Micro Four Thirds or APS-C for landscape / hiking?

K

KMPhoto

Messages
2,385
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking at getting back into photography after a break for a while.

In the past I had a D90, followed by the original X100, Canon G1X Mkii and now a Sony RX100M3 - all of which served me well in their own way.

In recent months I have been thinking of getting a little more serious with landscape photography again to tie in with my hiking / dog walking in the Dales.

I recently saw the Olympus EM-1 Mkii combined with the 12-200mm on offer for £1050 which got me thinking about MFT options. Online reviews of the camera are very positive, even at the original price of over £1k, although I realise that I will likely go for a different lens to combine with the body. I'm drawn to MFT because of the size / weight factor.

Any thoughts on an alternative landscape setup for about the same price point (c£1k)? I have a decent tripod and will factor in the cost of other accessories afterwards.

Thanks, Kevin
 
I like the RF style bodies (I have a GX9 and a GX80) as they cut down on the bulk of the grip and evf hump but provided the same image quality.
 
If you don't mind a bit of noise when viewed at 100% M4/3 is great.

I got some great shots at low ISO's on my Olympus gear.

Not great for high ISO images though.
 
Quoth said:
Thanks for the response :)



Same as what? And with what lens are you suggesting?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that I prefer the RF style MFT cameras as they're smaller than the mini SLR MFT cameras but give you the same image quality.

The lenses are another question. You mentioned a superzoom and that could be a good way to go. Many people tend to think of landscape lenses as being wide angle but I do think that's a very limited view and a long lens or even a "normal" lens could be a good choice, it just depends on the final image and look you want. Ditto aperture, some people tend to think of landscape as being deep dof, front to back, but again I think that's a limiting view. You can if you wish use a 12mm lens at f8 or you could use a 200mm lens at f2.8. It's up to you what look you want.

I tend to prefer the 12 to 25mm sort of field of view range on MFT and I do prefer primes or f2.8 zooms just for the extra flexibility the wider apertures give but if you're going to stick to deep dof just about any lens will probably suffice. For example I have a Panasonic 14-42mm kit lens and it's tiny and optically I just can't fault it. Something like that could make for a very nice walking lens on a RF style body as it'd be coat pocketable, with a larger coat :D or be almost unnoticeable in bag with water bottles and snacks etc.
 
Something from the Sony A6**** range is going to be just as portable and give you more dynamic range with less noise and be within your budget.
 
Two years ago I was asking myself the same question and decided to go with m4/3 / Olympus and haven't looked back since. Absolutely cracking kit. GreenNinja67 mentions noise, but given the massive image stabilisation with the EM-1s, this will seldom be an issue. Point in case, one of my earliest images I took with my E-M1 Mk II is a 2 s hand-held exposure with the Zuiko 12-100 - and it's sharp as a tack, something I would never have believed. My kit started off light, but bulk has crept in over time (UWA, telephoto, tripod, etc), but it's relatively easy to pare back for mountain trips. Image quality and functionality are all top! Battery life is good, I get decent astro images out of it when I stack properly and there are more lenses than you can possibly ever need out there. They're lighter and cheaper than their bigger cousins, and if you were to dig deeper, you can get a Mk III with hand-held high res and on-board ND function. Not a single day of regret.
 
ah5168 said:
Something from the Sony A6**** range is going to be just as portable and give you more dynamic range with less noise and be within your budget.
Click to expand...

Not quite though if size and weight a major considerations but it will depend on the choice of lens/lenses. Cost could be a consideration too, one way or the other.
 
Kaltenberg Mike said:
Two years ago I was asking myself the same question and decided to go with m4/3 / Olympus and haven't looked back since. Absolutely cracking kit. GreenNinja67 mentions noise, but given the massive image stabilisation with the EM-1s, this will seldom be an issue. Point in case, one of my earliest images I took with my E-M1 Mk II is a 2 s hand-held exposure with the Zuiko 12-100 - and it's sharp as a tack, something I would never have believed. My kit started off light, but bulk has crept in over time (UWA, telephoto, tripod, etc), but it's relatively easy to pare back for mountain trips. Image quality and functionality are all top! Battery life is good, I get decent astro images out of it when I stack properly and there are more lenses than you can possibly ever need out there. They're lighter and cheaper than their bigger cousins, and if you were to dig deeper, you can get a Mk III with hand-held high res and on-board ND function. Not a single day of regret.
Click to expand...

I feel the same except its Panasonic for me instead of Olympus, no complaints at all with the results.
Some great lenses, my particular favourite for landscapes is the Panasonic 8-18mm, relatively small and lightweight too.
 
I went for the Olympus 9-18mm, it's collapsible and that does irritate me at times but it is very small, very light and cheap too.

This is one area in which the APS-C offerings may offer some improvements in image quality but may also up the bulk and weight and possibly the cost too.
 
woof woof said:
I went for the Olympus 9-18mm, it's collapsible and that does irritate me at times but it is very small, very light and cheap too.

