Adding a Mirrorless, Maybe a switch.

Couple of photo's, very rough comparison of FF versus the GX8 for DOF. Both shot with 40 mm pancake, or equivalent. I shoot the 40 pancakes stopped down to f/3.2, because there is a noticeable jump in sharpness, if anyone complains that I'm being biased, & trying to favor one over the other. Shot a month or so apart, so different lighting.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Bwu4​rj

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CBsh​Zy

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vMtX​Cd

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CKo1​gC

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yviD​iZ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CbEm​LY

Sadly i cant get the GX7 at the same price anymore.. the G7 went up $100 and only comes with a 14-42, which is a good lens but not one id prioritize.

Im leaning more towards the OM EM10 II at this point, Since in body stabilizer is useful.. Really wish the GX8 was in the price range...

Not worrying TOO much about tracking AF, really, for the serious tracking, im grabbing the 7D, I care more if it works in low light, if its slightly pokey, so be it basically.

Lovely shots by the way, Within reason, i think any of the mirrorless cameras can produce epic results. Ive had fun demonstrating Crop =/= crap with my 7D after all

and in the grand comparison of things, the 20mm f/1.7 is probubly equal to the 28mm f/1.8 (which i had to use at f/2-2.8 most of the time) in terms of isolating power. Its also a much bettter lens.

KenjiS wrote in post #17847443
Lovely shots by the way, Within reason, i think any of the mirrorless cameras can produce epic results. Ive had fun demonstrating Crop =/= crap with my 7D after all

and in the grand comparison of things, the 20mm f/1.7 is probubly equal to the 28mm f/1.8 (which i had to use at f/2-2.8 most of the time) in terms of isolating power. Its also a much bettter lens.

I really really like the 20 1.7. It's about the slowest focusing of the m4/3 lenses though, & can hunt a little bit at times. That's only relative to the excellent 14 2.5, & 25 1.7 though. Which is pretty much instantaneous.

I personally would spend the extra $$ if I was going m4/3, & get the more capable camera. And I actually did myself. The GX8 has dual IS -in that it will combine lens stabilization with the inbody.
Also, have a read through this, http://www.dpreview.co​m/forums/post/57038284 & look at the results

speedync wrote in post #17847458
I really really like the 20 1.7. It's about the slowest focusing of the m4/3 lenses though, & can hunt a little bit at times. That's only relative to the excellent 14 2.5, & 25 1.7 though. Which is pretty much instantaneous.

I personally would spend the extra $$ if I was going m4/3, & get the more capable camera. And I actually did myself. The GX8 has dual IS -in that it will combine lens stabilization with the inbody.
Also, have a read through this, http://www.dpreview.co​m/forums/post/57038284 & look at the results

I'm seriously considering selling my Tokina 11-16 and pooling the cash to scrape by getting the GX8, Maybe getting rid of my Sigma macro flash too while im at it (Since i rarely use it, im not huge on flash and i do better with the 580EX II off camera when i need one)

i guess the hesitation is that it feels like a lot to drop when ive not really used a mirrorless and still am uncertain on if i will enjoy it as much as my 7D

KenjiS wrote in post #17847468
I'm seriously considering selling my Tokina 11-16 and pooling the cash to scrape by getting the GX8, Maybe getting rid of my Sigma macro flash too while im at it (Since i rarely use it, im not huge on flash and i do better with the 580EX II off camera when i need one)

i guess the hesitation is that it feels like a lot to drop when ive not really used a mirrorless and still am uncertain on if i will enjoy it as much as my 7D

