New Olympus High End m43 Camera

[pegelli]

Can you not use a Nikon lens on a Sony camera with an adapter?

You'll even need to use them on the Z7 with an adapter.

This is what someone else (who is also considering to change his M43 set-up to Nikon mirrorless) reported on one of them:

I tested the current 80-400 with FTZ converter and it was unfortunately much less responsive on a Z7 compared to the D850/D810. Especially for wildlife I find this too slow. Hence the wish for a native 80-400 S-lens that would definitely not have these issues.

The 70-300 is what the name says - a 70-300 BUT for decent wildlife photography I at least need a 400 on the tele end.

The Sony 100-400 is native E-mount when coupled with the A9 (and matched 1.4x and 2x converters) will leave the Z7 AF with (even still unreleased) native lenses behind. Maybe a future Z9 or Z7ii but who can tell.

And who needs 5 different lenses for birding, one good one is all it takes :salute:

But I have the feeling we're going off topic again, so to bring it back on topic, I think even the new "big and ugly" Olympus M43 with native lenses will be a whole lot smaller for birding than any FF combination and IQ wise they will be very hard to distinguish from any FF offering irrespective of the brand.

I'm not a bird photographer, but if I were I would consider the M43 options ahead of anything else and even APS-C (Fuji or Sony) before FF.

 

[Vivek]

Those Nikkors go well with D500/D750/850.

Sony 100-400

vs

Nikkor 200-500
Nikkor 300/4 PF
Nikkor 500/5.6 PF
Nikkor 80-400
Nikkor....

Need I go on?

LouisB

 

[biglouis]

You'll even need to use them on the Z7 with an adapter.

I'm not a bird photographer, but if I were I would consider the M43 options ahead of anything else and even APS-C (Fuji or Sony) before FF.

One does tend to get locked into a circular argument. If you want low weight, mirrorless and fast frame rates then the G9 or EM1-mkII are hard to beat. However, they do not deliver outstanding image quality. They do deliver good enough and sometimes spectacular results but I do not get AF keeper rates to write home about and I've shot thousands of frames now with the G9+200/2.8 which is just about the flagship - or at least shares the flagship slot with the EM1-MkII and 300/4.

LouisB

 

[Vivek]

Anecdotal claims aside, when considering the hard numbers and facts, as K-H said, the Sony A9 is head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[pegelli]

One does tend to get locked into a circular argument. If you want low weight, mirrorless and fast frame rates then the G9 or EM1-mkII are hard to beat. However, they do not deliver outstanding image quality. They do deliver good enough and sometimes spectacular results but I do not get AF keeper rates to write home about and I've shot thousands of frames now with the G9+200/2.8 which is just about the flagship - or at least shares the flagship slot with the EM1-MkII and 300/4.

LouisB

OK, so we'll have to wait for the new "big & ugly" olympus flagship camera to see if that is still the case. I think that's what this thread is about and listening to Jorgen and reading some other stuff on the internet it's supposed to be a significant step up in AF and sensor performance.

And I don't think it's a circular argument, I've read so many times (and seen examples) about all the weight advantages with minimal IQ difference of M43 vs. FF on GetDPI that I don't think the IQ difference is as bad as you seem to imply in this last post of yours.

 

[pegelli]

Anecdotal claims aside, when considering the hard numbers and facts, as K-H said, the Sony A9 is head and shoulders above the rest.

Yup, both performance (paired with good native lenses) and total cost of the system.

 

[Vivek]

I think Louis is being quite honest about that. It is refreshing to hear that.

Jorgen’s own shots over ISO400 show pebble sized noise, regardless of his claims.

And I don't think it's a circular argument, I've read so many times (and seen examples) about all the weight advantages with minimal IQ difference of M43 vs. FF on GetDPI that I don't think the IQ difference is as bad as you seem to imply in this last post of yours.

 

[pegelli]

I think Louis is being quite honest about that. It is refreshing to hear that.

Jorgen’s own shots over ISO400 show pebble sized noise, regardless of his claims.

I agree, Louis has always expressed some reservation on the M43 performance for birding but also showed some pretty good results.
But it's not only Jorgen who kept pushing M43 as a full fledged FF alternative, and as always beauty is in the eye of the beholder, especially on the appreciation/disgust of noise in digital images.

Bottom line, I'm just very curious how much AF improvements the new Olympus will show in AF and sensor performance, interesting times ahead

 

[Vivek]

AFAIK, IQ and noise are not compatible.

 

[bensonga]

I agree, Louis has always expressed some reservation on the M43 performance for birding but also showed some pretty good results.

With respect to photographing birds with m43 cameras and telephoto lenses, I think it's really important to distinguish between shooting birds in flight vs all other bird photography. We've seen some truly outstanding m43 photos of birds at rest (so to speak) from several people on this m43 forum. Personally, I'm more interested in seeing the details of a birds plumage, nesting behavior etc than most BIF photos. For birds at rest photos, the compact size and long reach of m43 long telephoto lenses vs FF35 equivalent solutions would be a real plus to me, if I was photographing birds. AF performance is of course less demanding for BAR, so I would think most of the newer m43 cameras are up to the task. That still leaves the question of m43 low light performance.

Gary

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I think Louis is being quite honest about that. It is refreshing to hear that.

Jorgen’s own shots over ISO400 show pebble sized noise, regardless of his claims.

The GM5 clearly does, but I shoot RAW with that camera, no noise reduction in post. Photos I shoot for commercial purposes have no noise. I haven't had a photo rejected for noise by a stock agency for years.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Anecdotal claims aside, when considering the hard numbers and facts, as K-H said, the Sony A9 is head and shoulders above the rest.