This is one area in which the APS-C offerings may offer some improvements in image quality but may also up the bulk and weight and possibly the cost too.
Click to expand...

I didn't think much of it hence the reason I got the 8-18mm.
Wasn't great at the edges or corners and really disliked the twisting action before it can be used.
 
My main landscape setup is the E-M1ii with the Oly 12-100mm and it's ruddy marvellous. During lockdown I have been able to get to grips with it properly and I am starting to really get the most out of the combo. Check out Dave Griffiths website to see what is possible for landscape with the body and lens. The 12-200mm lens gets good reviews, will give you massive flexibility and if you shoot f/5.6 - f/7.1 will be perfectly usable.

Most of the time I don't need a tripod as the IBIS works really well, high-res and livecomp modes are good with the tripod, so if I actually bothered to travel light then I would just need an additional battery, plus my Kase magnetic filters and I am set.

If I wanted to go APS-C then I would look at an Fuji X-T20/30 with either the 16-80 or 18-135mm lens. I had an X-T1 with the 18-135mm and it was lovely but I ended up with M43 for the portability in all situations.
 
Last edited:
ah5168 said:
Something from the Sony A6**** range is going to be just as portable and give you more dynamic range with less noise and be within your budget.
Click to expand...
If you can find a decent lens to go with it - I had an A6300 which was excellent, but the Sony/Zeiss 16-70 was a real dog and there was not any real alternative in terms of size/weight and zoom range. I now have Fuji gear.
 
justyn_c_uk said:
My main landscape setup is the E-M1ii with the Oly 12-100mm and it's ruddy marvellous.
Click to expand...
Absolute dream team. They play very nicely together! If you can pick this combo up for a decent price second hand, get it. You'll never look back! Plus it's great for close-ups of plants and insects. Minimal focal distance 7.5 cm (correct me someone if I'm wrong)
 
I’ve recently been thinking the same, Olympus OM-D E1ii and 12-100. It seems perfect for landscape (24-200mm in one lens) but I also photograph wildlife so have additional needs they produce further advantages and disadvantages. The M4 3rds sensor is my biggest concern as I will be coming from full frame, but if I’m honest I don’t use the FF sensor to its full potential. ISO performance is also a concern too as for wildlife I’m often bumping up the ISO to get a fast shutter speed.

At the moment I’m using Sony so part of my idea is the Olympus kit would cheaper and lighter. Interesting it won’t be smaller as shown by the size comparison below.

8A850806-D59B-4100-9B05-11399A2FB248.jpeg

Of course the olympus isn’t a direct equivalent as it will give much further reach.

Whilst researching Olympus I found this blog. The images look pretty good to me.

https://www.seanoriordanphotography...photography-with-the-olympus-om-d-em1-mark-ii
 
My advice is to go and try both types out. You may find that one or other actually doesn’t suit you. Do not settle for I will get used to it
 
wave01 said:
My advice is to go and try both types out. You may find that one or other actually doesn’t suit you. Do not settle for I will get used to it
Click to expand...

Agreed, get to a shop and hold them, but you can start with camerasize.com to understand the size & weight of most body/lens combos.
 
rob-nikon said:
I’ve recently been thinking the same, Olympus OM-D E1ii and 12-100. It seems perfect for landscape (24-200mm in one lens) but I also photograph wildlife so have additional needs they produce further advantages and disadvantages. The M4 3rds sensor is my biggest concern as I will be coming from full frame, but if I’m honest I don’t use the FF sensor to its full potential. ISO performance is also a concern too as for wildlife I’m often bumping up the ISO to get a fast shutter speed.

At the moment I’m using Sony so part of my idea is the Olympus kit would cheaper and lighter. Interesting it won’t be smaller as shown by the size comparison below.

Of course the olympus isn’t a direct equivalent as it will give much further reach.

Whilst researching Olympus I found this blog. The images look pretty good to me.
Click to expand...

The Sony A7 series are quite small so what matters is the choice of MFT body and lens to compere it too. If going for a one body and one lens kit the difference in size and weight could be minimal depending upon your choices but of course if you choose something else there could be a very significant difference. And then there's the costs.
 
rob-nikon said:
I’ve recently been thinking the same, Olympus OM-D E1ii and 12-100. It seems perfect for landscape (24-200mm in one lens) but I also photograph wildlife so have additional needs they produce further advantages and disadvantages. The M4 3rds sensor is my biggest concern as I will be coming from full frame, but if I’m honest I don’t use the FF sensor to its full potential. ISO performance is also a concern too as for wildlife I’m often bumping up the ISO to get a fast shutter speed.

At the moment I’m using Sony so part of my idea is the Olympus kit would cheaper and lighter. Interesting it won’t be smaller as shown by the size comparison below.

View attachment 290753

Of course the olympus isn’t a direct equivalent as it will give much further reach.

