Full frame or micro 4/3?

[natalino]

I've been a Nikon user all my life. Currently, I use a D4 (perfect skintones), D500 and D850. I have a range of Nikon lenses, but I mosly use the D850 and a Nikkor 500mm f4 for bird photography as I like the detail. Weight has become an issue. My dilemma is should i go for a Z9 or switch to micro 4/3? A 300 m behaves like a 600 mm, They take teleconverters really well. and they weigh next to nothing... Has anyone had this dillema?

 

[ssheipel]

If you love your D4 (I still love my D3 tho sadly neglect it via non use these days ), and weight is what you're worried about I'd think the Zf is the way to go.

 

[Nimi]

FF hands down. MFT is a walking-dead format. If you must downsize, APS-C.

 

[DavidT]

I've been a Nikon user all my life. Currently, I use a D4 (perfect skintones), D500 and D850. I have a range of Nikon lenses, but I mosly use the D850 and a Nikkor 500mm f4 for bird photography as I like the detail. Weight has become an issue. My dilemma is should i go for a Z9 or switch to micro 4/3? A 300 m behaves like a 600 mm, They take teleconverters really well. and they weigh next to nothing... Has anyone had this dillema?

If weight is a concern the Z9 is not your camera. You would be better to go to a Z8 without grip.

I have always shot full frame and have looked at M4/3 for other reasons than size. I think the only advantage the M4/3 is going to really bring you for weight savings is the lenses.

If you are really considering switching brands since Nikon doesn't make a M4/3 I would take a stop by Sony first. Sony focuses on smaller and lighter bodies, they are second to none in full frame offerings for small light lenses. You might be able to stay in full frame for all of it's advantages without having to embrace the negatives of M4/3.

 

[abc123brian]

If weight is a concern the Z9 is not your camera. You would be better to go to a Z8 without grip.

I have always shot full frame and have looked at M4/3 for other reasons than size. I think the only advantage the M4/3 is going to really bring you for weight savings is the lenses.

If you are really considering switching brands since Nikon doesn't make a M4/3 I would take a stop by Sony first. Sony focuses on smaller and lighter bodies, they are second to none in full frame offerings for small light lenses. You might be able to stay in full frame for all of it's advantages without having to embrace the negatives of M4/3.

I was with you up until your second to last sentence. What small, lightweight birding lenses do they offer that are second to none? I would think the best option is the new Sigma 500mm assuming that is enough reach. I would argue Nikon has the small, lightweight lens advantage currently. Regardless, there are some lightweight options available in full frame now worth considering.

 

[Woody Meristem]

I've never had your dilemma -- because I've been a MFT user (Olympus/OMDS and some Panasonic) for a number of years in part because of the size and weight advantage (and a bit because of the price advantage which is going away with some of the new lenses). It also depends on your budget: you can get a used OM-1 camera and a used Olympus 300mm f/4 plus a TC (either 1.4X or 2X) for about $4,500 -- best weather sealing in the business, up to the equivalent of 1200mm, Procapture, handheld HDR, dual card slots, etc. If your budget allows, the OM-1 ii and the Olympus 150-400mm is one of the best combinations you can buy, but with that lens you're getting a larger, heavier, more expensive piece of gear.

Some folks disparage MFT because of the potential noise in higher ISO photos -- but with the new software you can take care of that. Others say MFT is a "walking dead format", I don't believe that but if it is So What! The gear is superb and if you're old like me the cameras and lenses will outlive you and in the meantime your back, shoulders and arms will thank you every time you pick up your camera and lenses.

If you want to see what MFT can do take a look at Thomas Stirr's posts and his reasons for using Olympus cameras and lenses -- http://smallsensorphotography.com/

 

[Doug Herr]

I was with you up until your second to last sentence. What small, lightweight birding lenses do they offer that are second to none? I would think the best option is the new Sigma 500mm assuming that is enough reach. I would argue Nikon has the small, lightweight lens advantage currently. Regardless, there are some lightweight options available in full frame now worth considering.

There are several good lightweight Nikon lenses; Canon also makes some lightweight (though slow) long lenses. The Sony 300mm f/2.8 is another lightweight option which with TCs weighs less than many others and still produces excellent image quality.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I would suggest a Nikon Z-8/600pf. The camera is still clunky @ 2# but the lens is just over 3# for a 5.5# Nikon rig.

I did switch from Nikon to an OM Systems OM-1 but Nikon had neither offering (Z-8, 600pf) at the time.

It is NOT that an OM-1 mk2 and a 300f4 rig is necessarily inferior. It does have some significant advantages including being much cheaper and a bit lighter. It also has ProCapture which is wonderful for BIF. I would think, however, that you would like the 45MP FF sensor more than those advantages.

