Is micro 3/4 right for me?

[Tats]

Ten years ago I was very into landscape photography and got a 5dii and a few lenses 35L, Zeiss 21, which I still have. Cut to present day and I have two kids and find myself bitten by the bug again and have been focused on shooting my sons sports - mostly baseball and soccer - and have started enjoying shooting birds as well - but want something that can do general family stuff also. I have rented a few new setups including a R6ii, R8 and R7 along with 100-500, 100-400 and 70-200 2.8. If money wasn't an object I know what I would do but when trying to be somewhat restrained I'm at a crossroads.

I was most recently thinking about getting an R7 and a 70-200 f4 and figuring out a wide lens (likely one of the kit lenses)

A pro photographer I know suggested looking at micro 4/3 setups and I’m thinking that may be a good compromise in terms of cost and performance. There seem to be some great lenses available for way less than than I would spend on Canon RF. I’m a bit concerned about the low light capabilities as many soccer and baseball games are in lower light situations and I've had to use some higher ISOs.

My father-in-law just got an OM-1 and my friend was talking that up along with the G9ii (which I realize is new so reviews are sparse).

If I went this route I think I could do an OM-1 along with the 40-150 2.8 PRO and maybe the 12-40 or a cheaper prime wide.

Looks like canon would cost - $1200 (refurbished R7) + $1400 70-200 f4 + kit lens = $3300ish

OM cost - $1899 OM-1 + $1299 40-150 PRO + $447 PL 9mm 1.7 = $3800

More money for the 4/3 set up but I get a bunch more reach with faster glass and what appears to be better fps and less rolling shutter while giving up better ISO and possibly a lot in AF capabilities.

Would love some thoughts.

 

[Tats]

I actually just saw that I can get the 40-150 for $900

 

[milo]

for low light sports, i think a full frame sensor wins. your budget seems pretty good - i'd at least consider a full frame kit

 

[Tats]

for low light sports, i think a full frame sensor wins. your budget seems pretty good - i'd at least consider a full frame kit

Thanks and appreciate the response and that's what I would do if I didn't have to explain the prices of things to my wife. Going down that route points me towards an R6ii (I'm amazed at how high the prices are on the original R6 still and the R8 felt cheap to me and no mechanical shutter was a turn off) and a 100-500 since the 70-200s cant take an extender and the 100-400 seems like a downgrade from the 3/4 lenses.

 

[Tounis]

I agree with milo. I just sold my micro 4/3 setup because I consistently found the result I got with my R6 and budget lenses much better than the pictures from my E-M1 Mk II and pro lenses. I got a nice deal on a R8 and it's so light that I don't feel the need for micro 4/3 anymore. If budget is a problem, adapting an older EF lens could be an option. They work very well with R bodies.

 

[fotoi]

Ten years ago I was very into landscape photography and got a 5dii and a few lenses 35L, Zeiss 21, which I still have. Cut to present day and I have two kids and find myself bitten by the bug again and have been focused on shooting my sons sports - mostly baseball and soccer - and have started enjoying shooting birds as well - but want something that can do general family stuff also. I have rented a few new setups including a R6ii, R8 and R7 along with 100-500, 100-400 and 70-200 2.8. If money wasn't an object I know what I would do but when trying to be somewhat restrained I'm at a crossroads.

I was most recently thinking about getting an R7 and a 70-200 f4 and figuring out a wide lens (likely one of the kit lenses)

A pro photographer I know suggested looking at micro 4/3 setups and I’m thinking that may be a good compromise in terms of cost and performance. There seem to be some great lenses available for way less than than I would spend on Canon RF. I’m a bit concerned about the low light capabilities as many soccer and baseball games are in lower light situations and I've had to use some higher ISOs.

My father-in-law just got an OM-1 and my friend was talking that up along with the G9ii (which I realize is new so reviews are sparse).

If I went this route I think I could do an OM-1 along with the 40-150 2.8 PRO and maybe the 12-40 or a cheaper prime wide.

Looks like canon would cost - $1200 (refurbished R7) + $1400 70-200 f4 + kit lens = $3300ish

OM cost - $1899 OM-1 + $1299 40-150 PRO + $447 PL 9mm 1.7 = $3800

More money for the 4/3 set up but I get a bunch more reach with faster glass and what appears to be better fps and less rolling shutter while giving up better ISO and possibly a lot in AF capabilities.

Would love some thoughts.

Full frame will be better in low light, all other things being equal. Plus you can crop into full frame a little more than 4/3 and still have a good image.