Nope, compared to the D500, it's more or less comparable, but at more than twice the price for the body, much more expensive lenses and little access to native, second hand telephoto lenses.

 

[Vivek]

D500- APS-C DSLR

A9 FF mirrorless cam.

I thought it was obvious that we were discussing mirrorless.

Regardless, there is only one camera that has no black out (DSLRs do not cut it).

 

[biglouis]

With respect to photographing birds with m43 cameras and telephoto lenses, I think it's really important to distinguish between shooting birds in flight vs all other bird photography. We've seen some truly outstanding m43 photos of birds at rest (so to speak) from several people on this m43 forum. Personally, I'm more interested in seeing the details of a birds plumage, nesting behavior etc than most BIF photos. For birds at rest photos, the compact size and long reach of m43 long telephoto lenses vs FF35 equivalent solutions would be a real plus to me, if I was photographing birds. AF performance is of course less demanding for BAR, so I would think most of the newer m43 cameras are up to the task. That only leaves the question of m43 low light performance.

Gary

I have no argument with bird portraits with my g9+200/2.8 and TCs. In fact, the Lumix 'Leica' 200/2.8 really is a beautiful 'Leica-like' lens and produces lovely background bokeh and typical Leica punch. But as Gary say, BIF is a struggle - although I have pulled off some lovely BIF shots. Just not as many as I expected - and I have to say after a year with the camera I think I can claim without sounding vain that it is not (entirely) my technique which is to blame.

Then there is the issue of low-light performance. This was shot on my G9 in C-AF mode, single AF point, at iso3200, 280mm, f4.0 1/1000. Obviously, I would not have normally chosen iso3200 for any shot but in this case I was shooting shutter priority and I had my speed and aperture fixed with the iso floating (which is in fact what I do for BIF). I'd entered a wooded area and hadn't had time to adjust to one of my custom settings which lowers the shutter speed down to 1/250 for bird portraits. The opportunity was fleeting and I just framed, prayed and sprayed.

I've worked on the photo and cleaned it up - making the most pragmatic compromise I can between preserving detail and controlling noise. In the end I actually think I have something I can print up to a modest 40cmx30cm and it will make a nice wall hanger. It is currently my PC wallpaper at 1680x1050 and it look clean and sharp. You can click through to the 2048x1536px file I plan to print from and tell me what you think.



I would be amazed, though if the new Olympus super camera can really extend the bounds of high iso limitation of 43rds sensors by anything other than a thin margin. Unless, of course, it is going to have a BSI sensor, which I am dearly hoping Panasonic or Olympus will get Sony to develop for them next.

Just my two cents

Louis

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

D500- APS-C DSLR

A9 FF mirrorless cam.

I thought it was obvious that we were discussing mirrorless.

Regardless, there is only one camera that has no black out (DSLRs do not cut it).

I thought it was obvious that we were discussing cameras :ROTFL:

If a DSLR of about the same size and weight as a mirrorless camera does the job at half the price, it's a very easy choice for me. When it comes to BIF, shooting is mostly done in broad daylight, and the advantage of a full frame sensor is nill, and even in the dark, the crop sensor comes out just fine, since that 200mm f/2 suddenly gets a reach of 300mm. No, there are no current 300mm f/2 available to give the full frame sensor an added advantage. Actually, the advantage of a smaller sensor is considerable, since the crop factor gives smaller, cheaper lenses. Only if more resolution is needed, a full frame camera has an advantage, but in that case, we're talking about A7R III and Z7, not A9.

 

[ptomsu]

I thought it was obvious that we were discussing cameras :ROTFL:

If a DSLR of about the same size and weight as a mirrorless camera does the job at half the price, it's a very easy choice for me. When it comes to BIF, shooting is mostly done in broad daylight, and the advantage of a full frame sensor is nill, and even in the dark, the crop sensor comes out just fine, since that 200mm f/2 suddenly gets a reach of 300mm. No, there are no current 300mm f/2 available to give the full frame sensor an added advantage. Actually, the advantage of a smaller sensor is considerable, since the crop factor gives smaller, cheaper lenses. Only if more resolution is needed, a full frame camera has an advantage, but in that case, we're talking about A7R III and Z7, not A9.

Could not agree more1

Just to comment on resolution of crop sensors - especially m43 - the new Sharp 8k camera uses an m43 sensor and this should be in the range of 32-36MP. As soon as that becomes a true product I can see that Sharp will sell their sensors to other m43 vendors or the other vendors will start to come up with sensors of similar resolution.

But actually then even the resolution advantage of FF is gone - well as soon as one does not require 50-100MP as these are the resolutions that should come for FF sensors from Sony and Canon ...

 

[ptomsu]

Next image of the EM1X

https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-next-leaked-e-m1x-image/

My guess is that the lens on this picture is the new 150-400 ....

 

[Vivek]

16mp G5 Pebble sized to 31mp Sharp? Cobblestone sized noise?:thumbup:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

16mp G5 Pebble sized to 31mp Sharp? Cobblestone sized noise?:thumbup:

The GM5 is ancient technology. Although the camera was launched in 2014, the sensor dates back to the G3 from 2011. In 2011, cameras had names like Sony NEX-7, Nikon V1 and Leica M9-P. Does anybody remember those at all :ROTFL:

 

[pegelli]

In 2011, cameras had names like Sony NEX-7, Nikon V1 and Leica M9-P. Does anybody remember those at all :ROTFL:

Of course, who can forget those gems, not me. I even remember the 2005 cameras like the Konica Minolta 5D and 7D and Olympus E300, for me those are unforgettable too :salute: