Micro 4/3 To switch or not to switch?

stratokaster

Top Veteran
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Name
Pavel
Hi guys and gals, long time no see.

Recently I had my main camera (Panasonic GX8) and my most expensive lens (12-35/2.8) destroyed in an unfortunate accident. I also have a Lumix GX85 which, sadly, suffers from the well-documented battery drain issue. The camera works fine, but if I leave it swithed off for 2-3 days, it completely drains the battery. The only solution to this problem is to store the battery separately from the camera, which is a major hassle. That's why the GX85 is now basically my webcam: it lives on a small tripod on my desk and is permanently powered by a dummy battery. Since it's a US model, it can output clean 1080p/30 and 1080p/60 via HDMI, which makes it perfect for webcasts, but as a photographic tool it's as good as dead.

All this exciting stuff means that I need a new camera (at least one). I really liked my GX8, which was mostly great, but I'm reluctant to get another one for two reasons: 1) I don't like the separate exposure compensation dial which is difficult to operate without looking at it; 2) in my experience, the shutter shock issue is very real, at least with zoom lenses. The shutter also sounds absolutely awful. I recently was asked to photograph a chamber music concert, and I could not use the GX8 because its shutter is too loud and in the electronic shutter mode it produces horrible banding under LED lights. I also dislike the fully articulated screen (I would prefer a tilting one), but after some consideration I decided that this is the downside I'm willing to live with.

Normally, I would get a G-series camera. I have always considered them to be "Goldilocks cameras" in Panasonic's lineup: historically they have been not too big and not too small, not too cheap and not too expensive, and their specs have mostly been very good. In this respect, I think the G80 and the G90 were the true heirs of the GH2 (which I had many years ago and which I still remember very fondly). Unfortunately, both cameras have been discontinued, and the G100 is... well... for all I know, it could be a cracking little camera, but it's just not what I am looking for. Obviously, I can easily procure a second-hand or refurbished G90, but what if I need another camera in, say, 4 to 5 years? Would a decent mid-range body be available or would I have to spring for an overkill (for my purposes) and oversized top-range camera like the GH6 or the G9? And would the system even be around, considering that one founding member is investing heavily into a full-frame system, and the other one has completely embarrassed itself and sold its camera division to a private equity firm (which is about as confidence-inspiring as selling your liver to a vulture...) The upside of the Micro 4/3 is that the system has been on the market for a very long time, and there is a significant number of second hand bodies available, so assembling a two body kit should be fairly inexpensive.

A couple of words of what I would like to achieve. I absolutely hate switching lenses, that's why I prefer to have two bodies. In my happier days I was shooting with this combo:

6970108894_ff06b271b0_b.jpg


This setup was not ideal, because 28mm EFL was not quite wide enough, and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 had an annoyingly long minimum focus distance, but it worked for 99% of my photography, and I took some of my best shots ever with this humble setup.

So ideally, I would have a 2-body setup with 4-5 lenses – 2 lenses (moderate wide and moderate tele) for general purpose photography, one 35-ish mm fast lens for social photography, a wide angle lens, and a macro lens. That's just a general idea; I'm also open to other variations, e.g. moderate wide and moderate telephoto lenses could be replaced by one fast standard zoom.

If I stay with Micro 4/3, I'm not thrilled with any of the currently available body options, and I feel that the ~35mm EFL options in the system are not ideal. The Olympus 17mm f/1.2 PRO is too large and expensive, the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is rather disappointing optically (I have tried three different copies and they all have been meh; about as good as the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 which I consider one of the weakest lenses in the system), and the Panaleica 15mm f/1.7 is just a touch too wide (but a brilliant lens otherwise). Amazingly, wide angle options are also rather disappointing. The closest wide angle lens to my needs is the Olympus 9-18mm, but after the recent price hike it's 700 euro which is just way too much for what it is (I have had Olympus standard-grade lenses in the past and there's no chance in hell that I will pay 700 euro for that level of build quality). There is also the new PanaLeica 9mm f/1.7 which could be the right lens for me: the samples I have seen look very good, and I quite like the price. I already have a macro lens (Olympus 30mm f/3.5) which is very close to being optically perfect. I also have a cheap tele zoom (Panasonic 45-100mm) which is very nice and sharp but I just never use it, so it does not count.

However, if I look at other systems, things kinda look more interesting than Micro 4/3 options. For example, there is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN for APS-C cameras (Sony and Fujifilm) which kinda looks like a perfect walkaround lens. It's not the best optic in the world, but it's tiny, light and fast. Add the new Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 (which is a brilliant lens by all accounts), and I already have a large chunk of my wishes fulfilled, and quite cheaply at that. There is no shortage of ~35mm EFL options for either Sony of Fujifilm mount either. The only problem is that I don't like Sony and Fujifilm cameras :LOL: Still, Sony looks like an attractive option, for example, I could get an A6500 and pair it with a cheap second hand A6000 and get probably the smallest possible 2-body, 2-lens kit.

Another option is Nikon Z... The sensor in the Z50 is fantastic (that said, I have never had any issues with the 20MP sensor inside my GX8), I tried the camera and found it to be very good in terms of ergonomics (almost as good as Panasonic) and speed. And it has the tilting screen! The only issue is the lack of APS-C lenses, but there are rumours that Sigma will bring its lenses to the Nikon Z mount next year. If they release the 18-50mm DC DN and/or their APS-C primes for Nikon Z, the Z50 would be a very serious contender.

What do you think? Should I try another system? By the way, I tried multiple other systems in the past and found them lacking, especially Sony (horrible UI) and Fujifilm (slow and unpredictable operation + clunky and outdated controls + "the X-Trans look"), but it's been several years since I last tried their cameras, so for all I know they could be much better today.
 
Last edited:
Before you commit to the Sigma 18-50/2.8, get one in your hands.
I don't know how similar or different it is to the 17-50/2.8, but the 17-50/2.8 that I tried was terrible.
The zoom ring required a LOT of effort to turn. Sigma reduced the throw to about 60 degrees, which then required a steeper zoom cam. And that then required more effort to turn.
It was especially bad, because the Tamron 17-50/2.8 has a really easy to turn zoom ring.
So when I recommended a lens for my school to buy, it was the Tamron, not the Sigma.
 
Before you commit to the Sigma 18-50/2.8, get one in your hands.
I don't know how similar or different it is to the 17-50/2.8, but the 17-50/2.8 that I tried was terrible.
The zoom ring required a LOT of effort to turn. Sigma reduced the throw to about 60 degrees, which then required a steeper zoom cam. And that then required more effort to turn.
It was especially bad, because the Tamron 17-50/2.8 has a really easy to turn zoom ring.
So when I recommended a lens for my school to buy, it was the Tamron, not the Sigma.

Thanks. I've tried it in my local store, and at least their display copy had a very smooth and pleasant zoom ring. It's also unbelievably tiny for a fast APS-C standard zoom.
 
Thanks. I've tried it in my local store, and at least their display copy had a very smooth and pleasant zoom ring. It's also unbelievably tiny for a fast APS-C standard zoom.
Sounds like your smokes aren't delivering the satisfaction you deserve. Time to switch to Chesterfield. Chesterfield has a unique flavor guaranteed in every puff. Chesterfield tobacco is a secret blend of Latakia and the best Virginia tobaccos rolled in special wrapper made in Spain.

Try Chesterfield 100s for even more flavor.

Hope this helps!
 
If you aren't against staying with Micro 4/3, there is always the option of going for the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens. But, if that is too expensive and too heavy, and you can handle losing one f-stop, take a look at the Olympus 12-45mm f/4 PRO. I have had one for the past year and it "lives" on an Olympus OM-D E-M1 III, which is my main backup camera, my main camera being an OM-1. I tend to find myself getting into some quite dusty environments and so prefer zooms to primes, as I then change lenses a lot less often.

The Oly 12-45mm f/4 and the E-M1 III together form a compact, high quality combination, which fits comfortably into my hands and is used as a walk around lens.
 
Unfortunaely, both cameras have been discontinued
You may have just missed some deals lately. Here in the Southern Hemisphere, we had deals even with G85s and G95s + the 25mm F1.7. Check around online as many I know are still able to get even the G85 brand new. Even the G9 here is offered at a really, really decent price.
 
If you are happy with m43, then stay with it. I actually prefer Olympus over Panasonic in bodies, so all my recommendations there would be slightly skewed that way. If you want to be stay on the cheap, an EM10 Mark II or newer would get you there in the DSLR style body. If not and you like the rangefindery style - I'd recommend a used E-P5 or an E-P7.

