Why stay with EM1.2 and not move to Sony A9

[ptomsu]

Folks,

I think after all this buzz around the launch of the new Sony A9, that also made me start to rethink my current investment in m43 (especially the EM1.2), it is now time for conclusion.

Today I made a very simple test WRT continuous high speed shooting and EVF blackout. I set my EM1.2 to continuous high, one time with electronic shutter (18 fps) and one time with mechanical shutter (I guess these nets in 10-12 fps) and could NOT see any EVF blackout. Sure the Sony can do more fps, but hey, I could not care less about 20 versus 18 fps as well as similar with mechanical shutter.

Also sure that the Sony has higher EVF resolution, is FF and not m43, and does some other nice tricks including that new superb 100-400 - but again, my 40-150 with TC14 is not bad at all and MUCH smaller, which is due to the m43 advantages we all know. Sure also the Sony will smoke the EM1.2 WRT high ISO performance, but then again, what the EM1.2 offers to me is already more than I was asking for.

For a few days I really feared I need to switch (again), but at least for me I can rest assured with my Olympus m43 gear that this is the right choice for me also in future.

Hope this helps also others

Best regards

Peter

PS: BTW I also did these tests with my Fuji XT2 and while it does not perform as flawless as the EM1.2 I would say the EVF blackout is not there for the first few shots and then there is no blackout but the displayed image starts freezing for very short time (sub second or so) and the number of high speed shots you can get is less than with the EM1.2 and obviously also the Sony A9.

For me that shows the A9 would be only necessary when shooting long high speed sequences (200+ shots), which I almost will never do - even for my wildlife photography.

What it also clearly shows is that the NO-EVF blackout hype of the Sony A9 is definitely enormous marketing hype, as already other mirrorless cameras are able to do this, partially perfect (Olympus EM1.2), partially at least for some smaller bursts (Fuji XT2).

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

1. The body is more than twice as expensive.
2. The telephoto lenses you need to get long reach and keep the advantages of full frame, the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 cost $7,500 and $13,000 and you can't shoot faster than 10fps with them. The "expensive" Zuiko 300mm f/4 (600mm eqv.) costs $2,500.
3. The Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is $1,000 more expensive than the Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 and due to the smaller aperture, all or most of the full frame advantage is lost.
4. Olympus' weather sealing appears to be vastly better.
5. The Olympus has a fully articulated LCD.
6. The Sony replacement for the Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 (305g) is the A-mount 135mm f/1.8 (985g plus adapter). It's twice as expensive.
7. There are several f/0.95 and f/1.2 lenses available in m4/3 mount that go a long way to compensate for the smaller sensor.

I'm sure there's more. The question should rather be: Why move to the A9 when the E-M1 II is such a great camera with some of the best lenses available?

Those who shoot a lot at high ISO and need clean, noise free images at those ISO numbers and those who want or need extremely shallow depth of field will obviously find the A9 a better option, but to me it makes more sense to stretch my limits and see what I can create with the system I have. The two bodies I mostly use now, the G85 and GX8, cost me $1,200 and the 4 lenses, 12-35/2.8, 35-100/2.8, 75/1.8 and Samyang 135/2 cost me $2,000. For a total of $3,200 I have two excellent camera bodies that work very well up to ISO 3200, I have 4 lenses that offer exceptional image quality even wide open and I have money to spare to use for travel and good food.

Sony A9 + A7R + 24-70/4 + 70-200/4 + 135/1.8 + LAEA4 adapter would cost $12,350 (US prices). Add the 300mm f/2.8 and we look at just under 20,000. If we change to f/2.8 zooms to get the most out of the full frame advantage, it becomes more expensive.

For the Sony setup, I would need a "real" camera bag in addition to the luggage I travel with. The Panasonic gear fits in a $96 Lowepro Inverse 200 AW Beltpack. The price when I bought it 7-8 years ago was less than 50$, and as long as I stay with m4/3, it will last for many more years. An E-M1 with 3 lenses fits in there as well, even the 40-150 (possibly without hood). My current gear weighs just over 2,500g including the Samyang lens. Full frame gear will always be heavy unless one chooses small aperture lenses, and then what's the point?