I know exactly where you're coming from. I was in the exact same boat. Wasn't sure if I'd gel with the smaller format at all. But I thought if I'm going to give it a go, may as well try some of the decent gear. Not that there's anything wrong with the GX7, or other lower tier models.
Anyway, just for interest sake, I went & weighed the 2 kits (GX 8 & 3 primes, 6D & equivalent primes, sort of) & came up with this. The 6D, 40 pancake, 28 2.8 & 50 STM comes to 1390 grams. The GX8, 14, 20 & 25 comes to 675 gms. All image stabilized mind you. No wonder my shoulder feels happier after a day wandering around
And the biggest thing -it's an absolute pleasure to shoot with. The EVF is brilliant. Huge, clear & the tilting bit is fantastic. Plenty of people grizzled about the GX8 size, but I find it perfect to hold. Plenty of direct controls, & function buttons. The AF touch screen is brilliant, better than a joystick imo when you set it up like I have. Set it to offset postioning, & turn the rear screen off. With the camera up to your eye, you just slide your thumb on the screen in the direction you want the AF point to move. Doesn't matter where on the screen you do it, just slide your right thumbin any direction. The rear wheel adjusts the focus box size. Utterly fantastic. The AF is a revelation. Instant, accurate & reliable. In my experience.

UWA is one area where m4/3 is a bit more expensive than APS-C though. There is no cheap 10-18 EFS equivalent, or 11-16 2.8. I've been doing a little bit of looking, & about the best lower cost offering is the Oly 9-18. It seems to divide the m4/3 crowd a bit though. They either love or hate it. Not sure why. The Panny 7-14 looks exceptional, as does the new Oly 7-14 2.8. Not sure if I want to stump up for the odd times I use one. No such issue with my EFM 11-22 for the EOS M though

speedync wrote in post #17847424
Once again, I'm not trying to push one format over the other, I was simply curious to see exactly what the differences were, and happened to find to similar type shots.

Micro 4:3 is actually quite easy to relate to 35mm in that you can double the focal length and add two stops and get the same image.

I have the 20/1.7 too. in terms of AOV and DOF, it functions on a m4:3 sensor exactly like a 40mm f/3.5 lens on a 35mm format SLR. That's about like the wider end of most consumer zooms for 35mm format (picture the 28-135 1:3.5-5.6 or the 28-105 1:3.5-5.6). That basically describes how DOF works on m4:3, like a middling speed consumer zoom on 35mm.

For sure it is possible to generate some background blur and separation if you want, but it also certainly is never going to look like a very fast lens on a larger format. I mostly use mine as something I can put in a jacket pocket for snapshots, but when you are shooting human sized subjects framed normally the DOF is certainly not especially thin wide open.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17847516
Micro 4:3 is actually quite easy to relate to 35mm in that you can double the focal length and add two stops and get the same image.

I've found it's actually a bit less than that in the real world. I'd rather look at pictures, than compare charts & numbers. Even then, I have to look at them side by side to see any real differences, to me it's not something that stands out like dogs balls when viewed in isolation. Once again, not biased, or trying to push one view over the other, just my personal observations & experience.

I have the 20/1.7 too. in terms of AOV and DOF, it functions on a m4:3 sensor exactly like a 40mm f/3.5 lens on a 35mm format SLR. That's about like the wider end of most consumer zooms for 35mm format (picture the 28-135 1:3.5-5.6 or the 28-105 1:3.5-5.6). That basically describes how DOF works on m4:3, like a middling speed consumer zoom on 35mm.

For sure it is possible to generate some background blur and separation if you want, but it also certainly is never going to look like a very fast lens on a larger format.

Yeah, that's the whole thing though. I'm never going to buy & lug around very fast FF lenses. I'm not a pro, nor am I overly concerned about wildly oof backgrounds, or interested in carrying all that weight. If I was, then there are a few ultra large aperture lenses available for m4/3, MF though. Or I'd just stick with my FF. For your 40 mm example, you've got to go to either the Canon L or Sigma 35 1.4, for 50 equivalent you're looking at the same 2 lenses, (50L or Sigam 50 art) which are significantly larger, heavier & more expensive. Horses for courses. If you need that look, stay where you are The weight/size differences get even bigger as FL increases. Compare the IS Panny 42.5 to the FF 85's If you shoot crop,(APS-C) then m4/3 is a very viable alternative to my mind. Perhaps even better when you'r shooting faster primes with Canikon, as they force you to lug around FF versions, then throw 1/2 the image away I don't print huge enough, or often enough, & I'm not into pixel peeping postage stamp sized portions of images to get bent out of shape over either. All depends why you shoot really.

