Looking at upgrading my ageing kit...APS-C to MFT?

[slicendice]

I'm going through a bit of a transitional phase at the moment (I'm talking cameras here, btw! ). I currently have a Canon 40D, which I've owned from new, along with a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS, a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f4L (though the majority of my photographs are with the 17-55). It's a good setup which has served me pretty well over the years.

However, recently I've found I've been leaving it at home more and more and just using the camera on my phone (Google Pixel 8) when I'm out and about. I suspect there are two main reasons for this: firstly, I'm simply getting older and/or lazier and lugging a hulking great 40D + lens(es) around is becoming more and more of a challenge. And secondly, when I first got the 40D (way back in 2008!), the cameras available on phones were a bit naff...so the pics taken were not great (and often were pretty bad!). Camera phones today, however, are massively improved and so the difference in quality between the images they can produce and the images from my 40D is much less noticeable. In fact, due to all the in-phone processing that's done on them, they can often appear considerably better straight off the bat.

So the extra effort and inconvenience of lugging a DSLR around often doesn't feel like it produces results that make it worthwhile by comparison. Obviously with PP and tweaking the 40D pics can be enhanced a lot, plus the ability to utilise a proper optical zoom lens leaves the phone in the dust.

The issue I have with using my phone is that I don't think I quite click into photographer mode in the same way as when I'm holding a "proper" camera. That probably sounds a bit weird, but I think what I mean is that I tend to think more about a photograph, how it's composed, what the light is doing, etc, etc when I'm using my 40D...which can (but by no means always will!) lead to a better image.

I love taking pictures on a camera, but I feel like I've just drifted away from that a bit, which I regret and want to try and reverse. So I'm considering what would be the best way forward. The phone is great for certain things - nights out, family snaps, etc - but I would like to get back into using my camera more.

I'm not a serial upgrader, but having had my current setup for >17 years, I think it's time for a refresh. Which then obviously leads to the question...what do I get?

I originally had a 20D before my 40D so I've been with Canon for years, but I'm by no means looking to stay with Canon simply because that's what I've always had. Obviously if I did stay with them, I'd have the advantage of already owning Canon glass so wouldn't need to refresh that.

One of the main things I want is a camera that doesn't add a lot of bulk/inconvenience when I'm travelling. Whilst I enjoy having a stab at pretty much any genre (wildlife, urban, people, sport), the majority of my photography is landscapes so I would usually be carrying it in a small backpack.

One of the cameras that has caught my eye recently is the OM-5. I know that switching to this would mean refreshing lenses as well, but there are some compelling reasons, the biggest of which (for me at least) are:

• size/weight
• IBIS
• built-in ND filters
• weather sealing

I know various manufacturers offer IBIS these days (though I believe the OM IBIS is up amongst the best in the business), but the built-in ND filters is a massive plus - I love taking water pictures so this would be a real game-changer for me. As would the weather sealing - the number of times I've had to try and improvise with a plastic bag as a rain cover when an unexpected downpour has struck! Not a pretty sight! It's also fabulously small and compact and so would help overcome the issue of my age-induced laziness

I know it's "only" 20MP (comparatively low compared to some cameras these days), but having looked at quite a lot of sample images, I really can't see it as being an issue - plus my 40D is only 10MP, so it would still be a big upgrade. I also believe it doesn't have the same AI AF detection that's offered by some other manufacturers, but tbh that's not really something that I've ever really been that interested in.

Obviously it would mean switching from APS-C to MFT and that's one of the questions I have - does anyone have any experience of making this switch? Did it work for you? Do you have any regrets?

My other concern ("concern" is probably too strong a word tbh...consideration?) is regarding the performance of MFT sensors when it comes to image noise and depth of field. There seem to be rumours around that MFT sensors produce less depth of field and more noise...but is that true in a real-world sense (and by that I mean in terms of any noticeable issues for the majority of pictures taken)? I realise it depends on the type of photography you're doing, but again I'm wondering if MFT would actually be noticeably different to APS-C?

If anyone has any experience of MFT, or specifically making the switch from APS-C, or if you're the owner of an OM-5, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Thanks

 

[GreenNinja67]

I've had full frame, APS-C and switched to M4/3 with no regrets.

I use the Olympus EM1X and am very happy with it.