 

[Knorp]

It's odd, for once I don't feel tempted and lusting for this A9.
No, I'm really looking forward to that future A9r ... :grin:

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I don't feel much A9 lust, either, just as I managed to resist the previous A7 models. They didn't handle Leica wides well. They feel a bit flimsy and have always (since the 707) seemed quite strange to operate. And I have complete sets of lenses for Leica and for Olympus. I'm getting an M1.2 and the 12-100 on my next trip to the US, and have to learn that one before I do any further exploring.

I'm interested in the video performance of my still cameras (with the lenses I already have), and video is an area in which I give Sony a lot of credit. But I suspect that the edge is in controllability (an area where the E-M5.2 has some problems) even though the E-M1.2 is looking really good. One factor that levels the field is 4K. The E M1.2 and the super35/APS-C cameras draw their video images from almost exactly the same area of chip. So video picture quality may be close between all of these. Even my Leica SL gets its video signal from a Super 35 area of the chip. But the objective is 8M Pixels, 24-30 frames/second, so who cares?

 

[k-hawinkler]

I am enjoying my 4 OM-D (E-M1, E-M1.2, E-M5, E-M5.2) cameras and 5 Sony (NEX-5N, NEX-7, a6300, A7r, A7r.2) cameras and waiting for arrival of my A9.
Once I have it I am sure I can figure out an area where it excels and tops my other cameras.
Keeping a finger on the pulse of technology development can be quite entertaining. :grin:

 

[raist3d]

Because if you got a brand new EM1 MK2 you bought it thinking that it would do what you wanted and be happy instead of looking at what is next?

And if you didn't get an EM1 MK2 yet, now you can get an A9?

Are we supposed to upgrade every single time a new model is announced? Doesn't make much sense to me, other than to fuel G.A.S. addiction.

- Ricardo

 

[f8orbust]

The A9 is interesting from a technological point of view, plus the fact that it probably signals the beginning of the end of Sony selling their latest sensors to Nikon etc., since it’s these companies' pro-users this camera is aimed at 'bringing over' … but as far as replacing a 4/3 camera with it, no way. It’s still a 35mm camera, which means schlepping big heavy lenses around. M-4/3 might max out in terms of hard resolution, but there’s so much more to it than just that (that said, I can see the pixel-shift technology getting quicker with every iteration of this camera, so maybe 'base' resolution will become somewhat moot).

Jim

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The A9 is interesting from a technological point of view, plus the fact that it probably signals the beginning of the end of Sony selling their latest sensors to Nikon etc.,...

Jim

This is the worrying part, particularly with Sony buying competitors like they did with Toshiba. That way, they can gain a hi-end monopoly and charge higher prices, like they've already done with the A9. Not that I think Sony users mind. They mostly seem to gulp down the Kool-Aid from gallon sized bottles.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I think this is a pretty funky looking shot with an E-M1.2 C-AF Silent Low.
My impression is "rolling shutter" distortion at work, no?

Will the A9 do any better? I'll find out.
Ignoring issues like that I find Sony FF cameras and Olympus mFT cameras are nicely complementing each other.
So why not use both, if one can afford both systems.
Most of my life I had different priorities and no camera at all.
But in retirement I am determined to have my kind of fun with photography.
I find it keeps me challenged. That's all good! After all, if you don't use it, you lose it.

 

[biglouis]

There are two reasons why the A9 does not appeal to me.

Firstly, the only camera that can justify a close to $5K price tag, to me, is a Leica. And only because when you make that investment you know that even in 5 years time you'll probably get half your money back. I did and that is why if I wanted to (which I don't) I would again. Whereas in 5 years time you'll be lucky if your Sony equipment is worth more than a few hundred dollars - and is still working, for that matter.

Secondly, I can never trust Sony again as far as glass goes. I suppose if I were to be very strict about returning glass that underperforms I might take the risk - but why have to build that in to lens choice? And if the new super zoom - which will again be ridiculously sized in comparison to the body - is as crap as the 70-200/4 then what will be the alternative?

If the system is aimed at sports photographers (or for that matter wildlife photographers) why would they move from their proven Nikon and Canon systems?

Good luck to Sony but I've been there, done that and I'm not doing it again any time soon.

Just my two cents

LouisB