My recommendation changes if you want a zoom. The OM Systems 150-400 f4.5 zoom with the built in 1.2TC is far superior to the Nikon 180-600 and has a correspondingly high price.

So, I have been where you are now and switched to OM Systems but wouldn't if I was making the decision today.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Palmor]

I've been a Nikon user all my life. Currently, I use a D4 (perfect skintones), D500 and D850. I have a range of Nikon lenses, but I mosly use the D850 and a Nikkor 500mm f4 for bird photography as I like the detail. Weight has become an issue. My dilemma is should i go for a Z9 or switch to micro 4/3? A 300 m behaves like a 600 mm, They take teleconverters really well. and they weigh next to nothing... Has anyone had this dillema?

Kind of a similar thread a little while ago, I put together some various options based on weight. Your current lens weight 6.8lbs by itself I believe so factor that in when you look at those options. Edit: I guess I didn’t do the Oly 300F4 as a lens option because it didn’t meet the OPs requiment but other then the 150-400 that would be my 1st suggestion.

D850 or mirrorless?

I’ve been primarily an underwater photographer for the last 25 years. My last setup was with a D850. I recently turned 80 and I went to a bird sanctuary with the D850 and an 80-400mm Tele. I could hardly heft them around much less hold them steady enough to take a picture. ‘Any advice on getting...

bcgforums.com

Back to your original question, it’s hard for me to give a recommendation because I don’t your specific weight limits. I shoot both M43 and FF but if someone said I could only shoot one I’d pick FF. If weight with my current setup was an issue (A1/600F4) I would go with a Nikon Z8 and 600PF. If that got to heavy I would switch to M43 and still be very happy.

 

[natalino]

I've never had your dilemma -- because I've been a MFT user (Olympus/OMDS and some Panasonic) for a number of years in part because of the size and weight advantage (and a bit because of the price advantage which is going away with some of the new lenses). It also depends on your budget: you can get a used OM-1 camera and a used Olympus 300mm f/4 plus a TC (either 1.4X or 2X) for about $4,500 -- best weather sealing in the business, up to the equivalent of 1200mm, Procapture, handheld HDR, dual card slots, etc. If your budget allows, the OM-1 ii and the Olympus 150-400mm is one of the best combinations you can buy, but with that lens you're getting a larger, heavier, more expensive piece of gear.

Some folks disparage MFT because of the potential noise in higher ISO photos -- but with the new software you can take care of that. Others say MFT is a "walking dead format", I don't believe that but if it is So What! The gear is superb and if you're old like me the cameras and lenses will outlive you and in the meantime your back, shoulders and arms will thank you every time you pick up your camera and lenses.

If you want to see what MFT can do take a look at Thomas Stirr's posts and his reasons for using Olympus cameras and lenses -- http://smallsensorphotography.com/

Thanks for this. one of the issues that i keep thinking about is bokeh. the full frame and prime lenses just destroy the background. I have seen videos reviewing MFT cameras and lenses where the backgrounds are a mess

 

[natalino]

Kind of a similar thread a little while ago, I put together some various options based on weight. Your current lens weight 6.8lbs by itself I believe so factor that in when you look at those options. Edit: I guess I didn’t do the Oly 300F4 as a lens option because it didn’t meet the OPs requiment but other then the 150-400 that would be my 1st suggestion.

D850 or mirrorless?

I’ve been primarily an underwater photographer for the last 25 years. My last setup was with a D850. I recently turned 80 and I went to a bird sanctuary with the D850 and an 80-400mm Tele. I could hardly heft them around much less hold them steady enough to take a picture. ‘Any advice on getting...

bcgforums.com

Back to your original question, it’s hard for me to give a recommendation because I don’t your specific weight limits. I shoot both M43 and FF but if someone said I could only shoot one I’d pick FF. If weight with my current setup was an issue (A1/600F4) I would go with a Nikon Z8 and 600PF. If that got to heavy I would switch to M43 and still be very happy.

My ThinkTank bag with two cameras and the two lenses weighs 12 kg. It's already more than carry on luggage allowed if you travel, but you often get away with that. Add the tripod and gimbal head to that... MFT significantly reduces weight to carry and use of course.

 

[Palmor]

My ThinkTank bag with two cameras and the two lenses weighs 12 kg. It's already more than carry on luggage allowed if you travel, but you often get away with that. Add the tripod and gimbal head to that... MFT significantly reduces weight to carry and use of course.

I don't disagree. I use my MFT for travel all the time (most recently to a 2 week trip to Iceland where I didn't take any of my FF gear).

 

[Palmor]

Thanks for this. one of the issues that i keep thinking about is bokeh. the full frame and prime lenses just destroy the background. I have seen videos reviewing MFT cameras and lenses where the backgrounds are a mess

Set your 500mm lens to f8 and you'll see what the difference is

As a single point of comparison I took this shot standing from the same place with my OM-1/150-400TC (with the TC engaged) and my A1/600F4. I cropped both to match and the OM-1 photo was down to 8.3MP and the A1 to 7MP after cropping.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Weight has become an issue.