If you want to go about to another system - I really like Fuji for that small, compact size in bodies and their f/2 "Fujicrons" are really very good.
The thing you'll miss most likely is the IBIS, which you would only get in the higher end, larger bodies. You'd need to go zooms to get OIS in the lenses. Even there you can get some good deals on sharp lenses.

Bodies I would recommend the XE3 or a used XPro2.
Again, any of the F/2 primes are small ,light and excellent IQ...although the older f/1.4 lenses have more character.
Zooms, you could get along quite well with the Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 OIS and either the 55-200/3.8-4.8 OIS or the even less expensive 50-250 kit zoom. The major differences are the AF speed on the kit zoom is slower and hunts more.
 
Sounds like your smokes aren't delivering the satisfaction you deserve. Time to switch to Chesterfield. Chesterfield has a unique flavor guaranteed in every puff. Chesterfield tobacco is a secret blend of Latakia and the best Virginia tobaccos rolled in special wrapper made in Spain.

Try Chesterfield 100s for even more flavor.

Hope this helps!

LSMFT
 
More seriously, OP, if I were in your shoes, I'd rent a Z6 & a prime lens or two and see if that fit my needs. Since you have already tried and liked the Z50, that would seem a good one to look at to decide on if moving to the larger sensor was appropriate.

The other thing I'd seriously look at is the new OM-D but that's more because I never used Panny so I'd be more comfortable with that one ;)

Good luck!
 
I'm a terrible person to turn to for advice, Pavel, but like you, my former favorite mu43 camera of all time was the GX8. And the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 is probably one of the best - and most nice & compact - zooms I've ever had. I still have it as a matter of fact! So I can relate to your dilemma.

If I were in your shoes (and I'm not) I would be inclined to stay with mu43 - and possibly replace the GX8 with a G9, a camera which, in addition to its many other positives, has a truly superb EVF. Part of the appeal of micro four thirds cameras to me is the way they feel in hand - and though the G9 is marginally bigger than the GX8, both I think have the feel of photographer's cameras.

With regards to a second M43 body, my contrarian advice would be to pick up a GX9 (which by the way is the camera I bought to replace my former GX8). In terms of size & handling, it's very close to your GX85, with a few key improvements - including the l.monochrome.d in-camera monochrome jpeg filter which, for me at least, is hands down THE most subtly satisfying way of shooting in-camera monochromes I've ever encounter. In fact, most of my GX9 shooting is done in monochrome jpeg using the aforementioned l.monochrome.d filter - it's that good.

The only other addendum is that I loved the EVF of my GX8 - and although the G9's is easily as good (if not better), that of the GX9 isn't in the same league. For me, it's closer to that of the GX7 (which I shot with and liked quite a bit, for several years) - not great, but not all that bad either. However, when I bought an aftermarket soft rubber Panasonic eye-cup-hood for the GX9, it subjectively felt a million times better.

The other obvious plus, which I believe you already mentioned, is that the price of G9's has come down considerably, and they are borderline affordable now. Obviously, for video centric purposes, both the GH5 and the GH6 would be superior - but for stills, the G9 is, I think, still a truly fine camera.

Sorry to hear about you losing your GX9 + the 12-35mm...that's truly terrible. And, incidentally, if you stay in M43, I would seriously urge acquiring another 12-35 f/2.8 lens. It's sooooo damn versatile, and so compact... it's a lens which, the more one uses it, the more one quietly appreciates it, I believe. And speaking of great lenses, the PL15 is worth getting and hanging onto, as is the tiny 20mm Lumix pancake, but... the question of lenses is worth a separate thread.

Good luck with your decision. It's not an easy one.
 
If you aren't against staying with Micro 4/3, there is always the option of going for the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens. But, if that is too expensive and too heavy, and you can handle losing one f-stop, take a look at the Olympus 12-45mm f/4 PRO. I have had one for the past year and it "lives" on an Olympus OM-D E-M1 III, which is my main backup camera, my main camera being an OM-1. I tend to find myself getting into some quite dusty environments and so prefer zooms to primes, as I then change lenses a lot less often.