 

[Tats]

I agree with milo. I just sold my micro 4/3 setup because I consistently found the result I got with my R6 and budget lenses much better than the pictures from my E-M1 Mk II and pro lenses. I got a nice deal on a R8 and it's so light that I don't feel the need for micro 4/3 anymore. If budget is a problem, adapting an older EF lens could be an option. They work very well with R bodies.

Interesting, thanks for the insight. What 4/3 set up did you have?

 

[fotoi]

I have a Panasonic LUMIX GM-5 with Lumix 14-140mm lens. It’s small and light, but the images remind me of cell phone images.

Also, The Micro Four Thirds format is based on a sensor size measuring 17.3x13mm, while the full-frame format is nominally 36x24mm. The diagonal of MFT measures 21.6mm against 43.2mm for full-frame, so almost precisely double, which gives us the 2x crop factor that's always mentioned in format comparisons.

 

[Tats]

Full frame will be better in low light, all other things being equal. Plus you can crop into full frame a little more than 4/3 and still have a good image.

Totally agree.

I don't think I can swing the FF route and get the reach I want. My compromise was getting an R7 and a 70-200 f/4 but I'll still need something wide.

 

[fotoi]

Totally agree.

I don't think I can swing the FF route and get the reach I want. My compromise was getting an R7 and a 70-200 f/4 but I'll still need something wide.

Maybe a 24-70mm for the wide end. Then you’ll hav 24-200mm covered.

 

[Tounis]

Interesting, thanks for the insight. What 4/3 set up did you have?

I had an E-M1 Mk II, a 12-45 f/4 PRO, a 40-150 f/4 PRO and two prime lenses. Size was my main interest in micro 4/3, so I didn't go for the 12-40 and 40-150 f/2.8 But the lenses were fine. I just didn't like the quality of the images I got, especially with portraits of my children. Maybe someone with better post-processing skills would have done better than me, but that's one thing I like with my R6 : I don't have to post-process my family pictures much.

 

[SkedAddled]

Well, what do you have now? Is the 5DII still with you along with those lenses you mentioned?
With the investment that had to have gone into a single L and a single Leica, I'd be loth to
give up either of those.

If you're not opposed to the weight and size of the 5DII body, why not sell that in favor of
a 5D Mk IV? Lightly used examples regularly sell at below USD $2000, you wouldn't need to
replace lenses, the body is an exceptional unit, vintage lenses are easily and inexpensively
adapted for use, and the market prices of EOS lenses have dropped significantly since the
introduction of the R-series and subsequent discontinuation of top DSLRs.

I've been using vintage lenses on my cameras since the Rebel XTi/400D,
through the 40D, 50D, and now the 5D Mk IV, and they've all performed well.
I've used a cheap, old Sunpak compact external flash on the 5D Mk IV,
and it works. I've used cheap, wired remotes with the 5D Mk IV, and they work well.

Considering you already own a 5D II, and if it's not size/weight you're trying to attack,
my suggestion would be to sell the 5D II in favor of a 5D Mk IV, keep your great glass,
gain a great camera body, and enjoy. 5D IV is the best it ever got outside the 1D-series
before mirrorless.

 

[mrfixitx]

M4/3 is an interesting system my wife switched to it years ago primarily due to the size of M4/3 lenses. The fact that she can get 600mm equivalent out of a lens that is smaller than most full frame 70-300mm lenses is wonderful for her needs. Plus taking a 2x bodies + multiple lenses on vacation for her is much smaller lighter package than my canon FF kit.

The main downside is low light performance, there are also no high resolution options that go higher than 20-25mp. To be fair 25mp is enough for most peoples needs.

Low light performance though was around 2 stops worse than full frame with ISO 6400 looking closer to ISO 25600 on a full frame R6 vs. a 20mp m43 sensor and 1 stop worse than most APS-C sensors. There might be newer M43 sensors that do better than what my wife has though but I would still expect a significant low light performance impact.

 

[Mike_d]

I agree with milo. I just sold my micro 4/3 setup because I consistently found the result I got with my R6 and budget lenses much better than the pictures from my E-M1 Mk II and pro lenses. I got a nice deal on a R8 and it's so light that I don't feel the need for micro 4/3 anymore. If budget is a problem, adapting an older EF lens could be an option. They work very well with R bodies.