You get MORE depth of field so if you're a landscape or macro shooter this is beneficial. If you like buttery bokeh then this is not beneficial (you can still get the look though depending on which lenses you choose to buy).

Yes the images are slightly noisier but with DeNoise apps this is not a deal breaker.

Take a look at my Flickr, all the recent images are M4/3.

www.flickr.com/terencerees

 

[Box Brownie]

Just some observations.....

Going back some years I too had the 40D and it produced some of the cleanest images I have ever had (I upgraded to the 7D and that had some the hardest to pp images I had seen) I ended up with a 5D3 and was happy with that but the weight and advancing years did not do me any favours.

In 2016 I switched to mFT but not before researching the best software for wrangling the noise (at above 800 or so ISO)

So yes, you have to be conscious that noise could impact mFT images but now days nothing that cannot be mitigated for in post processing.

As for DoF, yes depending on subject, situation and lens it is more obviously deeper compared to larger sensors. One aspect about this AFAIK is the photo sites pitch (density?). They are way closer together than on FF and 'crop' sensors and that smaller pitch I understand has an influence on DoF

Re: equivalency ~ because of the smaller sensor (a quarter the size of full frame) all lenses have the equivalent focal length FoV as a lens of x2 the stated FL i.e. my 300mm lens is a FF equivalent to a 600mm lens. The one controversy is see is whether equivalency can be applied(?) to aperture?

AFAIK bearing in mind that the lens aperture is an absolute physical calculation i.e. if as in the case of my 300mm is f4 but the fact that it is used on an mFT does not change that i.e. f4 is f4 whatever the mount.

However, the inescapable fact is that the DoF is larger with a contributing factor being the pixel pitch. I have not to date seen well put reasoning to explain why the visually (estimated?) bigger DoF is in factually "equivalent" to the FF lens of e.g. f8 ???

 

[ancient_mariner]

M43 makes a lot of sense if you find APS-C too bulky. You don't lose much if anything in terms of image quality, but the kit is much lighter.

 

[Adamcski]

Im 43 in a few weeks and just sold off all my FF lumix S5II camera and lumix FF lenses.

I’ve been with Oly / OMD a while now with the OM1 mk1 (x2) and the 8-25 F4 pro, 12-40 F2.8 Pro V2, 40-150 F2.8 pro and 90 mm macro.

Love the system and kit (I was M43rds before FF also with LUMIX) and prior to that Canon FF and APSC DLSR

I may get a FF set up again but I don’t miss anything about my lumix stuff. Especially not the AF lol

 

[the_accidental]

I have not to date seen well put reasoning to explain why the visually (estimated?) bigger DoF is in factually "equivalent" to the FF lens of e.g. f8 ???

Ah this is easy, it’s cos the hole is the same size. It’s that which affects DOF.

f number = focal length / Diameter of the hole.

Which we can re-arrange to diameter = focal length/ f-stop.

So a 50mm f4 on full frame is a 50/4 =12.5mm hole.

Same field of view on mFT is 25mm, we then halve the F-stop too for DOF equivalence so need a 25mm f2 lens = 25mm/2 =12.5 mm 12.5mm hole

 

[ancient_mariner]

Im 43 in a few weeks and just sold off all my FF lumix S5II camera and lumix FF lenses.

I'm almost 64 now, still happy to be carrying my Sony FF kit including a could of f1.2 primes, but unfortunately the days are over when I'd happily carry a bag with half a dozen lenses and 2 outfits around.

 

[Adamcski]

I'm almost 64 now, still happy to be carrying my Sony FF kit including a could of f1.2 primes, but unfortunately the days are over when I'd happily carry a bag with half a dozen lenses and 2 outfits around.

Oh I have no issues carrying kit at all. I have the pro tactic 450 bag that was full of it. Just don’t really need it or miss it (the FF kit) at all currently.

 

[realspeed]

I went for the panasonic G9ii with 25mp after getting the G9 with 20mp. still a larger camera but oh the difference wth lenses. also having IS on the camera and again with the lens is a bonus. cheaper than to OM system but all lenses are interchangable. would I change back to FF? no way
Wait until you get to my age 80yrs old then you realise you really need lighter camera equipment

 

[slicendice]

I've had full frame, APS-C and switched to M4/3 with no regrets.

