Micro four thirds for landscapes

N

nx4737

Suspended / Banned
Messages
806
Edit My Images
Yes
Firstly, apologies, as I'm aware this will have been asked a thousand times on here!

I'm currently using a D7200 and Tamron 17-50 plus a couple of other lenses for mainly landscapes and a little bit of railway photography, but the weight and the bulk is starting to get a bit much, I have a small child so when we go out I already have a rucksack full of shi.... stuff, so carrying a heavy SLR and lenses doesn't really appeal to me anymore, so I'm thinking of downsizing to something a bit smaller, maybe Olympus OMD EM10 or Panasonic GX800 with a standard and telephoto lens combination.

My other line of thought is a Fuji X-T20...

Anyone done the same, will the drop in sensor size be noticeable in terms or image quality?

Any tips, suggestions etc welcome.
 
Adam Priseman said:
Firstly, apologies, as I'm aware this will have been asked a thousand times on here!

I'm currently using a D7200 and Tamron 17-50 plus a couple of other lenses for mainly landscapes and a little bit of railway photography, but the weight and the bulk is starting to get a bit much, I have a small child so when we go out I already have a rucksack full of shi.... stuff, so carrying a heavy SLR and lenses doesn't really appeal to me anymore, so I'm thinking of downsizing to something a bit smaller, maybe Olympus OMD EM10 or Panasonic GX800 with a standard and telephoto lens combination.

My other line of thought is a Fuji X-T20...

Anyone done the same, will the drop in sensor size be noticeable in terms or image quality?

Any tips, suggestions etc welcome.
Click to expand...

You could be describing me. I went the m4/3 route, and to be honest I haven’t looked back. Here’s an album of landscapes taken over the last couple of years

https://flickr.com/photos/60309810@N08/sets/72157667342692905

Worth noting though, that I went with one of the 20mp Panasonics. Quality wise, I have framed 16x12 prints framed and hung that look superb, and have won two of my clubs internal competitions so far this season using this setup.

I’m sure you also wouldn’t go wrong with a Fuji setup either.

Hope this helps.

Simon.
 
Im not sure you would notice a drop in quality going feom crop to micro 4/3rds.
Some people say the fujis arent the best for foliage re the xtrans and certain pp software but i didnt find it a problem when i had one.
Another option is Canon,eg M5 crop 24m sensor,nice colours,nicer than Nikon to me.i had a d7200 and various canons.
Had a play with a few cameras at the show,impressed with the M5.
Sony A6000 series is another crop option though im not a fan of their colours but again you can alter in PP .
 
What's your budget? The new Gx9 is tiny and packs a lot of power, attach the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 and you are all set for landscape, add in a cheap, used 40-150 and you have some reach on top .
 
Never had a micro 4/3 camera, had and have a few Fuji's though, so here goes.

I'm not sure they are the best choice for landscapes, but doubt the smaller sensor is either, FF was and would be again my choice for that genre.

Can say for subjects like railways, trams, and architecture that I find the Fuji's to be excellent, there again so may the m43 be, but can only comment on what I have used
 
tijuana taxi said:
Never had a micro 4/3 camera, had and have a few Fuji's though, so here goes.

I'm not sure they are the best choice for landscapes, but doubt the smaller sensor is either, FF was and would be again my choice for that genre.

Can say for subjects like railways, trams, and architecture that I find the Fuji's to be excellent, there again so may the m43 be, but can only comment on what I have used
Click to expand...

Why ? Unless you're printing to a rather large size, most crop sensor cameras are fine for landscapes. Heck, I'd be fine with using an iphone (and a RAW app) if it was just for Instagram or 8x6 prints
 
Because in my opinion as a long time Fuji user the X-trans sensor does not perform at its best with landscapes especially when a lot of fine detail greenery and foliage is involved.

You may well disagree, probably not so valid unless you have owned and used their cameras, but that hopefully explains the part you have highlighted.
 
Last edited:
srhmoto said:
You could be describing me. I went the m4/3 route, and to be honest I haven’t looked back. Here’s an album of landscapes taken over the last couple of years

https://flickr.com/photos/60309810@N08/sets/72157667342692905

Worth noting though, that I went with one of the 20mp Panasonics. Quality wise, I have framed 16x12 prints framed and hung that look superb, and have won two of my clubs internal competitions so far this season using this setup.

I’m sure you also wouldn’t go wrong with a Fuji setup either.

Hope this helps.

