be hiding me, because you can't be bothered to listen to what I have to say. I stand by what I said as well. If someone likes the DOF of a m4/3rds shot they can get the same depth of field on FF by stopping down 2 stops and turning the ISO up two stops. Yes, they won't be at base ISO (which is usually 200 on a m4/3rds cameras) but ISO 800 on a FF camera with modern sensors has very similar dynamic range, color, and noise as m4/3rds sensors at base ISO. It does depend on the exact sensor being used, but exactly in the same way that the difference in performance between 2 m4/3rds cameras depends on the exact sensor that is being used. It isn't a sensor size thing. It is a particular sensor being used thing. There is no advantage of greater depth of field for the smaller sensor size.



Aug 04, 2025 at 10:35 AM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


Jonas B wrote:
Then again it goes the other way as well. We can have a micro 4/3 camera and enjoy a great experience using a series of very good or great lenses.
It's a personal choice and very much more so than getting the one and only camera capable of doing something unspecified (often about a not very well thought out "need").


Yup



Aug 04, 2025 at 10:39 AM
formula4speed
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


If the OP can rent, that's probably the way to go I think.

I've shot m4/3 since the OG Panasonic G1 and Sony mirrorless since the A7. I think others have laid out the plusses and minuses pretty well so I won't repeat all that. You can take good images with m4/3, but for the OP to decide if it's good enough, I think he might need to try it.

I think I've decided to stick with Sony going forward, but I know there are others here who went the other direction. Undoubtedly with some of them taking better images than I am



Aug 04, 2025 at 02:28 PM
Robin Smith
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


). I believe that the mFT image thread illustrates well what mFT is good for.

I don’t really agree. All it reflects is that most FMers who post m43 images seem to be birding and wildlife enthusiasts. The proportion of these people in the total population of m43 users is unclear. I for one do not post images on FM and I’m not a wildlife shooter and I find it “good” for what I shoot. All I will say is that m43 users do not seem to spend as much time testing lenses as FF shooters, according to FM: again whether this reflects the reality of the situation in toto, I don’t know.



Aug 04, 2025 at 04:05 PM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


Robin Smith wrote:
I don’t really agree. All it reflects is that most FMers who post m43 images seem to be birding and wildlife enthusiasts. The proportion of these people in the total population of m43 users is unclear. I for one do not post images on FM and I’m not a wildlife shooter and I find it “good” for what I shoot. All I will say is that m43 users do not seem to spend as much time testing lenses as FF shooters, according to FM: again whether this reflects the reality of the situation in toto, I don’t know.


Totally agree with this. MFT can shoot everything. Plus, the image threads on this site are often filled by just a few people who post a lot, skewing the overall impression.



Aug 05, 2025 at 01:02 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


johnvanr wrote:
On speed, the aperture remains no matter the sensor size the same thus the MFT lenses are faster. It’s the depth of field that doubles.


Looking at it that way isn’t meaningful. As a photographer, it’s not the aperture number itself that matters to me, it’s what that number represents with respect to its effect on photography that matters.

Reasons to use a large aperture, and system analysis.


Low light performance

This is about capturing the best image in low light. To analyze this I like to use the DxO sports score. The DxO sports score is the "highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits."

Now the highest sports score by a Olympus M43 cameras is with the E-M1 II, which has a score of ISO 1312. Note that the E-M1 III uses the same sensor and should score similarly. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II

For Sony, the camera with the highest sports score is the A7iii, with a score of ISO 3722.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/A7-III

Canon does even better with the R3, with a score of ISO 4086 https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-R3

Now we combine the ISO performance together with the lens aperture to figure out which system will do better in low light.



  1. If you had f/1.4 at ISO 1312, to get the same exposure at ISO 3722 (A7iii), you’d need about f/2.4.
  2. If you had f/1.4 at ISO 1312 (E-M1 II / III), to get the same exposure at ISO 4086 (R3), you’d need about f/3.0



Background blur
To isolate a subject by blurring the background and foreground, Makes the subject “pop” by separating it visually from its surroundings.