Whilst researching Olympus I found this blog. The images look pretty good to me.

https://www.seanoriordanphotography...photography-with-the-olympus-om-d-em1-mark-ii
Click to expand...

Sorry for the topic divergence. The wildlife portability was one of my reasons for going M43s. I accept ISO is an issue, but a little run through Topaz or NoiselessCK in my case deals with that.

I don’t know how well these will show up, straight off my phone via LR. This was taken in the middle of a copse on Saturday under cloudy skies at 400mm/f6.3 and ISO6400.
IMG_1484.JPG
Then I ran it through Noiseless to see what would happen, it’s not a classic composition but perfectly usable.
IMG_1485.JPG

Also 400mm at ISO800
IMG_1481.JPG
 
This was MFT, ISO 16,000, that's not 1,600 but 16k, 150mm, 1/500 to freeze the little guy, f5.6 which is wide open. I've done minimal processing and the scene is lighter here than it was in reality.

4w4IQZ5.jpg


I use any ISO up to and including the max. High ISO pictures will not be able to compete with high ISO from FF but may be perfectly good enough for whole picture screen viewing or even quite large prints. The main issue I find is some artificial lighting but even FF can struggle with that if to a lesser degree.
 
Last edited:
My opinion on this isn't necessarily universal but it does come from experimenting with a few different set ups.

My use for this type of thing is split into two. There's hiking/mountaineering trips where you want a camera and lens that can cover a range of focal lengths without having to faff around switching lenses and can afford to compromise IQ slightly in the pursuit of reducing bulk. I think m4/3 is ideal for this. For trips that do not require you to carry your gear very far, I'm less enthusiastic about m4/3 but it is still a decent option, it just feels like it's sweet spot is smaller bodies and lenses, to me at least. As soon as you push the body and lens size up to the pro stuff, costs and size and weight all seem to start to align with larger formats and it makes it a harder decision.

If it is a camera and lens that is dedicated to hiking trips, then I would go for the E-M5 range over the E-M1. The E-M1 bodies are better to hold and have an advantage in terms of battery life and certain features (not many) but the extra bulk is unhelpful when travelling light and not needing to hold the camera for hours on end. I would also take a look at the 14-150 MK2 lens. Again, there is some compromise vs. the 12-100 (less so the 12-200, which I'm not a fan of) but it's so much smaller and lighter than those and image quality is firmly in the 'good enough' territory in my opinion. It's weather proof too. An E-M5ii and 14-150mm ii would be a great set up, light and weather proof. If I could afford a dedicated hiking set up, that would be it, at any price point. The E-M5 mkiii is arguably better again but other than USB charging I'm not sure you gain any huge advantages for landscape shooting and the MK2 body feels much tougher. The E-M10's aren't weather proof which completely rules them out for me. For stuff like this, I just want the camera to be accessible clipped to my rucksack whatever the weather. I don't want to have to cover it up or take a pack off to get it in and out.
 
Last edited:
Kaltenberg Mike said:
Battery life is good,
Click to expand...


"Good" as in "not nearly as good as dslr's"...... That might just sound like a clever clogs comment but it IS something to bear in mind. Electronic viewfinders eat up power and you need to be carrying at least one spare on any photography expedition.

I have my doubts about m4/3 for landscape photography. Wildlife - yes, definitely - but I'm seeing some issues with my EM1.2 /12-100 zoom combo for the landscape.
 
ah5168 said:
Something from the Sony A6**** range is going to be just as portable and give you more dynamic range with less noise and be within your budget.
Click to expand...
For a lightweight alternative to my Z6 kit I recently assembled a Sony A6000 plus 10-18 and 18-135 for about £1200 and it’s very light and compact with excellent image quality.
 
Thank you for all of that [emoji3526]

Research suggests that there are compromises to be made and necessary trade offs in every direction... Image quality, weight, size, cost.

Probably go back to an iteration of the X100 family.
 
At normal viewing sizes I could rarely tell the difference with landscapes between my Olympus EM1-II with 12-40mm f2.8 and Nikon D850 with 24-70mm f2.8. So if you want a lightweight, rugged setup with great IQ the EM1-II and 12-40mm f2.8 is hard to look past imo.
 
Fuji X-T30 for even an X-T3 (they are under £1000 new now due to the X-T4). Fantastic cameras, compact and has a great selection of lenses.
 
Olympus wins on I.q , weight and as a o.a.p definetly on price , you have the choice of all the Olympus lenses with the new 100-400 getting rave reviews for wildlife and costing £1100 bnib .. down to the super sharp 45mm f1.8 plenty around at just over £100 .. . You also get the choice of all the Panasonic MFT lenses to plus a few other brands .. plus you can also use most of the previous generation four thirds Pro lenses via adaptors . .
Yes FF in other brands is attractive but once you add quality glass weight and cost go trough the roof . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top