I'm not a HUGE ultrawide shooter, i in many ways regret the Tokina 11-16 purchase, its been used like 3-4 times and then sat around. My eye just isnt there for ultrawide stuff usually.. 24mm(FF Equal) is about as wide as i normally go, and the Tokina doesnt focus close enough to do the ultrawide stuff i really enjoy (Getting super close to a subject and distorting the perspective) so i could sell off my Tokina and feel little regret.. the other lenses on my 7D are harder to part with

I already got rid of the 28mm f/1.8, as this setup is replacing it.. It was never a lens i particularly loved either so it wasnt a hard one to part with.

Of course, lets be fair here, I'd be comparing less to 35mm full frame, More to APS-C, and in APS-C terms, the closest to the 20mm f/1.7 is the 24mm f/2.8 EF-S, and f/2.8 on APS-C is closer to f/4 in FF terms, So if anything, m4/3 has a tiny advantage there. Comparing to the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma or a 35L isnt quite fair (that would be more the 25mm f/1.4 Summilux, and f/2 vs f/2.8 in FF equivalency... In Sony terms, we'd be looking at the 35mm f/1.8 OSS, Which is f/2.5 if my maths are right.. which isnt really a big difference)

And that right there is where i was comparing, The other mirrorless systems, NOT to a full frame camera, Thats MASSIVELY an unfair comparison, But given Sony has nothing quicker than f/1.8 in the E-mount (Excepting the 35mm f/1.4 which im totally not buying for a bloody A6000!) the difference between the a6000 and the m4/3 system isnt really as big as one would expect.

That being said, one of my biggest fears of m4/3 is that i wont be able to achieve the look i desire due to the deeper depth of field, Thats why im trying to keep my costs down on the stuff.. and why im probubly going to try to stick to a body and maybe 2 lenses for now, the 20mm and then something slightly longer and macro-y (the 45mm perhaps) and thats Im gearing this camera to supplement my 7D at this point, Not supplant it. The idea is a small camera that goes in my messenger bag, Everywhere with me, maybe a coat pocket kinda deal, and gives me solid IQ.

The Sony has been almost entirely shelved for that reason, the good lenses (24 f/1.8, 16-70 f/4 Vario-Tessar, 90mm Macro) are all $1000 each. To be fair, m4/3 doesnt have a normal zoom that interests me (a 12-50 that isnt f/6.3 on the long end) but i can easily get the 20mm f/1.7 and the 45mm for less than ONE of those lenses i mentioned....

*edit* I shoot for fun, but im a gear head, I have some exceptional glass, and im a glass > body person, I'd rather have an older body and some fantastic glass to go with than a great body and poor glass. the one big appeal of m4/3 is that a lot of the lenses on the system ARE fantastic, there seem to be very few horrible lenses like on Sony.. and thats probubly BECAUSE of the tiny sensor..

To that end, as i said, i have big heavy awesome glass for my 7D.. and thats the problem. What I really want is a camera and two lenses, a short 35-50mm prime, and a short macro. m4/3 suits this better than Sony since Sony's short macro is god awful (Again, REALLY Sony?) that fits into my messenger bag without being too heavy big or awkward to carry around all the time. IQ that gets close to my 7D (If not exceed it..)

speedync wrote in post #17847550
Yeah, that's the whole thing though. I'm never going to buy & lug around very fast FF lenses.

I'm not trying to convince you to. I didn't really intend my post to be a value judgement. I was just relating the formats in a straighforward way.

I guess I was thinking that your samples of bikes and motorcycles might be kind of hard to relate for a lot of people, where 1/2 to 3/4 portraits shot vertical and horizontal are probably a more relatable frame of reference as well.

All that said, a lot of people get on just fine with the DOF characteristics of 1:3.5-5.6 kinds of zooms on 35mm format. The obsession with super thin DOF is to some extent a new thing that seems to be somewhat a creation of the dSLR era for what that's worth. If you are the kind of person that is desperate for super shallow DOF, I guess I would suggest that m4:3 is probably not the right format. But I'm rather sure that this does not describe everyone, and there are plenty of people that really do enjoy the m4:3 cameras.

Oh - and your post responding to mine is a bit goofed up, there is a purple section that I believe was your original statement that got stuck in my quote.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17847603
I'm not trying to convince you to. I didn't really intend my post to be a value judgement. I was just relating the formats in a straighforward way.