As far as Background blur goes, f/1.4 on m43 is about the same as f/2.8 on full frame. This assumes a wider lens is used on m43 and a longer lens is used on FF, such that each camera system has a lens with the same effective field of view.

But here’s the trade‑off: on full frame, you can easily get f/2.8 using a zoom lens. On Micro Four Thirds, to achieve the same look, you’d need multiple fast f/1.4 primes. Personally, I’d go with the zoom, it’s far more convenient.

Conclusion
Therefore when comparing systems with different sensor sizes, it is not meaningful to say a lens is faster or slower because just because the f/stop number is bigger or smaller. We would have to look at why the photographer wants to use a faster or slower lens, and then study the effect on the output image influence of the sensor choice on the output.






Aug 05, 2025 at 02:41 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


aCuria wrote:
Looking at it that way isn’t meaningful. As a photographer, it’s not the aperture number itself that matters to me, it’s what that number represents with respect to its effect on photography that matters.

Reasons to use a large aperture, and system analysis.

Low light performance

This is about capturing the best image in low light. To analyze this I like to use the DxO sports score. The DxO sports score is the "highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits."

Now
...Show more

Sorry, I am not sure what you are trying to say. First, references to "faster" or "slower" lenses make practical sense when made with respect to lenses of the same or equivalent focal lengths. For example a FF 50mm F1.2 lens is faster than a FF 50mm F2.8 lens. A micro-four-thirds 25mm F0.95 lens is faster than a FF 50 F2.8 lens, etc.

Regarding "I like to use the DxO sports score," I don't find this useful, because there is no data for OM-1 I or II. The sensor of this camera is considerably different from the ancient piece of technology in OM-D EM-1 Mark II. Thus the numbers you reference are not useful today (could be useful a few years ago).
"a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs" is confusing because the dynamic range is calculated from the SNR. These are not two unrelated parameters. The noise and dynamic range are the different sides of the same coin. If you don't like the PDR numbers from photonstophotos and prefer the DxO scores, why is that?

When you say "Now we combine the ISO performance together with the lens aperture to figure out which system will do better in low light. If you had f/1.4 at ISO 1312, to get the same exposure at ISO 3722 (A7iii), you’d need about f/2.4." again, I am not sure what you mean.
An mFT system at f/1.4 and ISO 1213 is equivalent to a FF system at f/2.4 and ISO 3722, assuming that the focal lengths are equivalent and the SS is the same on both. So how this is supposed to mean "which system will do better in low light"? When equivalent, two different camera systems are expected to have practically the same dynamic range.



Aug 05, 2025 at 03:37 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


ruthenium wrote:
Sorry, I am not sure what you are trying to say. First, references to "faster" or "slower" lenses make practical sense when made with respect to lenses of the same or equivalent focal lengths. For example a FF 50mm F1.2 lens is faster than a FF 50mm F2.8 lens. A micro-four-thirds 25mm F0.95 lens is faster than a FF 50 F2.8 lens, etc.


I am fine with this. However johnvanr seemed to indicate that a M43 20mm f/1.4 lens was is faster than a FF 40 f/2.5 lens which is incorrect.


ruthenium wrote:
Regarding "I like to use the DxO sports score," I don't find this useful, because there is no data for OM-1 I or II. The sensor of this camera is considerably different from the ancient piece of technology in OM-D EM-1 Mark II. Thus the numbers you reference are not useful today (could be useful a few years ago).


I see, its unfortunate we don't have better data. I just looked at the m43 camera that DxO ranked the highest.




ruthenium wrote:
"a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs" is confusing because the dynamic range is calculated from the SNR. These are not two unrelated parameters. The noise and dynamic range are the different sides of the same coin. If you don't like the PDR numbers from photonstophotos and prefer the DxO scores, why is that?