I use the Olympus EM1X and am very happy with it.

You get MORE depth of field so if you're a landscape or macro shooter this is beneficial. If you like buttery bokeh then this is not beneficial (you can still get the look though depending on which lenses you choose to buy).

Yes the images are slightly noisier but with DeNoise apps this is not a deal breaker.

Take a look at my Flickr, all the recent images are M4/3.

www.flickr.com/terencerees

Sorry, yes...when I said they produce less depth of field, in my head I was thinking of bokeh! So yes, more depth of field. Thanks for pointing that one out

When I do venture into birds/wildlife, I would like to be able to utilise depth of field to highlight the subject. So something like this (which was taken on my 40D with 70-200 at F4):

Obviously, in this pic, there's good separation between the bird and the background, but it is useful to be able to add some background (and foreground) blur when required. I appreciate it's probably hard to say definitively, but in this example, do you think there would there be noticeably less bokeh with MFT at exactly the same distance, focal length, etc?

Some great pics in your Flickr btw - certainly showcases the abilities of the M5! Can I ask what lenses you use with it?

 

[gad-westy]

Sorry, yes...when I said they produce less depth of field, in my head I was thinking of bokeh! So yes, more depth of field. Thanks for pointing that one out

When I do venture into birds/wildlife, I would like to be able to utilise depth of field to highlight the subject. So something like this (which was taken on my 40D with 70-200 at F4):

Obviously, in this pic, there's good separation between the bird and the background, but it is useful to be able to add some background (and foreground) blur when required. I appreciate it's probably hard to say definitively, but in this example, do you think there would there be noticeably less bokeh with MFT at exactly the same distance, focal length, etc?

Some great pics in your Flickr btw - certainly showcases the abilities of the M5! Can I ask what lenses you use with it?

On an image like that, you'd probably not notice a difference given the background separation. At least not one you'd care about. But just to put some numbers to it... APSC shot on 200mm at F/4 will have a similar appearance to FF shot at 300mm F5.6 on a full frame camera (ignoring that Canon has a 1.6x crop factor rather than 1.5 just to keep the maths easy!). On M4/3, to get a similar looking shot, you'd want to shoot at 150mm and F/2.8. Conveniently, you can do just that as the Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 Pro lens is available, and in my opinion is almost an essential purchase for m4/3, especially if you grab the kit with 1.4x converter as well.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Sorry, yes...when I said they produce less depth of field, in my head I was thinking of bokeh! So yes, more depth of field. Thanks for pointing that one out

When I do venture into birds/wildlife, I would like to be able to utilise depth of field to highlight the subject. So something like this (which was taken on my 40D with 70-200 at F4):

Obviously, in this pic, there's good separation between the bird and the background, but it is useful to be able to add some background (and foreground) blur when required. I appreciate it's probably hard to say definitively, but in this example, do you think there would there be noticeably less bokeh with MFT at exactly the same distance, focal length, etc?

Some great pics in your Flickr btw - certainly showcases the abilities of the M5! Can I ask what lenses you use with it?

I have the Olympus 12-40 F2.8 Pro, 7 - 14 F2.8 Pro, 60mm F2.8 macro, 40-150 cheapy plastic fantastic F4-5.6, 45mm F1.8 and the new 100-400 Mk2.

 

[woof woof]

If anyone has any experience of MFT, or specifically making the switch from APS-C, or if you're the owner of an OM-5, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Thanks

I had Canon 300D, 10D 20D and 5D and I think that the newer MFT cameras I've had have all beaten the Canons including the FF 5D for image quality. How much bulk and weight you save will depend on your body and lens choice but I think you will make savings. I use primes and RF style MFT camera so they do save both bulk and weigh for me but how much you can save depends upon the camera and lens you choose.

Just in case you haven't seen this site before, it's good for comparing sizes. I've put the 40D and 17-55mm f2.8 on and also the OM5 and 12-40mm f2.8 and I've added the GX80 I have with a 14mm f2.5, just for fun Have a play with the combinations you're interested in.

Compact Camera Meter

Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.

camerasize.com

Good luck choosing.

 

[slicendice]

I have the Olympus 12-40 F2.8 Pro, 7 - 14 F2.8 Pro, 60mm F2.8 macro, 40-150 cheapy plastic fantastic F4-5.6, 45mm F1.8 and the new 100-400 Mk2.