I guess I was thinking that your samples of bikes and motorcycles might be kind of hard to relate for a lot of people, where 1/2 to 3/4 portraits shot vertical and horizontal are probably a more relatable frame of reference as well.

All that said, a lot of people get on just fine with the DOF characteristics of 1:3.5-5.6 kinds of zooms on 35mm format. The obsession with super thin DOF is to some extent a new thing that seems to be somewhat a creation of the dSLR era for what that's worth. If you are the kind of person that is desperate for super shallow DOF, I guess I would suggest that m4:3 is probably not the right format. But I'm rather sure that this does not describe everyone, and there are plenty of people that really do enjoy the m4:3 cameras.

Oh - and your post responding to mine is a bit goofed up, there is a purple section that I believe was your original statement that got stuck in my quote.

Actually his shots are closer to what i do shoot, i rarely shoot people, i shoot objects, things, scenes, food, drink, cars, etc... So they ARE helpful lol

if i was going to shoot say, one of my friends modelling for me, id grab the 7D and Sigmalux...


(Ormayberentthenoctilu​xbecauseheythatlensdoe​slookcool)

Probably the easiest way for you to compare, other than actually giving you my camera to shoot with for a bit, is to show you some comparison albums between my EOS M & 22 f/2 kit, & the GX8 + 20 & 25 f/1.7 Bear in mind that I'm a total happy snapper who only shoots for pure fun, have zero intention of ever gaining financial reward from photography, & I've only had the Panny for a few weeks, so still getting a handle on the settings & file processing. I was in exactly the same position as you, and so far as happy as a pig in sh!t
Canon EFM 22 f/2 https://www.flickr.com …8037241/with/16​700744642/
Panny G 20 & 25 f/1.7 https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215766​2438452779 https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215766​2968790692
It takes me a while to learn a new camera, so keep that in mind

And yeah, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. At all. Just showing what I have found, during my learning curve. It's pretty damn hard to find a discussion where individuals are not trying to push their own personal preferences to one format over the other. I hope I've not done the same, & given a balanced view. I love my FF & prime setup, it's just to step up to another level costs serious $$ & serious weight. Low light it's killer. Pro's & cons for every system

Ha, may as well chuck the 14 2.5 shots in as well https://www.flickr.com …9121552/with/24​099236962/

speedync wrote in post #17847621
Probably the easiest way for you to compare, other than actually giving you my camera to shoot with for a bit, is to show you some comparison albums between my EOS M & 22 f/2 kit, & the GX8 + 20 & 25 f/1.7 Bear in mind that I'm a total happy snapper who only shoots for pure fun, have zero intention of ever gaining financial reward from photography, & I've only had the Panny for a few weeks, so still getting a handle on the settings & file processing. I was in exactly the same position as you, and so far as happy as a pig in sh!t
Canon EFM 22 f/2 https://www.flickr.com …8037241/with/16​700744642/
Panny G 20 & 25 f/1.7 https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215766​2438452779 https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215766​2968790692
It takes me a while to learn a new camera, so keep that in mind

And yeah, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. At all. Just showing what I have found, during my learning curve. It's pretty damn hard to find a discussion where individuals are not trying to push their own personal preferences to one format over the other. I hope I've not done the same, & given a balanced view. I love my FF & prime setup, it's just to step up to another level costs serious $$ & serious weight. Low light it's killer. Pro's & cons for every system

Ha, may as well chuck the 14 2.5 shots in as well https://www.flickr.com …9121552/with/24​099236962/

Your a terrrrrrrrible person with your biased opinion............I KID, I KID

I'm deep into Canon and and somewhat invested in M43.

For the most part the beauty of the M43 is the huge selection of the lenses you can use between the panasonic and Lumix lenses.

To be honest I've discussed the "colours" that Oly and Panny produces. Seems there are many people liking Olympus signature colours over the panasonic. I do like the olympus colour rendition of my Oly OMD EM-5 over my GH3 using raw files. Mind you your post processing style can adapt to these colours.