PDR numbers from photonstophotos is fine, but color depth is missing if you only consider PDR. I agree DR and SNR can be combined.

ruthenium wrote:
When you say "Now we combine the ISO performance together with the lens aperture to figure out which system will do better in low light. If you had f/1.4 at ISO 1312, to get the same exposure at ISO 3722 (A7iii), you’d need about f/2.4." again, I am not sure what you mean.
An mFT system at f/1.4 and ISO 1213 is equivalent to a FF system at f/2.4 and ISO 3722, assuming that the focal lengths are equivalent and the SS is the same on both. So how this is supposed to mean "which system will do better in low
...Show more

The A7iii would be better if you mount a lens faster than f/2.4, which is quite trivial to do.




Aug 05, 2025 at 04:12 AM
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


aCuria wrote:
I am fine with this. However johnvanr seemed to indicate that a M43 20mm f/1.4 lens was is faster than a FF 40 f/2.5 lens which is incorrect.


I see, its unfortunate we don't have better data. I just looked at the m43 camera that DxO ranked the highest.



PDR numbers from photonstophotos is fine, but color depth is missing if you only consider PDR. I agree DR and SNR can be combined.

The A7iii would be better if you mount a lens faster than f/2.4, which is quite trivial to do.



Naturally, "a M43 20mm f/1.4 lens is faster than a FF 40 f/2.5 lens" is incorrect, and we can state as much. I might be wrong but 90% of photographers may not know what this exactly means. Thus, we just have to make peace and accept the fact that most people are not interested in the details. Who cares, really, as long as we have the understanding (and keep learning to improve our understanding)?
Regarding "The A7iii would be better if you mount a lens faster than f/2.4, which is quite trivial to do" you are making a trivial point that faster lenses are readily available for FF cameras. Absolutely. Anyone who appreciates this should use a FF camera (or maybe consider adding a medium format system).
The advantage of micro-four-thirds is like that of the compact cameras (Leica Q2/3, GFX100 RF, Sony RX 1R etc.); they all are "crippled" in some ways, yet are so popular. And, why's that? Because they offer some important function in a compact form. This is exactly what one can obtain by purchasing OM-1 II with the 300mm F4 and/or 40-150mm F2.8 lenses - a camera system that you can have with you on long hikes or when travelling, etc., and we all know that the best camera is the one that you have with, and can have with you, you most times than one that you can shoot occasionally, only from a stationary position or from a window of a car. Many comparisons that decide whether FF or mFT is technically(!) "better" completely miss this practical point. Is the RX1RIII better than A7RV? Of course, the former is an awfully limited system compared to the latter, yet you know why the compact system invited so much interest: because this is one that one can carry practically at all times.



Aug 05, 2025 at 05:03 AM
johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


I’m so tired of this discussion on fast lenses. I’m not an expert and don't want to become one, but for every expert that says what you guys say, there is another one that says what I say. I’d use either lens happily if I could mount the Sony one on a camera I’d want to use.

And for someone with my limited knowledge: how come a light meter gives a result not knowing what the film format or sensor size is? Obviously, the exposure pyramid is the same for whatever format.

Edited on Aug 05, 2025 at 08:32 AM · View previous versions



Aug 05, 2025 at 05:54 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


Perhaps this is helpful. We all know when we buy a lens if we get a wider aperture the lens is going to tend to be bigger and more expensive than if we buy a lens with a smaller aperture. If we use the lens enough at the wider aperture, however, then we sometimes decide to get the bigger, more expensive, and faster lens. If we don't use it at the faster aperture, however, it really can make sense to get the smaller, less expensive lens that has a slower aperture.

Choosing m4/3rds vs. a larger sensor as a system I see as a similar choice, a similar choice but not just for a specific lens but for the system. On FF do you find yourself ever wanting to shoot apertures faster than f/2.4? Using zooms do you find yourself ever wanting to shoot apertures faster than f/3.5? If the answer to both questions is no, then I think you really should consider m4/3rds. You may well be able to get a cheaper and smaller kit. If the answer to either question is yes, however, you need to realize that capability on m/4/3rds generally isn't available with AF anyway.