The Oly 12-45mm f/4 and the E-M1 III together form a compact, high quality combination, which fits comfortably into my hands and is used as a walk around lens.
Yes, I agree about the 12-45. It's considerably smaller and lighter than even the PL 12-60 or P12-35. It is very sharp even wide open and just about perfect, IMHO. I also use the PL 12-60 (even for travel) if I think I'll need the extra reach (or speed, but that's usually not a factor for me), but generally the 12-45 is amazing (yeah, I wish it went to 50mm, but who's counting?).
 
I made the move to Sony, though more by accident, I picked up a Nex dirt cheep and proceded to get a load more at silly prices that I profited on. I just kept getting better ones to the point that it became my main system. I tend to use slower zooms and F1.8 and slower primes so my usage is possiably different. The AF on Sony cameras is good and I use an A6000 and A7 mk1 and think it is better than on the m43 I have used (GX8 and GX80) and I gather newer ones are even better. IQ is good again I feel the A6000 is better than the GX's, though Olympus colours are better. There is a great range of lenses available for them but I found the Panasonic 15 1.7 to be a devine lens and I would say I miss the way it drew, if you stay with m43 look at it as an alternative to the 17's. Finally I would say that all of the post 16mp cameras are plenty good enough IQ wise for 99% of the time and joy of use plays a massive part so see if you could borrow other cameras to see how you like them.
 
An outlier in the compact M43 system as per now, is the Oly E-M10MkIV, it has the E-M1MkIII 20Mp sensor, 5 axis stabilisation and a very proper LVF on par with the G90.

Check your local OM site, up here in Norway it is on a Christmas sale (ending 3112) for €670ish with the 14-42EZ and a free 45mm thrown in, I am very tempted to splurge on it, to the tune of actually using a credit card to get it (something I very, very seldom do), and then selling off the lenses to partially recoup the outlay. Sizewise, the E-M10s makes the GX9 seems like a fat cow and it is comparable to the G100 in size, but with 4.5 stops worth of IBIS: Camera size comparison 10MkIV vs G100

EDIT: having revisited the offer I quoted in the above paragraph, I had clumsily failed to notice that it was the MkIII and not the MkIV, which was on offer. The MkIV is at €740, body only from the OM site.

I am very fond of the E-M10MkII that I have and the MkIV brings enough new stuff to the table, that it is a well worth upgrade. Other than that, I dont really think you will go wrong with the G90, I bought a second hand one earlier this year and my G9 have seen very little use after that.
 
Last edited:
@stratokaster I'll try to go back to your first post in order to make sense of my own thoughts, lots of interesting leads and advice above, but it's so diverse I'll not try to reiterate.

First and foremost, I think staying with :mu43: makes sense - we have a "new" player with OM Systems that's making small-ish, but interesting steps towards renewing the Olympus side of things, and Panasonic just issued a new flagship, the GH6, so I don't think they're about to give up :mu43: any time soon; also, it appears the Yongnuo is about to join the market with lenses for :mu43:, so there's obviously still quite a bit of life in the system.

As for cameras, I'll 'fess up to being very happy with the OM-D E-M5 III; it's been much maligned for being a "lesser" camera than some of its predecessors, but in practice, it's a very satisfying camera with very solid performance; if you add the external grip, you'll get a E-M1/OM-1/G* form factor (not my personal favourite, but it's an option), so you'll have both types (compact and "full-bodied") available more or less in one go. As for portability, add a small prime, and you'll be able to put the camera in a coat or jacket pocket. I'll also add here that in Panasonic land, the GX9, while it has its quirks, is, all things considered, a very well rounded camera - and you know the GX85, so you'll be right at home with it. The only real bug bear is the EVF, but that's the same you know from the GX85, so you can assess its value for you beforehand. As for lenses, you can't go wrong with any of the available fixed-aperture zooms - they're all great. My personal favourite at the moment is the already mentioned Olympus 12-45mm f/4 PRO. It's very compact and optically superb. That said, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 C is only marginally bigger ...

If you were to change systems, there's just the question if you want to build up a system over time or jump right in and put it together in one go. The latter is possible with Sony and Fujifilm.