Simon.
Click to expand...
Hi,i am having the very same quandary myself at the moment,XT20 vs G80/G8 vs Olympus EM10 2,I really like the features and ergonomics of G80 after handling one in John Lewis last weekend and after seeing Simons Flickr page and the pics shown on this site im very impressed,having never used four thirds I need to suck up info.
Just one thing Simon do you do much PP and what are JPEGS like SOOC?

PS sorry to hijack thread.
 
I am lucky enough to have full frame, crop and m4/3 - I am happy enough to just take the m4/3 with me when I am travelling light.

As with srhmoto - I have one of the newer 20mp cameras (Pen F Olympus).

I don't sell prints and at most put them on social media. I would think that prints would be fine up to a certain size.

Dave.
 
I use Micro 4/3 and they are great in good light,you won't notice the drop in quality at all. If you use them in low light or want to lift shadows in post on a regular basis, then you will notice the difference with noise in your images. IMO landscape photographers should choose full frame for ultimate quality or Micro 4/3 for portability, APSC is a bit pointless for landscapers at this moment if they are buying new/changing systems, but they are still a great tool for those who have invested in crop sensors over the years.
 
JackBell said:
I use Micro 4/3 and they are great in good light,you won't notice the drop in quality at all. If you use them in low light or want to lift shadows in post on a regular basis, then you will notice the difference with noise in your images.
Click to expand...

If I am shooting landscapes then I go the extra mile to avoid lifting shadows - either ETTR or bracketing and use of filters to allow more detail through into the shadow areas.

I do this when shooting full frame, crop or m4/3.

This does lead to more processing - but that is part of the fun for me.
 
Dave Semmens said:
If I am shooting landscapes then I go the extra mile to avoid lifting shadows - either ETTR or bracketing and use of filters to allow more detail through into the shadow areas.

I do this when shooting full frame, crop or m4/3.

This does lead to more processing - but that is part of the fun for me.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but sometimes the tonal values exceed the sensor range of your camera and you HAVE to lift the shadows in post.
 
I've used all of the cropped formats, besides medium. yes, that includes FF :p

Full frame is a bit over rated IMHO, I see a lot of people using it that do not make the most of it. They either end up cropping their images right down to the point where they'd be better off using M43 and composing better in the field, or they accept all that bland extra space they captured and call it intentional.

I loved the D800E, it was a fantastic camera, ideal for landscape etc ... once you have some juicy glass to make the most of it. With Fuji I didn't so much find foliage issues like some have, but since I switched to M43 I have noticed that foliage/trees/plants in the distance are sharper than I was getting in similar circumstances with the Fuji. I think there's naff all between APSC and M43, it really boils down to the lenses used. FF will always have much better DR and low light performance than both, but you really need to be more mindful of your composition, and I feel unless you can afford the glass to match FF is a bit wasted.

I also think there's nothing between 16 and 20mp unless you are cropping in a lot on your images. 16 is plenty enough for me, not too long ago 10mp was sufficient for pros even
 
Cagey75 said:
I've used all of the cropped formats, besides medium. yes, that includes FF :p

Full frame is a bit over rated IMHO, I see a lot of people using it that do not make the most of it. They either end up cropping their images right down to the point where they'd be better off using M43 and composing better in the field, or they accept all that bland extra space they captured and call it intentional.
Click to expand...

This just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I do a bit of cropping now and again and sometimes to 100% (because I like taking pictures of small things like flowers and leaves etc when out walking with FF or MFT with a 35 or 50mm equivalent lens) but it's nothing to do with FF or MFT and everything to do with focal length and framing. Cropping is a red herring here.

My 2p is that larger sensors generally enable the user to get better quality but better needs to be qualified and if better is only noticeable when printing very large or cropping like crazy or when taking pictures at very high ISO's then it may not always matter.

I've taken pictures seconds apart with my FF A7 and MFT GXx and the main difference after processing is that the FF picture will be sharper when pixel peeping due at least in part by being magnified less.

Personally I wouldn't nit pick the differences between APS-C and MFT here.
 
The Sony a6300 is a crop sensor and very small overall.
 
Artoist said:
Hi,i am having the very same quandary myself at the moment,XT20 vs G80/G8 vs Olympus EM10 2,I really like the features and ergonomics of G80 after handling one in John Lewis last weekend and after seeing Simons Flickr page and the pics shown on this site im very impressed,having never used four thirds I need to suck up info.
Just one thing Simon do you do much PP and what are JPEGS like SOOC?