Then you need to ask a complementary set of questions. On FF using zooms do you ever want a smaller lens and would be willing to trade having a max aperture of f/5.6 or even f/8 to get that smaller lens?. For a long zoom do you want a smaller lens enough that you would be willing to have a max aperture of f/11? On FF using long FF lenses do you really want a smaller but slower prime like a 400 f/5.6 or 600 f/8? On FF shooting macro do you really want a long high magnification lens and typically shoot at small apertures to increase depth of field? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then an m4/3rds system can provide that capability and FF systems generally cannot.

FF and larger sensor systems do have capabilities that m4/3rds systems do not have, but if you aren't going to use those capabilities, then they don't matter, and the m4/3rds system just like a lens with a smaller max aperture can be smaller and cheaper. m4/3rds systems have capabilities that FF systems and larger sensor systems do not, but again if you aren't going to use them they don't matter. If you want what the capabilities that you can only get with a FF or larger sensor camera and you want the capabilities that you can only get with a m4/3rds system, then you probably need to get more than one system.

There are pros and cons to both systems, but there are also misunderstandings.

FF systems are not better than m4/3rds systems at high ISO. If a m4/3rds lens is available with a two-stop faster f/number and the same field of view, you can just turn the ISO down two stops on the m4/3rds system and still get the same shutter speed and depth of field. Dynamic range, color depth, and noise will be similar a well.

Similarly, m4/3rds systems do not have an increased depth of field advantage. A FF lens with the same field of view can be stopped down two stops and you can turn the ISO up two stops and get the same shutter speed and depth of field. Dynamic range, color depth, and noise will be similar as well.

So it is important to know the pros and cons when considering the systems, but it is also important to know what common misperceptions exist and not to consider those misconceptions just because they are frequently mentioned.



Aug 05, 2025 at 07:26 AM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


Robin Smith wrote:
I don’t really agree. All it reflects is that most FMers who post m43 images seem to be birding and wildlife enthusiasts. The proportion of these people in the total population of m43 users is unclear. I for one do not post images on FM and I’m not a wildlife shooter and I find it “good” for what I shoot. All I will say is that m43 users do not seem to spend as much time testing lenses as FF shooters, according to FM: again whether this reflects the reality of the situation in toto, I don’t know.


Yes if anyone wants to browse the Mu-43 forum they'll see most M43 shooters are actually NOT wildlife/bird photographers.



Aug 05, 2025 at 04:01 PM
jmmaher
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


I am a birder only when someone convinces me to go out with them. Maybe once a year or so. However over the years I have seem many people using Olympus cameras when traveling.

Maybe we should back to what the OP asked:
I'd love to hear some reports from Sony users on the Olympus OM1 II's image quality, especially at high ISO, and their experiences in general with the OM1 II camera.


***We have all seemed to go far afield with technical descriptions rather than experience using the cameras.
My experience has only been with the Om-3 but it is very similar in use to the OM-1.


Aug 05, 2025 at 04:17 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.3 #18 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?



chiron wrote:
Steve,

Thank you for the detailed and helpful answer. The use cases you specify, where I might find the different systems offer very different capabilities or inabilities, happily do not apply much to me.

I usually don't shoot at base ISO, so that is not an issue for me (but I am likely to be shooting at high ISO, which is one of my concerns about the OM1 II's MFT format).

I rarely shoot macro.

I don't have and I am not drawn to the new f2 zooms--they are too big and heavy to be appealing for me.