There's a good handful of relatively fast M43 lenses at decent prices. The 14mm f/2.5 is an incredibly fast focusing "cheap" kit lens that produces very good IQ. You can look at the panny leica zuiko 15mm f/1.7 but it might now be worth the extra beans if you compare to the 14mm f/2.5 except speed.

If you looking at the Panny 20mm f/1.7 get the MK2 version. The PL 25mm f/1.4 is truly a beast in IQ and so is the zuiko 45mm f/1.8 (cheap)

For the cheap IMO the panasonic 14-45mm kit lens is pretty darn good if you can find a mint used one or pay a reasonable amount for a new one "made in Japan".

If you start diving into the Pro f/2.8 zooms this is where IMO the images should look like from a small M43 sensor. The PL 25mm is still better than my 12-35mm f/2.8.

The only big advantage of mirrorless is that you wont have specification clashes between body and lens. The typical Rebel series canon does NOT have micro adjust AF. This is one reason why I will not buy a SL1 or T6i for small casual use even though I was contemplating on buying them for my 9yrs old daughter.

BUT if I had a t6I and was extremely selective in testing lenses before buying a canon T6i or SL1 with a Canon 17-55IS (roughly cheaper/same price as a gig bulky M43 Panny gx8 with 12-35mm pro f/2.8 lens) I'd give the edge on the smaller DSLR with more shallow dof.

My OMD EM5 with 14-45 zoom is a great size for my 6 and 9 yrs old daughter. However the GH3(GH4, Gx8) is kinda starting to defeat the purpose of buying a "smaller package". I use my spider pro holster system for my gh3 but for the OMD I use the shoulder strap because it's so small. Just think the Canon SL1 is smaller than the GH3/4!!!!

You see this is where you have to start looking at the options out there. It's your gear so you can determine what is the tolerance of "size" package.

I still like the EM1 over the GX8 for looks and Olympus colours. If I had to choose between the gx8 and GH4 I would justify buying the GH4. However I'd be happy with all 3 for casual shooting. I'd put more emphasis on spending $$$ on more lenses because IQ wise panny and oly is quite good at the moment. YOU WILL benefit more in the lenses in IQ and your splitting hairs with an EM1, E-M10, GX8 or GH4 if IQ is concerned..

AlanU wrote in post #17847711
(Truncated for brevity)
You see this is where you have to start looking at the options out there. It's your gear so you can determine what is the tolerance of "size" package.

I still like the EM1 over the GX8 for looks and Olympus colours. If I had to choose between the gx8 and GH4 I would justify buying the GH4. However I'd be happy with all 3 for casual shooting. I'd put more emphasis on spending $$$ on more lenses because IQ wise panny and oly is quite good at the moment. YOU WILL benefit more in the lenses in IQ and your splitting hairs with an EM1, E-M10, GX8 or GH4 if IQ is concerned..

I'm going for the E-M10 II I think, in-body IS, Good viewfinder etc are all points in its favor. While I feel in-lens IS is a superior solution, having IS all the time is better than not. As for lenses I have a 20mm f/1.7 II already, and i will likely keep it unless someone suggests something else.. i read something about the 20mm causing banding on the Olympus bodies and apparently thats STILL a problem which is the only reason i might not..

I wish the GX7 I received had been actually NEW and not perfume soaked so i could have kept it. I do rather like it. the GX8 is out of what im feeling like spending on this. Id rather get a second lens to go with than buy the GX8 for 1 lens...

KenjiS wrote in post #17847951
I'm going for the E-M10 II I think, in-body IS, Good viewfinder etc are all points in its favor. While I feel in-lens IS is a superior solution, having IS all the time is better than not. As for lenses I have a 20mm f/1.7 II already, and i will likely keep it unless someone suggests something else.. i read something about the 20mm causing banding on the Olympus bodies and apparently thats STILL a problem which is the only reason i might not..

I wish the GX7 I received had been actually NEW and not perfume soaked so i could have kept it. I do rather like it. the GX8 is out of what im feeling like spending on this. Id rather get a second lens to go with than buy the GX8 for 1 lens...

Just think long and hard about getting into a system. Panny has great functionality and Olympus has nicer colours IMO with more emphasis on still photography.