PS sorry to hijack thread.
Click to expand...

For my landscape shots, the PP depends on whether I've used ND grads or am exposure blending. I always shoot raw and ETTR, and most times will bracket to make sure I'm not having to lift the shadows too much. However, I used to do that when using an APS-C camera, so it's not just because I'm shooting m4/3. As for JPEGs, I rarely shoot them. Most wisdom says that Olympus had the edge on JPEG output up until now, but I think that the Panasonic from G9 released earlier this year has now evened things out completely.

Hope this helps.

Simon.
 
Dave Semmens said:
If I am shooting landscapes then I go the extra mile to avoid lifting shadows - either ETTR or bracketing and use of filters to allow more detail through into the shadow areas.

I do this when shooting full frame, crop or m4/3.

This does lead to more processing - but that is part of the fun for me.
Click to expand...

Snap :agree: :)
 
woof woof said:
This just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I do a bit of cropping now and again and sometimes to 100% (because I like taking pictures of small things like flowers and leaves etc when out walking with FF or MFT with a 35 or 50mm equivalent lens) but it's nothing to do with FF or MFT and everything to do with focal length and framing. Cropping is a red herring here.

My 2p is that larger sensors generally enable the user to get better quality but better needs to be qualified and if better is only noticeable when printing very large or cropping like crazy or when taking pictures at very high ISO's then it may not always matter.

I've taken pictures seconds apart with my FF A7 and MFT GXx and the main difference after processing is that the FF picture will be sharper when pixel peeping due at least in part by being magnified less.

Personally I wouldn't nit pick the differences between APS-C and MFT here.
Click to expand...

What do you not get? I'm speaking from my own experience when I compare, nothing more. With FF, yes I said it will always win in terms of dynamic range and low light performance, but many who use FF don't make the most of it . So what exactly are you not picking in my post?
 
Adam Priseman said:
I'm currently using a D7200 and Tamron 17-50 plus a couple of other lenses for mainly landscapes and a little bit of railway photography, but the weight and the bulk is starting to get a bit much, I have a small child so when we go out I already have a rucksack full of shi.... stuff, so carrying a heavy SLR and lenses doesn't really appeal to me anymore, so I'm thinking of downsizing to something a bit smaller, maybe Olympus OMD EM10 or Panasonic GX800 with a standard and telephoto lens combination..
Click to expand...
Never used the Fujis - I'm on my 3rd M4/3 camera having previously had a full sized crop sensor Pentax.
The K100D was old enough that M4/3 was a step up in quality anyway but the size and weight difference were a revelation.
I also had a young child and the camera went from something that I sometimes took with me to something I always picked up when we went out for the day ... or the afternoon.
I took a compact to NYC because I couldn't face lugging the K100D + 2 lenses as hand luggage.

Currently I think the E-M10 Mkii with the 14-42 and 40-150 kit is the best price/performance point.
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/olymp...4-42mm-lens-and-40-150mm-lens-silver-1579589/

Even better value used - my recently aquired M10 Mkii was under £300 but I had lenses already.

If you are in a suitable location you can take an extended test drive on Olympus
https://wow.olympus.eu/
 
Thanks for all the advice, I'm still quite unsure on which route to take so may leave it and have a proper think about what to do.

Full frame is out of the question, for how much I use my camera, I can't justify the expense.

I've also looked at Sony, but I don't like the feel of them.
 
I used m4/3, specifically Olympus, for very many years before moving to Fuji. I always found them very satisfactory for landscapes. However, I moved to Fuji for ergonomic reasons, and that system also is excellent for landscapes. Not saying it doesn’t exist, but I have never seen the artifact problem. May be down to my exposure or processing technique.
 
Dave Semmens said:
I am lucky enough to have full frame, crop and m4/3 - I am happy enough to just take the m4/3 with me when I am travelling light.
Click to expand...
Me too and for landscapes I use the MFT (Olympus EM5 ii in my case) as much as FF if not more. The only time I wouldn't use the Oly is when high ISO is needed, the full frame is much better at this because the larger sensor size means less noise. That said the smaller sensor of MFT is ideal for landscapes where you typically want everything in focus because f8 on MFT is the same DoF as f16 on full frame. The EM 5 also has a high res mode that gets you 40 MP if you want to print large. As for pusing shadows the EM5 ii has a pretty good degree of ISO invariance so you can shoot well under and then push in post.
 