Sony's APS-C bodies leave me cold, especially when coming from :mu43: - though I'll admit that I didn't find the A6000 to be a terrible camera when I had it. It just wasn't as fluid to use as other cameras - it's bare bones in many ways, minimalist to the point of being fiddly if you want to do anything more specific than shoot in full auto mode: I use aperture priority most of the time - with the A6000, exposure compensation was a bit of a pain because it was easy to press the thumb wheel instead of turning it. Of the simple bodies, the goldilocks model is probably the A6400 - but it's pretty costly for what it is IMO, and the A6100 may be sufficient for photography. Both the A6500 and A6600 are somewhat strange cameras, especially the latter - they're both unbalanced in their special ways; the A6500 feels too small, the A6600 a bit big. That said, I'd probably still reach for a A6600 - it's the first (and only) Sony APS-C body that has better than nominal I.B.I.S. The lense eco system is huge to the point of being confusing. Bottom line: Not my recommendation for your use case. But that doesn't mean that I'd consider the A6400 with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 C anything less than a killer combo - no stabilisation, though, and, IMO, quite expensive for what it is; the same goes for the A6600 - even more so, in fact.

In Fuji land, I find it annoying that the desirable features are strewn widely across the different models, with the fully competent ones being expensive (X-T4, X-T5 - and of course, the X-H series. but those are so big that I'd go full-frame instead). The one camera I consider "almost there" is the X-S10, already mentioned by Bobby. It's small, comfortable to hold and very well featured. But that camera doesn't offer weather sealing, so, while being more or less the same price, can't keep up with the E-M5 III or G90 in adverse conditions. However, pair the X-S10 with a 18-55mm f/2.8-4 or, again, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 C, and you have a small, very competent camera. I'd find that a very nice entry point into what is a superb, well established system. So, if you want to switch, I'd guess this would be a very nice start. Be warned, though: Fujifilm's offerings are even more addictive than :mu43: used to be.

And finally, we'll get to Nikon Z. While I concur that at this point in time, the DX (APS-C) system may seem frugal and is only just beginning to get fleshed out, I have to say that what is already available really hits the spot: The Z 50 is probably the center piece at this moment, and if you pair it either with its tiny kit zoom (Z 16-50mm) or, as I do, with the amazingly competent Z 18-140mm DX, you'll end up with a one camera, one lens combo that gets a lot of things right; it's not as well sealed as any of the mid-range :mu43: bodies, but both the body and the superzoom offer some weather protection. If you need to go longer, the Z 50-250mm DX is an amazing lens optically, even better than its "shorter" counterparts - but as the 16-50mm, with no sealing whatsoever ... So, for me, a Z 50 with the Z 18-140mm DX and the Z 28mm f/2.8 would make for a very enjoyable basic kit; if you need anything faster or better, the FX Z catalogue most probably has it. You could also throw in my current favourite APS-C body, the Z fc, for good measure (with the 28mm f/2.8 kit lens already attached). And, using the Megadap ETZ21, you can even use the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 C (as I do), though I admit that that's probably for die-hard Z system shooters like me at this point in time. So, while I'm of course heavily biased in this regard, I'll say here that I found the fledgeling DX Z system to be the best antidote to just about anything luring me back into :mu43: land (I still live there temporarily because there's really nothing out there that can replace the E-M5 III with 12-45mm f/4 PRO attached - an almost prefect match as a compact, worry-free walkaround combo for all conditions).

Which way to go? As always, YMMV. If you want to get satisfied quickly and wholesomely, I'd go Fuji or stick with :mu43:. If you want to be part of what is promising to become a wonderful journey, go Nikon Z (DX or not - but DX makes a lot of sense for your use case).

I'm now going to take the E-M5 III with 12-45mm f/4 PRO for a walk - showers are forecast for later, so I'll stay on the safe side, and I'll be happy with the images. But tomorrow, I'll take the Z 50 with Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 C (adapted) ... because it offers even more fun and even more pleasing results.

M.
 
Just wondering with the battery drain issue, is that with all batteries? Have you tried a relatively new battery? Sometimes as batteries age, they just don't hold their charge as much.

But on the topic of camera swapping. If you are already satisified with the current m4/3 cameras, and don't feel you are lacking in anything, I'd stay with m43. It'll be cheaper and as you said, the price of second hand gear makes it pretty affordable.

I added a sony a7c to my kit, as I felt I was missing out with high ISO images and good AF tracking.
 
Back
Top