The 12-40 F2.8 Pro looks like it would be a good place to start, as with 2x crop factor it would give pretty much the same range as my 17-55 on 1.6x (24-80 vs 27-88)...lose 8mm at the long end but gain 3mm at the short end, so pretty close. Seem to be quite a few available second hand too...

Maybe a longer zoom when my bank balance has recovered a bit...

 

[woof woof]

The 12-40 F2.8 Pro looks like it would be a good place to start, as with 2x crop factor it would give pretty much the same range as my 17-55 on 1.6x (24-80 vs 27-88)...lose 8mm at the long end but gain 3mm at the short end, so pretty close. Seem to be quite a few available second hand too...

Maybe a longer zoom when my bank balance has recovered a bit...

You could also look at the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 which I think is a bit smaller and lighter than the Oly. I think that primes and the constant aperture (rather than variable aperture) zooms are well worth looking at. I'm not a big fan of f3.5-5.6 or even f4 zooms on MFT. I think you need to go for wider aperture lenses to give you the options the wider apertures bring for both exposure and depth of field.

 

[slicendice]

You could also look at the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 which I think is a bit smaller and lighter than the Oly. I think that primes and the constant aperture (rather than variable aperture) zooms are well worth looking at. I'm not a big fan of f3.5-5.6 or even f4 zooms on MFT. I think you need to go for wider aperture lenses to give you the options the wider apertures bring for both exposure and depth of field.

Yep, I'm very much of the same opinion...I'd always go for constant aperture over variable (if I can afford it!)

Thanks for the heads up on the Panasonic...will check that out too

 

[slicendice]

Just out of interest, is there a focal length where the IBIS will start to struggle? I'm thinking super long zooms (500+) maybe? And if so, would you then need to use a lens with IS built in as well as the IBIS?

I'm unlikely to ever purchase such a whopper of a lens but I'd be interested to know...

 

[GreenNinja67]

If you have dual IS (Lens and body) it works fine.

I can hand hold my 100-400 with rock steady images.

On video it's even better.

 

[slicendice]

How about with non-IS lenses? Would shooting at 400+mm need a tripod? Or still shootable hand held?

 

[Box Brownie]

Ah this is easy, it’s cos the hole is the same size. It’s that which affects DOF.

f number = focal length / Diameter of the hole.

Which we can re-arrange to diameter = focal length/ f-stop.

So a 50mm f4 on full frame is a 50/4 =12.5mm hole.

Same field of view on mFT is 25mm, we then halve the F-stop too for DOF equivalence so need a 25mm f2 lens = 25mm/2 =12.5 mm 12.5mm hole

I do not think it is as simple as that.

Talking of my 300mm f4.......when used on my mFT body with its x2 crop factor compared to FF is an image coverage equivalent based on "Angle of View" of what I would expect to see if viewing the same subject using a FF body would require a 600mm lens. Hence focal length equivalency.

Therefore in regard to "Angle of View" and hence image coverage on the sensor, aperture is not a factor .....hence why I said an f4 lens is an f4 lens whatever the focal length and does not have 'equivalency' in the same manner as Focal Length & Angle of View.

 

[woof woof]

Just out of interest, is there a focal length where the IBIS will start to struggle? I'm thinking super long zooms (500+) maybe? And if so, would you then need to use a lens with IS built in as well as the IBIS?

I'm unlikely to ever purchase such a whopper of a lens but I'd be interested to know...

I'm sure you'll believe me when I say this isn't why I mentioned the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8... but if you decide to go for one give me a nudge and I'll advertise mine for sale in the classifieds at a good price as I haven't used it for over a year.

 

[the_accidental]

Therefore in regard to "Angle of View" and hence image coverage on the sensor, aperture is not a factor .....hence why I said an f4 lens is an f4 lens whatever the focal length and does not have 'equivalency' in the same manner as Focal Length & Angle of View.

Ah yes, it’s still f4. I thought the question was around comparing DOF and how f4 on mFT was equivalent to f8 on full-frame (which it is, for the same angle of view - i.e. different focal length).

