ketang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #4 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II? | |
chiron wrote:
Does anyone have experience shooting both Sony full-frame and Olympus OM1 II Micro-Four-Third images?
Two of the things that I have wished for Sony to do is to make a stacked sensor camera that is no larger than the original A9 and to develop some computational photography functions for its cameras.
I recently came across specs for the newish Olympus OM1 II, and it really caught my attention.
It has a stacked sensor. It is about the same size as the original A9, with lenses that are much smaller than full-frame. It has 8.5 stops of IBIS. It has an array of computational photography features that seem very powerful and useful. For example, it has built-in regular and graduated neutral density filters. The latter let you position the line where the graduation begins and also let you set the angle of the graduation filter line and whether it is a hard or soft line. Users report that its focus-stacking can be used hand-held because of the excellent IBIS. There are lots of jpg filters and the camera lets you save any shot in multiple filter versions rather than only one. There is a lot more, but I won't go into it here.
The concern is that the 20mpix filter is MFT with a 2X crop factor. So, one wonders about details and high ISO performance.
I'd love to hear some reports from Sony users on the Olympus OM1 II's image quality, especially at high ISO, and their experiences in general with the OM1 II camera.
(cross-posted from Sony forum)...Show more →
You have a lot of replies here and so much of this depends on your standards, what you value in the process of photos as well as the result. With that said, I shoot a fully Sony A7RV system and an OM-1 II system. I love both for different reasons and since I don't need to choose between them I believe I can compare them dispassionately. Here are a few points of comparison:
-In terms of IQ, the Sony system is noticeably better in terms of detail and noise performance at equivalent ISO values. I try to counteract this by shooting handheld HDR whenever I can on the OM. Doing so lessens the gap, but a single shot on the Sony is still better. At the same time, for most of my output needs (web or prints up to 13x19), the OM is fine because it is relatively easy to keep it at base ISO with the excellent stabilization and the fact that most lenses are at their sharpest by f/4-f/6.3 with sufficient DoF. If I go to a 17x22 print I can see some advantage to the Sony, especially with any cropping. If you are into pixel peeping there is no way any OM set up can match what I get on the Sony with a quality lens. The M43 sensor is ultimately much noisier and there is some limit to per pixel detail, perhaps due to diffraction or an AA filter or something else. With the Sony you can take a shot with a sharp lens and look at the image at 100% and it feels like you can touch it.
-In terms of AF, the Sony system is simply much, much better. I shoot either people or inanimate objects (e.g. flowers), not birds, and for those subjects the OM tracking ranges from mediocre (people) to poor (inanimate objects). I find that it can pretty easily lose the subject and using single point AF is often needed. The Sony system, is close to infallible, particularly if you are shooting at an equivalent DoF to your M43 lenses (e.g. f/1.4 on M43 is about f/2.8 on FF), and its still much better even shooting at apertures like 1.2 which don't have equivalencies on M43 with AF lenses.
-Once you move beyond AF, the OM tends to win with photographic features. I particularly like the implementation and results of handheld HDR and Live ND. The high res mode is certainly more usable than Sony's (virtually unusable outside of a studio), even if it doesn't look to me like it's producing 50mp or 80mp of detail. As others have noted, the stabilization is much better on OM.
-On the other hand, Sony has some advantages with features, menus, and controls owing to more development generation by generation. Some examples that jump out to me are easily changing the Auto ISO minimum shutter speed (you can assign a custom button and click through options to make it relatively faster or slower, OM you are stuck with a single Auto setting), generally having more custom buttons and photographic settings you can assign to them, and having better options to tweak your JPEG previews to better reflect the raw exposure and judge sharpness. This final one is important to me for critical work. As far as I can tell the OM has the same crunchy JPEGs as from back when I shot with the EM-1 II and it is hard to tell which shots have critical sharpness vs. are slightly off as well as judging ETTR. With Sony there are HDR gamma modes which tell me exactly where highlights clip and the more refined JPEG engine makes it easy to judge sharpness.
-Both systems have a wide range of lenses. Sony wins for anything where you'd want the look of a faster aperture. Even the M43 f/1.2 lenses, which are essentially the fastest with AF, are about f/2.4 on FF in terms of your control over DoF. I would also say Sony wins that the very high end because a lot of the great M43 lenses were designed years back and R&D then dropped off. The newest fast-aperture Sony releases tend to perform better particularly in terms of LoCA and of course ultimate detail.
-M43 wins on portability in the sense of being able to bring 4-5 lenses with different looks in the same size bag that you might only be able to fit 2-3 Sony lenses in. I also like how they have an apparent higher maximum magnification. The actual magnification is sometimes similar to a FF lens, but with a 2X crop the apparent magnification is much higher. As such, almost any lens you use is able to take an image that looks like 1:4 magnification, and often it's higher, and that provides a lot of versatility. Of course, when you shoot close, the DoF always looks shallow and so having the crop-sensor really is not a downside. Another thing I will note anecdotally is that for the high end M43 lenses I haven't seen as much sample variation as with the high end FF lenses. I've generally found lenses that are well-centered and with lower field curvature earlier in the buying process vs. FF. Finally, because M43 isn't as popular a format you can buy a lot of lenses with different looks on the used market for cheaper than buying the same number of FF lenses. It makes it fun to experiment.
-In the hand, both bodies feel good, but I might prefer the OM. The grip and dials just feel really good.
Overall conclusion: for any type of professional or unforgiving or once-in-a-lifetime shooting, I prefer the Sony. It's just a more advanced system at this point with fewer quirks. That said, for those same reasons it can feel a bit boring to shoot. The cameras feel too competent and computer-like (though the lenses can be really exciting). If I am shooting for fun on a daily basis I am more likely to grab the OM. It's smaller and lighter with more manageable file sizes and some computational features that help me make the most of the weaker sensor. I like the challenge of trying to get the best out of the files (it takes more work) and I like that the lenses can focus close.
|