I have and use both full frame, Canon D5mk2 and m4/3 currently Panasonic G80. Not printed any thing big yet on properly not really likely too I have been using the m4/3 more and more as just easier to carry around and if you got a whole lot of family stuff as well it would make it easier. Not used Fuji so can't comment on them, but heard good. I used my G80 and gotten some nice landscapes, pano's which I am hoping to print up soon.
 
I was going to make the same point as Chris, that the shorter focal lengths used for M43 make it easier to get extreme depth of field, but by the same token make shallow DoF effects much more difficult to obtain for landscape.

We have FF, APS-C and M43 here, the Oly E-M10 belonging to my wife. As said already, in good shooting conditions they are fine, and seen full screen without pixel peeping there's little to choose between M43 and FF. If you print big then you may see a difference, and likewise if you push sensitivity hard or do fairly radical processing then noise & fringing/halos need careful control (just like APS-C).
 
I love the mft and went from an em10 mark 1 to the em1 mark one within the last year, to show what you can do here's a 5 photo stitched panorama of the Cuillin range at the end of January handheld with the 12-40 pro lens.

027 - The Cuillins, Skye by Donnie Canning, on Flickr

It's now a 60 x 20 inch canvas (5 x 1.5 foot approx) on my living room wall and it's fantastic.

canvas2 by Donnie Canning, on Flickr
 
Artoist said:
Hi,i am having the very same quandary myself at the moment,XT20 vs G80/G8 vs Olympus EM10 2,I really like the features and ergonomics of G80 after handling one in John Lewis last weekend and after seeing Simons Flickr page and the pics shown on this site im very impressed,having never used four thirds I need to suck up info.
Just one thing Simon do you do much PP and what are JPEGS like SOOC?

PS sorry to hijack thread.
Click to expand...
I too was considering the XT20/EM10 and G80.
I went for the G80 as it felt right in my hands.
The only other one that felt right in my hands was the EM1 mkii but that was too dear for my budget.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
I too was considering the XT20/OM10 and G80.
I went for the G80 as it felt right in my hands.
The only other one that felt right in my hands was the OM1 mkii but that was too dear for my budget.
Click to expand...
I presume that's an E-M1 as an Om1 is a film camera.
 
I have the D750 and Olympus EM1 and in some situations it's hard to tell the difference, image quality of the Olympus is really good. However, where the D750 really wins is in Dynamic Range, you can push the files so much more. Also, start printing over A3 and you can start to see the difference, but that's not to say that the Olympus look bad, far from it. I really like the Olympus system, a great balance of size and IQ. That being said, money no object I'd buy the A7Riii. With the 24-70mm f4 it's not much bigger and heavier than the Olympus EM1 with 12-40mm f2.8 Pro yet you have the extra dynamic range, slightly better IQ, and massive resolution.

I tried the Fuji system but the artefacts in some landscapes left me frustrated and so I didn't keep it long.
 
snerkler said:
I have the D750 and Olympus EM1 and in some situations it's hard to tell the difference, image quality of the Olympus is really good. However, where the D750 really wins is in Dynamic Range, you can push the files so much more. Also, start printing over A3 and you can start to see the difference, but that's not to say that the Olympus look bad, far from it. I really like the Olympus system, a great balance of size and IQ. That being said, money no object I'd buy the A7Riii. With the 24-70mm f4 it's not much bigger and heavier than the Olympus EM1 with 12-40mm f2.8 Pro yet you have the extra dynamic range, slightly better IQ, and massive resolution.

I tried the Fuji system but the artefacts in some landscapes left me frustrated and so I didn't keep it long.
Click to expand...
What artefacts are they then ? :rolleyes::LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
snerkler said:
That being said, money no object I'd buy the A7Riii. With the 24-70mm f4 it's not much bigger and heavier than the Olympus EM1 with 12-40mm f2.8 Pro yet you have the extra dynamic range, slightly better IQ, and massive resolution.
Click to expand...
Were I going for the Sony A7xxxx system I'd avoid the 24-70 f/4 as it's notoriously soft in the corners at the wide end and no amount of stopping down helps out. The newer more expensive and larger 24-105 f/4 is a much more comparable alternative to the 12-40 in terms of image quality IMHO :)

Having said that I don't think anyone would be short changed using micro 4/3rds for landscape work. There's an excellent range of lenses to chose from, here is an example taken with the Olympus 7-14 f/2.8 and my E-M1 MkII.
Derwent Water by Huw Prosser, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
To be honest for 99% of us I dont think it matters much what camera system you use for landscapes, if using a tripod and base iso unless you pixel peep or print bigger than A2 im pretty sure most people wouldn't tell the difference.
 