 

[Box Brownie]

Ah yes, it’s still f4. I thought the question was around comparing DOF and how f4 on mFT was equivalent to f8 on full-frame (which it is, for the same angle of view - i.e. different focal length).

Is there any published data based testing of an mFT 300mm f4 compared to a FF 600mm f8 lens in regard to the 'rendering' of the DoF?

In other words the fact the DoF 'looks' the same, is it actually in lab measured terms "equal" or a perceived closeness

Edit ~ I found this reference...

"How Does Sensor Size Affect Depth of Field?​

Camera sensor size is the final important factor in depth of field. If the other factors are the same—aperture, focal length, camera-subject distance—a larger sensor will have a shallower depth of field. In general, cameras with smaller sensors have larger depths of field."

 

[gcogger]

I switched from Canon (my last camera being a 40D) with L lenses to micro 4/3 quite a few years ago, with no regrets. The lenses have been the biggest surprise, with the better ones being every bit as good (or better) than anything I had from Canon, yet so much lighter.
One thing I found, coming from Canon, was that the Panasonic bodies felt immediately comfortable to use, but the ergonomics and menu systems of the Olympus bodies did not. The latest high end OM Systems bodies are supposed to be better, however.

 

[slicendice]

I switched from Canon (my last camera being a 40D) with L lenses to micro 4/3 quite a few years ago, with no regrets. The lenses have been the biggest surprise, with the better ones being every bit as good (or better) than anything I had from Canon, yet so much lighter.
One thing I found, coming from Canon, was that the Panasonic bodies felt immediately comfortable to use, but the ergonomics and menu systems of the Olympus bodies did not. The latest high end OM Systems bodies are supposed to be better, however.

Thanks, good to know,

From what I've read, the OM-5 Mark 2 (pre-order at the moment I believe), whilst not containing many significant upgrades, does now include a chunkier grip on the camera body and improved menu systems.

I'm hoping I can find a shop locally that has one in stock so I can at least get a hands on with it.

 

[slicendice]

I'm sure you'll believe me when I say this isn't why I mentioned the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8... but if you decide to go for one give me a nudge and I'll advertise mine for sale in the classifieds at a good price as I haven't used it for over a year.

Thank you very much - appreciate that I'll keep you posted...!

 

[the_accidental]

Edit ~ I found this reference...

"How Does Sensor Size Affect Depth of Field?​

Camera sensor size is the final important factor in depth of field. If the other factors are the same—aperture, focal length, camera-subject distance—a larger sensor will have a shallower depth of field. In general, cameras with smaller sensors have larger depths of field."

i don’t think that is correct, In that example the difference would be the larger sensor has a larger field of view. You could test this very easily with any camera.

Take one image (you only need one).

Copy it.

One copy, scale down 50%. This is your large sensor image.

The other copy, crop the centre so the image is half size on the edge.

You now have two different images where everything is equal as in your quote, including resolution (not mentioned but let’s include it).

How do those images differ?

(Only by field of view, right?)

 

[niko]

I'm going through a bit of a transitional phase at the moment (I'm talking cameras here, btw! ). I currently have a Canon 40D, which I've owned from new, along with a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS, a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f4L (though the majority of my photographs are with the 17-55). It's a good setup which has served me pretty well over the years.

However, recently I've found I've been leaving it at home more and more and just using the camera on my phone (Google Pixel 8) when I'm out and about. I suspect there are two main reasons for this: firstly, I'm simply getting older and/or lazier and lugging a hulking great 40D + lens(es) around is becoming more and more of a challenge. And secondly, when I first got the 40D (way back in 2008!), the cameras available on phones were a bit naff...so the pics taken were not great (and often were pretty bad!). Camera phones today, however, are massively improved and so the difference in quality between the images they can produce and the images from my 40D is much less noticeable. In fact, due to all the in-phone processing that's done on them, they can often appear considerably better straight off the bat.

So the extra effort and inconvenience of lugging a DSLR around often doesn't feel like it produces results that make it worthwhile by comparison. Obviously with PP and tweaking the 40D pics can be enhanced a lot, plus the ability to utilise a proper optical zoom lens leaves the phone in the dust.

The issue I have with using my phone is that I don't think I quite click into photographer mode in the same way as when I'm holding a "proper" camera. That probably sounds a bit weird, but I think what I mean is that I tend to think more about a photograph, how it's composed, what the light is doing, etc, etc when I'm using my 40D...which can (but by no means always will!) lead to a better image.