If you can accept lower resolution, lower dynamic range and increased noise particularly in adverse shooting conditions then 4/3 with the OM 150 – 600 I think is worth serious consideration.
There are high calibre bird photographers using 4/3 successfully though perhaps not as successfully as 24 x36 can handle in the most adverse shooting conditions.

 

[N67]

I came from an Olympus E-3 15 years ago. Did an Africa shoot with it, it was great. Lenses were fantastic. Then Olympus dropped the format so I went to Nikon D700 then D850 and D500. I now have the D850, Z9 and Z8.

The reach was great, the equipment size was great, in camera IS. But, I didn't like 4/3 aspect ratio esp for landscapes. And obviously the image quality/noise was not up to snuff with APS/APC and FF.

Mirrorless lenses are "sometimes" smaller and lighter with the z lenses.

Your decision depends on so many factors like weight, size, cost, quality of image, what you use the images for, how big you want "print" them etc. Etc.

 

[StefanSC]

Weight has become an issue. My dilemma is should i go for a Z9 or switch to micro 4/3? A 300 m behaves like a 600 mm, They take teleconverters really well. and they weigh next to nothing... Has anyone had this dillema?

I had the dilemma of moving from a Nikon D810 to a Nikon Z8 and something like the 400mm f4.5/500mm f5.6/150-600mm or going the OM-1 and 300mm f4 route and chose the latter as I felt it was better value for money.

While I can hand hold for short periods of time a gripped D810 and a 7lbs lens, I can easily spend a whole day shooting and walking around with the OM-1 and 300mm f4.
The image quality of the 300mm f4 is stunning. The OM-1 has great AF for wildlife, is nice to use and the RAW Pre-capture and 50fps ain't nothing to scoff at.

Since you already have the 500mm f4 it might make more sense to go for the Z9.
But then again, if weight is an issue, an OM-1 and 300mm with you in the field are much better than a Z9 and 500mm f4 at home.

And if you have to replace the 500mm f4 with a lighter lens like the 400mm f4.5/500mm f5.6/600mm f6.3/150-600mm than you would not have gained much over the OM-1 and 300mm f4 with regards to image quality but you'll have payed a very hefty premium for those gains.

Also, don't think that there isn't that much when it comes to image quality between a Z8 and 500mm f4 and an OM-1 and 300mm f4. When you crop the 45mpx sensor to equal the field of view of the m43rds one, you end up with ~31Mpx.

Just to get an idea, 36mpx D810@600mm on the left, OM-1 @ 300mm on the right:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

the full frame and prime lenses just destroy the background. I have seen videos reviewing MFT cameras and lenses where the backgrounds are a mess

With m43rds you'll need to be more aware of your background and there will be times when you won't be able to get away with a messy background as you could with an f4 lens on full frame.

That being said, you can get quite decent backgrounds with m43rds with a bit of careful positioning:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

P.S: If you are happy with your current DSLRs, you could just get a 500mm f5.6PF to replace the 500mm f4, as they are quite down in price on the used market these days... just be aware that the high end mirrorless (Nikon Z8/Z9, Sony A1/A9/ Canon R3/5/6 and OM-1) really do get you more keepers than DSLRs do.

 

[DavidT]

I was with you up until your second to last sentence. What small, lightweight birding lenses do they offer that are second to none? I would think the best option is the new Sigma 500mm assuming that is enough reach. I would argue Nikon has the small, lightweight lens advantage currently. Regardless, there are some lightweight options available in full frame now worth considering.

100-400 and that new 300 f2.8 would do just fine. Pair it with an a1 or a7r5 and call it a day.

 

[abc123brian]

100-400 and that new 300 f2.8 would do just fine. Pair it with an a1 or a7r5 and call it a day.

Those both seem to be well liked lenses, but do you think they are both better than anything the competition has as you said second to none? The RF 100-500mm is highly regarded. Nikon has a fantastic 400mm 4.5 and 600mm PF that are also quite excellent and work well with teleconverters. An adapted 500mm PF is also quite good. Both also have well regarded 100-400mm options. L mount has the new Sigma 500mm option without the Sony third party lens restrictions. My opinion is there are some great options from all the full frame brands now.

 

[DavidT]

Those both seem to be well liked lenses, but do you think they are both better than anything the competition has as you said second to none? The RF 100-500mm is highly regarded. Nikon has a fantastic 400mm 4.5 and 600mm PF that are also quite excellent and work well with teleconverters. An adapted 500mm PF is also quite good. Both also have well regarded 100-400mm options. L mount has the new Sigma 500mm option without the Sony third party lens restrictions. My opinion is there are some great options from all the full frame brands now.