Almost all of
...Show more

I used the GH1, it's much older, at 800-1600 iso. So its hard to see the newer ones not being able to do 3200. However Canon aps better at 1600, 12800 sounds pretty high it is smaller sensor

I used the 85/1.4 Rokinon adapted sometimes, tough to beat the 170/1.4, probably most likely on ff is 70-200/2.8 which is 2 stops slower so kinda cancels out the high iso advantage. I also do a lot of macro and like the small sensor. Of course, if you aren't interested in going longer, you can get 85/1.4 on ff coming out ahead on high iso (but probably not size.)

Yes a 1.4 lens is faster than 2.5 lol. Don't use 40 if you need 20mm and vice versa



Aug 05, 2025 at 05:12 PM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


chiron wrote:
I usually don't shoot at base ISO, so that is not an issue for me (but I am likely to be shooting at high ISO, which is one of my concerns about the OM1 II's MFT format).

I rarely shoot macro.

I don't have and I am not drawn to the new f2 zooms--they are too big and heavy to be appealing for me.

Almost all of my shooting takes place in the range from 24mm to 90mm and can be described as documentary in style, whether it is travel, family, street, or even landscape, architecture, and still life.

So,
...Show more

Having been through the whole thread I'm going to quote this post not only because it's from the OP but because it invites a response to some critical points. I've also trimmed away anything I consider not pertinent. I apologise in advance for the length of this post !!!

For Sony I shoot (have shot with) : A7r, rii, A7, r4 and I still have the r5 and A6000 (converted to IR FS). Abotu 18 months ago I delved into M43 and because totally hooked, I now have the OM1i, OM3 and OM5i (selling - or I should say sold as it's on it's way soon).
At one time I had around 35-40 lenses for my Sonys, that's now 6-7. I started with 3-4 lenses for the OM1i, that's now 12.

There's a lot to unpack however I'd urge you to take a look at my Instagram from the past 18 months here (a lot of genres are covered). I mainly shoot travel, street, cityscapes and landscapes and street portraits.
https://www.instagram.com/thedragonsfather/

DYNAMIC RANGE
Not that anyone can actually see that on a 4k monitor anyway (and most have lower res. than 4k)! Current Rec.709 displays are really only designed to output between 7 and 9 stops of dynamic range. HDR displays can now show 10-14 stops of dynamic range. UHD is 13 stops. sRGB being an 8-bit space, limits the displayable dynamic range to 8 stops (and this is what the VAST majority of people view at and what printers generally want the files delivered in). Adobe RGB, has a dynamic range of around 10 stops.
The OM1 has a DR of 13.4 stops. OM-3 is 13.7 stops. Sony A7Cii & A7r5 have 15 stops . Nikon Z8 has 14.3 stops. Canon R8 has 14.7 stops. In other words - you aren't going to see any difference between them on a monitor, TV, phone or laptop! Pixel peeping you will see a difference in the shadows - but M43 cameras are better at managing highlights and recovering what you may think is blown out.

RESOLUTION
I've found that x3 the resolution is rarely a major (if any) advantage. If you crop a lot (not a usual situation for most shooters) then yes, otherwise the OM files print beautifully up to 80x60cms (and I've heard some say much larger though I haven't printed any larger than that) with zero issue at all (the size I printed at for a recent exhibition in Shanghai of 24 images). If you want to pixel peep on a computer then be my guest but it's not making a distinct (any) difference when printed and viewed at the correct distance.
Note also that with today's software upscaling is a simple solution : There is virtually no difference in the 1:1 files after upscaling, so long as you used quality glass which could define the finer details in the first place. Of course if you pixel peep even deeper then there are differences, you can't beat native resolution, however for most people that's not required or necessary. YMMV.

AF
OM1 vs my Sony A7r5 is good enough and close enough for virtually everything I personally shoot, even though the Sony is a fraction faster and a fraction more accurate. Whether it's my imagination or not (impossible to quantify unless you are shooting the exact same subject at the exact same moment, with both systems) I find the OM-3 just as good as the A7r5 (the OM-3 has the guts of the latest OM1ii, at least for what I shoot, and the eye-AF for people/birds/dogs etc. is excellent.