I love taking pictures on a camera, but I feel like I've just drifted away from that a bit, which I regret and want to try and reverse. So I'm considering what would be the best way forward. The phone is great for certain things - nights out, family snaps, etc - but I would like to get back into using my camera more.

I'm not a serial upgrader, but having had my current setup for >17 years, I think it's time for a refresh. Which then obviously leads to the question...what do I get?

I originally had a 20D before my 40D so I've been with Canon for years, but I'm by no means looking to stay with Canon simply because that's what I've always had. Obviously if I did stay with them, I'd have the advantage of already owning Canon glass so wouldn't need to refresh that.

One of the main things I want is a camera that doesn't add a lot of bulk/inconvenience when I'm travelling. Whilst I enjoy having a stab at pretty much any genre (wildlife, urban, people, sport), the majority of my photography is landscapes so I would usually be carrying it in a small backpack.

One of the cameras that has caught my eye recently is the OM-5. I know that switching to this would mean refreshing lenses as well, but there are some compelling reasons, the biggest of which (for me at least) are:

• size/weight
• IBIS
• built-in ND filters
• weather sealing

I know various manufacturers offer IBIS these days (though I believe the OM IBIS is up amongst the best in the business), but the built-in ND filters is a massive plus - I love taking water pictures so this would be a real game-changer for me. As would the weather sealing - the number of times I've had to try and improvise with a plastic bag as a rain cover when an unexpected downpour has struck! Not a pretty sight! It's also fabulously small and compact and so would help overcome the issue of my age-induced laziness

I know it's "only" 20MP (comparatively low compared to some cameras these days), but having looked at quite a lot of sample images, I really can't see it as being an issue - plus my 40D is only 10MP, so it would still be a big upgrade. I also believe it doesn't have the same AI AF detection that's offered by some other manufacturers, but tbh that's not really something that I've ever really been that interested in.

Obviously it would mean switching from APS-C to MFT and that's one of the questions I have - does anyone have any experience of making this switch? Did it work for you? Do you have any regrets?

My other concern ("concern" is probably too strong a word tbh...consideration?) is regarding the performance of MFT sensors when it comes to image noise and depth of field. There seem to be rumours around that MFT sensors produce less depth of field and more noise...but is that true in a real-world sense (and by that I mean in terms of any noticeable issues for the majority of pictures taken)? I realise it depends on the type of photography you're doing, but again I'm wondering if MFT would actually be noticeably different to APS-C?

If anyone has any experience of MFT, or specifically making the switch from APS-C, or if you're the owner of an OM-5, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Thanks

So ive had most of the available size sensors at one point or anouther.
I think they are all very good now, there are +/- to all of them but tbh the 2 biggest factors are what do you enjoy using and what will you carry with you.
If you do go with m 4/3 the biggest weight and size avantange comes from using the primes. I ended up using the 2.8 pro lenes the most. The 12-40 pro is fantastic glass. The other big saving is going from the big zoom lenes on full frame to the lens such as the 100-400, its so much easier.
If your blowing up big and printing the bigger sensors help and if you want to take pictures of a black cat in a coal shed with no lights then they help. But go with what gives you pleasure and you will always carry with you, and yours pictures will be a lot better than a camera left at home.

 

[slicendice]

So ive had most of the available size sensors at one point or anouther.
I think they are all very good now, there are +/- to all of them but tbh the 2 biggest factors are what do you enjoy using and what will you carry with you.
If you do go with m 4/3 the biggest weight and size avantange comes from using the primes. I ended up using the 2.8 pro lenes the most. The 12-40 pro is fantastic glass. The other big saving is going from the big zoom lenes on full frame to the lens such as the 100-400, its so much easier.
If your blowing up big and printing the bigger sensors help and if you want to take pictures of a black cat in a coal shed with no lights then they help. But go with what gives you pleasure and you will always carry with you, and yours pictures will be a lot better than a camera left at home.

This is very much my thinking...it doesn't matter how good your camera is if it ain't with you!