Compared to Canon yes the Sony glass is much better. Nikon glass is great but different. World is full of choices but like I said before if he wants lighter the Z9 isn’t the way to go and the Sony bodies are still smaller and lighter than the Z8. Not sure how light he wants to go but there are options beyond M4/3 now.

 

[Nimi]

Those both seem to be well liked lenses, but do you think they are both better than anything the competition has as you said second to none? The RF 100-500mm is highly regarded. Nikon has a fantastic 400mm 4.5 and 600mm PF that are also quite excellent and work well with teleconverters. An adapted 500mm PF is also quite good. Both also have well regarded 100-400mm options. L mount has the new Sigma 500mm option without the Sony third party lens restrictions. My opinion is there are some great options from all the full frame brands now.

I've never seen anything like the Sony 300/2.8.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Ok, I confess I did not read all of the previous responses, so I may be repeating what others have said.

First, 300mm on M43 is really not the same as 600mm on FF, especially if you are using a high-res sensor FF. I think of it this way, that a FF sensor being larger and having more pixels constitutes "more real estate" that makes it possible to crop more to get a bird (for example) to appear larger. It really ends up being more like 300mm M43 is similar to say, around 450mm-500mm full frame.

I use both Nikon and M43 (OM Systems) gear. I have found that for travel/walkaround bird photography using the Z9/600mm f6.3 combo gives similar results to using the OM1/150-400(500) zoom, practically speaking. But the OM has the advantage of being a zoom, which provides versatility and makes it easier to locate and frame birds in the field (for example, in dense, monotonous foliage).

The best M43 option, the 150-500 zoom, is really expensive. Now there is the OM Systems 150-600, which is far less expensive and may be an attractivre option. I haven't tried it.

Full frame has a slight advantage when it comes to noise at high ISO levels, though with modern noise reduction options (DxO Pureraw, for example), the difference is not all that significant anymore. Full frame has slightly better dynamic range, which does matter sometimes. And Full frame has shallower DOF, which as others have said, helps to create pleasing bokeh with busy backgrounds. But on the other hand, when shooting a bird a fairly close range, the DOF qualities of M43 actually helps, as you can get an entire bird in focus in situations where FF would give you an unsatisfactorily shallow DOF.

For travel, using M43 remains an attractive lightweight option that is easier to transport, especially via air travel. The 150-500 f4.5-5.6 zoom is smaller and lighter than the "standard big gun" for full frame, a 600mm f4. For me, this is really significant and keeps me traveling with my M43 gear.

 

[cr_wildlife]

If weight is your primary concern, I would highly recommend the Z8 without a grip over the Z9. While micro 4/3 camera users tout their "increased reach", a 300 mm lens still shoots as a 300 mm with regard to depth and field and bokeh, so backgrounds are a problem unless they are really far behind the subject. Seems this issue is rarely mentioned, but it is important IMHO. In addition, one cannot crop the images much and certainly cannot make large prints, if you like to print your photos.

 

[GrandNagus50]

If weight is your primary concern, I would highly recommend the Z8 without a grip over the Z9. While micro 4/3 camera users tout their "increased reach", a 300 mm lens still shoots as a 300 mm with regard to depth and field and bokeh, so backgrounds are a problem unless they are really far behind the subject. Seems this issue is rarely mentioned, but it is important IMHO. In addition, one cannot crop the images much and certainly cannot make large prints, if you like to print your photos.

These comments seem kind of peevish to me, sorry, "grains of truth" exaggerated to the nth degree. The bokeh issue has been discussed in this very thread, including illustrations of how in a whole lot of situations there is virtually no difference between full frame and M43. I will add that the advantage of FF in this regard is garnered mostly when shooting a very fast long lens wide open, not when shooting much-used bird lenses such as a 600mm f6.3 or a 100-500 f4.5-7.1. And this advantage is gained at the expense of size and weight, the very factors that make M43 attractive to some of us. I will also add that using a big gun 600mm f4 wide open hardly guarantees that busy bokeh will never be a problem.

And of course you can crop and can make "large prints" with M43. As a user of both FF and M43 systems, I continue to be annoyed, frankly, by the unjustified dismissiveness some people show towards M43.

 

[Flemming Morgan]

I had Canon for many years but the weight was becoming a huge constraint both for carrying and limitation on flights in Africa. I traded my Canon gear for Sony and haven’t looked back. Much smaller format both cameras and lenses with superb quality and compact size.

 

[Schotzke]

Z9 and OM-1 user. Use dependsa on what I'm shooting and how far I have to walk to get the shot. The OM-1 with the 300mm f4 lens and a 1.4 tele gets me to 840mm at f5.6. Landscape where I want FF light gathering at sunrise/ sunset Z9.for sure.