I have a Panasonic GH-3, which I purchased in 2018 as a smaller companion to my 5D3 and f/2.8 zooms. After upgrading to the R6, I found that the cheap RF lenses really took the wind out of the m4/3's sails. When you factor in aperture equivalence, a 12-35 f/2.8 is like a 24-70 f/5.6 in full frame terms. A lens like the RF 24-105 STM is only a little slower and a little bigger, but lets me get similar or better results with the body I'm already most familiar with. So with one system, I now have the choice of relatively small and light lenses or big and fast lenses, depending on the priorities of the day.

A lot of times when you compare formats, it winds up being 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. People often forget to factor in aperture equivalence. For example, if you need a certain DOF, you'll have to stop down two stops on FF compared to m4/3. That usually means raising the ISO 2 stops on FF. But the FF has two stops better ISO noise performance, so it kind of evens out. Matching FF's narrow DOF for portraits would require m4/3 lenses that don't exist. If they did, they'd be as big as the FF equivalent. See Fuji's massive 50/1.0 as an example.

Honestly, I think every format and system has its pluses and minuses and will do the job for the middle 75% of situations. It's in the extremes, like low light action, that the differences become more apparent. But even that is dependent on having the right lens. For example, having enough reach on m4/3, even in low light, will be better than having to crop the heck out of a FF image.

 

[i-G12]

Low light performance though was around 2 stops worse than full frame

That was my issue with M43. Have the G9 but now the R6 and couldn’t be happier.

 

[Tats]

But even that is dependent on having the right lens. For example, having enough reach on m4/3, even in low light, will be better than having to crop the heck out of a FF image.

That’s the part I’m most concerned with. I can’t be buying $2500 lenses for the R6/R7

I’ve seen the 40-150 2.8 for $900ish and my thinking is that I’d be better of with that and an OM-1 than an R7 and a 100-400 but I’m overloaded with choices now and Black Friday is looming.

 

[West Coast Birder]

That’s the part I’m most concerned with. I can’t be buying $2500 lenses for the R6/R7

I’ve seen the 40-150 2.8 for $900ish and my thinking is that I’d be better of with that and an OM-1 than an R7 and a 100-400 but I’m overloaded with choices now and Black Friday is looming.

You don’t have to get the $2500 lenses. There are many non-L choices that are decent. Combined with the low light performance of an R6, they may outperform the micro 4/3 systems. That’s the point being made earlier in the thread.

 

[Mike_d]

A lot depends on how low light your low light sports are. I recently shot night flag football with the R6. I started just before sunset with the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II. When the ISOs regularly hit 51k, I switched to the EF 70-200 2.8 II and did my best not to shoot anything too far away. By the end of the night, the ISOs were back up to 25-40k even at f/2.8 and even then I still had to push some shots. I was willing to hang onto the 100-400 as long as I did because I wanted the reach and knew that cropping a faster lens pretty much destroys its ISO advantage.

In terms of noise, that OM1 with 40-150 f/2.8 is like a FF 80-300 f/5.6. So less reach than the 100-400 but more reach and noise than the 70-200. They're not going to look great in really poor light unless you give up some shutter speed, which may be your best option. Yes, you'll get more subject blur, but if you shoot enough frames, some will usually come out OK. They just might not be the ones you want to be sharp. There's a reason f/2.8 on FF is the professional standard these days.

 

[Skygod44]

As has already been said:
Whatever you get, there are compromises.
Cost. Weight. Bulkiness. Accesories. Support. etc...
Before I went m43 I was a total Digital Canon Fanboy.
Before that, Nikon film.
Before that, Practika was where it was at.

Personally, I love the prime lenses for my m43 system.
Fantastic image quality, fast, light, accurate auto-focus, smooth manual focus, cheap (by dSLR standards), and all in a tiny, cute little "fits on my fingers" package.

I can carry three bodies, each with three different lenses, and take varied shots in a fraction of the time/weight/price compared to when I was 100% Canon.

For low-light of course full-frame will be better than m43. But medium format could squash that advantage
With current systems, and plug-in editing software, I don't think the issues are there, unless you want to sell your low-light photos to poster printing companies.

My advice is to try out more alternatives. Go with what you think are the best compromises. And if it turns out to be a bit expensive, either lie to your wife, or sell a kidney to fund it.

Regards,
Simon

 

[Tats]

Thanks for all the help. The canon refurbished sale is on now and I think I’ll grab an R7 with the kit lens and the 70-200 2.8 (or maybe the f4 if I get cold feet during checkout )

Although I still have the original R6 in the cart..

EDIT - I've just pulled the trigger, thanks everyone for the opinions. I got an R6 for $1000 refurbished and a refurbished 70-200 2.8 for $1600.