LOW DoF Portraits
Check out my street portraits shot with the OM 45/1.2, SIgma 56/1.4, OM 75/1.8 and also with the 20/1.4
https://www.instagram.com/p/DL4_OWEILeh/?img_index=1
https://www.instagram.com/p/DGGugCFsp0B/?img_index=1
https://www.instagram.com/p/DI6bLgFocgp/?img_index=1
https://www.instagram.com/p/DERbNloC4d0/?img_index=9

NOISE & LOW LIGHT
Never an issue with modern software and those fast (f1.2 and f1.4) lenses are superb in low light. If you don't post process then maybe it could be an issue.
However look at this set - I was the BTS shooter on a music video, shot in a club basement. Not one shot under 12,800 and most at 25,600 ISO. You lose some detail (especially on Instagram!) but the client was more than happy.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DIYmhMAR76i/?img_index=1


PRINT
It's important to note though that if you don't print large or sell large digital files (and the vast majority of people don’t) but mostly post to social media for family/friends, or have smaller prints made, produce books or sell to stock agencies, even sell for billboards, then you absolutely don't need large files and 20mp (and even 12mp cameras such as the Nikon D700 or D3s or the revered Sony A7s range) are more than you'll ever need. Nowadays cameras come with more and more MPs - because let's face it - that's been a major selling point for decades, even if most people don't know why they need that many pixels.

I upscaled many of those shots in that exhibition (in ON1 Photo Raw 2024) at 200% with the files then being roughly 40+mp. The prints have been delivered and all look great to me (upscaled or not), as they did when pixel peeping on my Philips 32" 4K. So I know there wouldn't be any issue whatsoever even if I upscaled further and printed at 60" x 40", should any client require a print of that size. 
The table below (file size requirements) are taken from a high quality US printing shop's website - Whitewall perhaps) and is before any upscaling is considered. In inches (do your own conversion to cms !) because it was from a US printer :

MPs ........ Resolution .......... V.G.Print

12.4 ....... 2912 x 4368 ....... Up to 30x40”
16.2 ....... 3328 x 4992 ....... Up to 30x40”
17.9 ....... 3456 x 5184 ....... Up to 36x48”
21.0 ....... 3744 x 5616 ....... Up to 40x60”

An outstanding print (for 1 to 1 sales) would be :
12mp = 16 x 24”
20mp = 20 x 30”

I'd suggest people take a look at this thread to see what upscaling can do (even pixel peeping) with M43 files :  https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1879214/0#16682231

SIZE AND WEIGHT
I look with bemusement at claims Sony can match the M43 lenses for size and weight. It simply isn't true. Many m43 lenses are absolutely miniscule (15/1.7, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8 etc. or the Laowa 7.5 f2 or 10mm f2) but still super sharp and produce great images. Lenses such as the Laowa wide trinity (6mm, 7.5mm and 10mm - double for FF equivalents), the f1.8 trinity, my favourite lens the 20/1.4 PRO or the trio of superb portrait lenses (OM 45/1.2 PRO, Sigma 56/1.4 or OM 75/1.8).
The other PRO lenses 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 are spectacular. As are the 300/4 and 150-400 (other worldly good but with a price tag to match).
I fit my normal street kit of mini tripod, OM3, Laowa 6+10, OM 20/1.4 and OM 45/1.2. plus filers and extra batteries (rarely used) in a small 6L sling. Around 2.5 kgs inc the bag !
BTW the PRO designation means, aside from guaranteeing their top, sharpest lenses, that they are IP-X53 rated - no other camera manufacturer has yet dared to send their gear off to be tested and rated to those levels.