The size advantage would be a big plus for me (along with the other advantages already mentioned) and whereas it does seem there might be a slight pay off in terms of low light performance and the ability to play with a shorter depth of focus, I have to bear in mind that I'm coming from a 17 year old 40D! So compared to that, the ISO performance of an OM-5 is probably going to be quite a step up.

 

[woof woof]

This is very much my thinking...it doesn't matter how good your camera is if it ain't with you!

The size advantage would be a big plus for me (along with the other advantages already mentioned) and whereas it does seem there might be a slight pay off in terms of low light performance and the ability to play with a shorter depth of focus, I have to bear in mind that I'm coming from a 17 year old 40D! So compared to that, the ISO performance of an OM-5 is probably going to be quite a step up.

Yup.

You'll have to judge for yourself but you are coming from an older APS-C camera to a hopefully more modern MFT so I hope you will find that the more modern tech will more than compensate for having a slightly smaller sensor.

I know it's hard to judge online and the posting process seems to make pictures a bit soft sometimes but this was taken with my MFT Panasonic GX80 which is getting on a bit now. Mrs WW, I used my Panasonic 14mm f2.5 (full frame 28mm equivalent) with these settings... f2.5 (wide open) 1/160, that might seem a bit fast but it was a grab shot, I just got her to turn around and snapped her so I wanted a relatively fast shutter speed, ISO 6,400. I think your 40D stops at ISO 3,200?

Whole picture.



This is a 100% crop. I hope the posting process keeps it sharp.



Actually sadly I think it does look softer here than on my pc. My point is that going from older tech to newer may well more than compensate for having a smaller sensor.

Good luck if you do go for MFT.

 

[slicendice]

Yup.

You'll have to judge for yourself but you are coming from an older APS-C camera to a hopefully more modern MFT so I hope you will find that the more modern tech will more than compensate for having a slightly smaller sensor.

I know it's hard to judge online and the posting process seems to make pictures a bit soft sometimes but this was taken with my MFT Panasonic GX80 which is getting on a bit now. Mrs WW, I used my Panasonic 14mm f2.5 (full frame 28mm equivalent) with these settings... f2.5 (wide open) 1/160, that might seem a bit fast but it was a grab shot, I just got her to turn around and snapped her so I wanted a relatively fast shutter speed, ISO 6,400. I think your 40D stops at ISO 3,200?

Whole picture.


This is a 100% crop. I hope the posting process keeps it sharp.


Actually sadly I think it does look softer here than on my pc. My point is that going from older tech to newer may well more than compensate for having a smaller sensor.

Good luck if you do go for MFT.

Thanks for the example...appreciate that And yes, that's noticeably better than my 40D at 3200!

Tbh if I think about it, most of the time I don't shoot much above 200 ISO if possible...maybe stray to 400, or very occasionally 800, if I need to (low light and/or moving subject), but it's not that often. That may be as I've not really dabbled much in the type of photography where it's necessary (indoor, fast sports, birds, etc) but it would be nice to have the ability to do so. I do realise, though, that unless you're going cough up megabucks, you're just not going to get a camera that is a master of all things. So finding one that performs well for the area(s) that you practise most is the best compromise.

Btw, if you were going to use noise reduction software, what would you use? Not something I have much experience of

 

[the black fox]

O.k back to basics high I.s.o with the latest Olympus cameras/ sensors no problem at all even at silly I.s.o values as I have amply shown in the past . Will there be noise yes of course there will be , but easily cured with up to date software I.e Lightroom is now one of the best non destructive ones . Will post some sample images in a bit when I get on my puter..i

Is there a difference between a 40d file and a om1/3/5 file hello yes your talking about 5 plus generations of improvements

 

[Box Brownie]

@slicendice

Re: post processing software
Firstly the NR capabilities of all the main players seems to have seen marked & progressive improvements.
Having said that my primary is DxO PhotoLab (there is now their Pure Raw program but I do not have that)

I have used PhotoLab since IIRC version 4, it is now version 8
IMO the way it handles noise is second to none (others mileage may vary). Yes, you need to use it with care on some images more than others.

I also have Topaz DeNoise AI and more latterly their Photo AI but rarely used and hardly then for it's NR.

HTH

PS PhotoLab in common with all such software has a trial period to test it for yourself.