I take it you have checked out E6 blogs on You Tube with Craig Roberts, uses the Olympus Omd and Pen for all of his work now, supplies images to all, has no problems with quality issues, lots of his videos's explain the reasoning behind his switch to Mft....thinking about going down this route also, my Nikon gear is getting heavier as I get older ;-(
 
Last edited:
Greytop said:
Were I going for the Sony A7xxxx system I'd avoid the 24-70 f/4 as it's notoriously soft in the corners at the wide end and no amount of stopping down helps out. The newer more expensive and larger 24-105 f/4 is a much better alternative to the 12-40 in terms of image quality IMHO :)

Having said that I don't think anyone would be short changed using micro 4/3rds for landscape work. There's an excellent range of lenses to chose from, here is an example taken with the Olympus 7-14 f/2.8 and my E-M1 MkII.
Derwent Water by Huw Prosser, on Flickr
Click to expand...
The reason I mentioned the 24-70mm rather than the 24-105mm is that it’s comparable in size and weight to the Olly with 12-40mm, the 24-105mm is noticeably larger and heavier and not what the OP wanted (y)
 
Greytop said:
Were I going for the Sony A7xxxx system I'd avoid the 24-70 f/4 as it's notoriously soft in the corners at the wide end and no amount of stopping down helps out. The newer more expensive and larger 24-105 f/4 is a much more comparable alternative to the 12-40 in terms of image quality IMHO :)

Having said that I don't think anyone would be short changed using micro 4/3rds for landscape work. There's an excellent range of lenses to chose from, here is an example taken with the Olympus 7-14 f/2.8 and my E-M1 MkII.
Derwent Water by Huw Prosser, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Just been looking into the 24-70mm f4 a bit more and from what I can gather the lens really improved from circa 2016, especially in the corners according to a number of sources. Do you have any hands on experience with this lens and if so do you have any idea of the build date?
 
snerkler said:
Just been looking into the 24-70mm f4 a bit more and from what I can gather the lens really improved from circa 2016, especially in the corners according to a number of sources. Do you have any hands on experience with this lens and if so do you have any idea of the build date?
Click to expand...

No my comment was based on a fair bit of research into the system when at one point I was considering investing.
Reviews seem fairly consistent in pointing out it's short comings at the wide end, admittedly some more scathing than others. I spent sometime reviewing images again at the critical wide end and this for me at least only confirmed it's rather lacklustre performance.
I'd be interested to see where the turn around has occurred because I suspect one of the reasons the 24-105 has been introduced is to provide Sony owners with a better quality zoom without going to the size of a G master f/2.8.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/le...-za-oss-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-sel2470z/review/
http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/867-zeiss2470f4oss

Apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic :)
 
Last edited:
Greytop said:
No my comment was based on a fair bit of research into the system when at one point I was considering investing.
Reviews seem fairly consistent in pointing out it's short comings at the wide end, admittedly some more scathing than others. I spent sometime reviewing images again at the critical wide end and this for me at least only confirmed it's rather lacklustre performance.
I'd be interested to see where the turn around has occurred because I suspect one of the reasons the 24-105 has been introduced is to provide Sony owners with a better quality zoom without going to the size of a G master f/2.8.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/le...-za-oss-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-sel2470z/review/
http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/867-zeiss2470f4oss

Apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic :)
Click to expand...
Interesting. Definitely worth trying one out before buying then (y). Just for completeness, this is one thread of several (including actual reviews) that suggest the quality has improved.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4066384

Also I find it interesting that DXO score sharpness as 24mpix on the A7rii, and if I compare it to the pro level Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 that 'only' scores 21mpix on the D810. Granted that's slightly skewed as the D810 has 6 less MP and unfortunately there's no score on the D850, but I'm not sure that it will make that much difference. And when you consider the price of the Nikon 24-70mm then the Sony doesn't seem 'too' bad. (of course there's build quality etc to consider).

As I said though, I guess the only way to know for sure is to try for yourself as we all have different expectations. It's like the Nikon 24-120mm f4 I have, that gets equally bad reviews in some places yet I have one and am happy with it. That being said I picked one up for £450 and it's certainly worth that, if I'd paid the full £900 I might be singing a different song, likewise if you paid £900 for the Sony ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top