IBIS & COMPUTATIONAL MODES
The M43 sensor is ¼ of the size of FF by area - which means far easier to stabilise regardless of how many stops each claim. In the real world if I can hold the A7r5 still for a ½ second shot then I've done really well ! With my OM cameras I can usually nail 4 secs pretty easily (1-2 attempts), 5-6 secs (4-5 attempts). Now imagine what you can do with that - for me I like to show movement (human) in city environments.
Olympus have been miles ahead of the rest of the photographic world for decades for computational modes. Canon, Sony and Nikon have only recently introduced pro-capture which Oly have in their decade old cameras. Recently expanding their in camera ND filter range to 128 in the OM1ii. There are numerous others from Starry Sky for Astro to Live Composite (my absolute favourite) which will add only additional new light - from lightning, fireworks, light painting etc. see the Fireworks shots on my IG.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DFhzTu0JOvZ/?img_index=1

CREATIVE DIAL
This is solely on the OM-3 (though jpg manipulation can be performed in other OM cameras it's a bit more convoluted to both add the recipe and switch to it in use).
Basically there are 5 'points' on the dial that you can program and easily switch at a second's notice. 3 of mine are Dramatic II (a very wide gamut B&W), Leica Mono D and a Portra 400. Shooting in RAW+Jpg gives me the best of both worlds, customised recipes for the jpgs + a RAW.

REAL WORLD
In the real world there are very few people who would be unhappy with a M43 kit. The cameras and lenses are excellent and some spectacular, also generally smaller and less expensive (especially on the Used markets) which means the whole kit (from tripod to bags to filters etc. etc.) are all smaller and less expensive.
The images are super sharp with fast AF. And the computational modes are so much fun.
Most of my work doesn't need NR but still since every shot is processed (mainly in ON1) then I apply it by default, all images are super super clean and sharp.

TLDR
I love both my Sonys and my OM cameras. Horses for courses. However nowadays, unless for model shoots (A7r5+85/1.4 though I'll still use the OM1 and portrait lenses alongside it) the OM-3 with Leofoto grip (incorporating an L bracket) is the camera I reach for 95% of the time.

Chinon - I'd urge to take a look at the OM-3 (but you must add the Leofoto grip - which is transformative) and a couple of small primes. Maybe hire the OM-3 + 20/1.4 and 45/1.2, I think this setup is near perfect for your needs. M43 has put the word FUN back into my photography whilst retaining a very high image quality.







Edited on Aug 06, 2025 at 03:02 PM · View previous versions



Aug 05, 2025 at 05:35 PM
ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II?


johnvanr wrote:
I’m so tired of this discussion on fast lenses. I’m not an expert and don't want to become one, but for every expert that says what you guys say, there is another one that says what I say. I’d use either lens happily if I could mount the Sony one on a camera I’d want to use.

And for someone with my limited knowledge: how come a light meter gives a result not knowing what the film format or sensor size is? Obviously, the exposure pyramid is the same for whatever format.


A "faster" lens has a larger entrance pupil; thus, it can project MORE LIGHT on a sensor when compared to a "slower" lens. This extra light can be used to set a faster shutter speed. The entrance pupil = focal length/f-number.
For a 20mm f/1.4 lens and a 40 f/2.5 lens, the corresponding numbers are 14.3mm and 16mm, respectively.
The 40 f/2.5 lens has a larger "physical aperture" and can project more light on a sensor - this is the "faster' lens of the two.
Note that this consideration is straightforward for lenses of the same or equivalent focal lengths. I wouldn't compare different or inequivalent focal lengths, e.g. FF 50 f/1.2 vs FF 85 f/1.8, as this is not straightforward and may not be meaningful. Except, for cropping. For example, the 50mm cropped to 85mm is equivalent to 85 f/2, so by a tiny margin the 85mm f/1.8 can be called a "faster" lens, although the difference is most likely not important in practice.

Exposure is light per unit area; thus, regardless of the overall sensor size or format, exposure is per the same area. I am not sure what you refer to as "the exposure pyramid." The exposure is determined ONLY by TWO settings: the aperture and shutter speed, nothing else.



Aug 05, 2025 at 07:35 PM
1       2              4       5       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4       5       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account