The GX8 would put you in a different level in the M43 world. You will get a New fresh sensor, great 4k video quality and in body stabilization.
I'd strongly suggest crying HARD and approach a new system with limitation of a single lens...FOR NOW. This camera is more of a universal soldier in video and still photography.

If you go with an Olympus E-M10 that will be more targeting your small package stills photos and the video application is not really anything to get excited about. This is exactly where I'm at with my Olympus EM5 as a stills photo camera "only" cause the video is so mediocre compared to Panasonic. However my aging EM5 still does a very good job in stills.

Many people love the 20mm f/1.7 (I'm assuming you have the mk2 version). I think it's a relatively inexpensive excellent lens. I really like my cheap 14mm f/2.5 image quality.

Stop and think about your urges in "upgraditis". If you know as a fact that you can live with an OMD E-M10 for a long duration of time you will be fine. If you think that you may complain about back focus regardless of "casual use" you better think some more in body.

The Olympus EM1 and Panny GX8 will be leaps ahead in focus accuracy compared to an Oly OMD E-M5mk2 or E-M10. The "different" panasonic technology of the DFD or hybrid AF of the EM1 will be on par of your familiarity of DSLR phase detection hammer the shot due to gear and operator.

With my DSLR I almost never get the "wtf" how did I miss that shot when my focus point is dead on. With my GH3 and EM5 I can sadly say I can sometimes hit the target and my gear fails me.

Please forgive me for messing with your mind If you spend more money NOW it'll keep up with the newer tech for many years to come. Mirrorless platforms with only contrast detect will be putting a date stamp on technology. Hybrid or non traditional technology in contrast detect (DFD) is more innovative and upto date IMO. This would give you more confidence in acquiring "perfect" accurate shots.

If you need more reading material just jump over to the https://www.mu-43.com/ website.

I spent about a grand on my Olympus E-M5 when it was first introduced to the market. I've now given that to my 9yrs old daughter. I tried to give it away in the buy/sell but no bites. My point? M43 takes a big hit on the used market unlike Canon red ring L lenses. Dont expect to re coupe $$ down the road selling older tech m43 gear. Choose wisely........ or accept what you buy now for the future. I need to buy new M43 bodies simply for better AF accuracy.

There is a huge preference for hybrid AF for newly marketed mirrorless bodies. It's not hype...it's a demand that many photographers truly want because life does not stand still. Last time I recall photographers like to focus on their subjects on a consistent basis

I'm not too prone to upgraditis in bodies.. I have a 7D which ive owned since it was launched in 2009..

Even lenses, if i get a good lens im happy with, i hang onto it, I was probubly the first person out there with the 15-85 for instance, and I bought the 100L a few months after the 7D

I have a reptuation for being "unpleasable" because one lens ive yet to really get for my 7D that ive badly wanted is a solid fast prime in the 40-50mm range, Every option i tried was a dud (35mm f/2, 28mm f/1.8, Sigma 30) and the other options were so pricey and chunky that i wasnt really sure to even try (Admittedly the one i did NOT try was the 35mm f/2 IS USM.. That MIGHT actually have done it for me)

I dont do video, when i do a video, its with my smartphone, So YMMV on that, i dont really see it as something i require

I got a good deal on another GX7, For me the better build was hard to pass up, Adorama was clearing out a few kits for under $600 with the 14-42 and Panasonic is giving a free warranty extension to 3 years, I dont really care about the 14-42 lens but i figure it might come in handy sometime. I might exchange my 20mm f/1.7 II for the black one though (I Could only get a kit in black, Shame, the lens looks snazzy in silver)

IQ wise, i compared, the GX7 isnt that far from the EM10 II, in fact in some ways i felt the RAW files looked better on the GX7 on DPReview, seemed the GX7 did a better job holding onto detail and high ISO looked pretty solid. is the GX8 better? No question. However keep in mind i paid less than HALF of what the GX8 is going for, I'd be more happy selling the GX7 down the line if i love it and getting a GX8. and if it doesnt work out, No harm im not out over a GRAND for a camera.

I'm totally a glass over body person, Thats why im on m4/3 and not sony, if all i wanted was "a body and 1 lens" id buy a sony.