But to digress from your question re: Noise Reduction software, FWIW and IMO there is no such thing as the 'best' post processing software......each has their own feature set (everyone will have their personal preferences) and I will regularly use PhotoLab but also as needed Affinity Photo and even my old version of Photoshop to do some fine tuning of the finished image.

 

[the black fox]

o.k money where mouth is time . Olympus om1 plus 300mm f4 +1.4tc = to 840mm FF .handheld shot at 20,000 iso no not a typo twenty thousand i.s.o
whats that by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

Thanks for the example...appreciate that And yes, that's noticeably better than my 40D at 3200!

Tbh if I think about it, most of the time I don't shoot much above 200 ISO if possible...maybe stray to 400, or very occasionally 800, if I need to (low light and/or moving subject), but it's not that often. That may be as I've not really dabbled much in the type of photography where it's necessary (indoor, fast sports, birds, etc) but it would be nice to have the ability to do so. I do realise, though, that unless you're going cough up megabucks, you're just not going to get a camera that is a master of all things. So finding one that performs well for the area(s) that you practise most is the best compromise.

Btw, if you were going to use noise reduction software, what would you use? Not something I have much experience of

I shoot raw and process using Adobe CS2025 or whatever it is now. If you get a noisy picture it has a built in Denise you can use but it is slower than the normal processing which is instantaneous.

If you are happy with relatively low ISO's you could save money and go for an older camera. For example my ancient Panasonic G1 rivaled my 5D in some aspects of IQ. Not that you should buy a camera as old as the G1, but you'll get the point

 

[Ed Sutton]

o.k money where mouth is time . Olympus om1 plus 300mm f4 +1.4tc = to 840mm FF .handheld shot at 20,000 iso no not a typo twenty thousand i.s.o

All well and good, but that's at f5.6 and 1/1000. High ISO in good light is a different animal to high ISO in dim light.

 

[slicendice]

@slicendice

Re: post processing software
Firstly the NR capabilities of all the main players seems to have seen marked & progressive improvements.
Having said that my primary is DxO PhotoLab (there is now their Pure Raw program but I do not have that)

I have used PhotoLab since IIRC version 4, it is now version 8
IMO the way it handles noise is second to none (others mileage may vary). Yes, you need to use it with care on some images more than others.

I also have Topaz DeNoise AI and more latterly their Photo AI but rarely used and hardly then for it's NR.

HTH

PS PhotoLab in common with all such software has a trial period to test it for yourself.

But to digress from your question re: Noise Reduction software, FWIW and IMO there is no such thing as the 'best' post processing software......each has their own feature set (everyone will have their personal preferences) and I will regularly use PhotoLab but also as needed Affinity Photo and even my old version of Photoshop to do some fine tuning of the finished image.

Thanks for the info

I'm assuming you'd only use NR if you eyeballed a photo and the noise was noticeable? Or do you run photos through it as a matter of course?

As you can probably tell, I'm by no means an expert when it comes to PP - currently I just have PSE that I use for various tweaks, but I've never hugely delved into NR. I know PSE does have NR capabilities but I'm not sure they'd really compare to the likes of LR or the other packages you mention.

 

[slicendice]

o.k money where mouth is time . Olympus om1 plus 300mm f4 +1.4tc = to 840mm FF .handheld shot at 20,000 iso no not a typo twenty thousand i.s.o
whats that by jeff cohen, on Flickr

That's impressive!!!

 

[the black fox]

All well and good, but that's at f5.6 and 1/1000. High ISO in good light is a different animal to high ISO in dim light.

Trouble is it wasn’t in good light it was daytime and deep in the shade of some very high and dark bushes . I wasn’t set up for the shot we had spotted / heard the goldcrests and took some shots using the camera and lenses available . I do also have some shots taken at Chester zoo at nightime will find and post later but with a f1.4 lens .

 

[slicendice]

Well, I took the plunge...!!

Had a play with both the OM-5 and the OM-1 Mark II and in the end decided on the OM-1 Mark II. The OM-5 was very small and compact, but if felt like the OM-1 just fit me a bit better, plus it had some extra stuff that the OM-5 didn't.

It's a bit of a hit financially, but if it lasts as long as my 40D then I shouldn't need to be splashing out too much for a while (well, not on camera bodies anway...lenses is a different matter! ).

Just got to wait for it to be delivered now...