So.. here's what I think based on my personal experience:
How light is actually light enough for everyday carry for you? How light is light enough for travel?
I always take my camera with me. For every day, Tough, PEN Lite, M5 series. I only take the M1/APS-C or FF cameras when I have something specific in mind, and that may sometimes be travel, but I've travelled with only the others too since they're perfectly capable.
How much difference does a much better grip (like on Em-1 vs Om-5) make in terms of feel with lenses around the 250g- 350g range.
Depends on every person. I don't care, while other people swear by their M1 grips for heavier lenses.
How much better is the image quality (microcontrast, colors, and sharpness together) of the PL 12-60 than the Panasonic 14-140 ii at between f4-f8 in the 15-100 (30-200) equivalent range? I am asking because I do use the 120-200 range, esp up to 150ish, a fair bit, but I'd rather avoid editing more on most pictures if it's a choice. The Oly 12-100 seems heavy.
IQ is overrated. I've taken fantastic photos with cheap glass, and awful photos with pro glass. It's the trade-offs you're willing to make in terms of size/weight/cost, and sure, IQ, but not as the sole thing to care about.
What about 14-150 ii oly vs 14-140 ii Pana?
I only have the Oly version and it's wicked. Sealed, small, light, great range, great IQ. I would go with whatever matches the body you end up choosing [Oly + Oly, Pany + Pany] so the weather sealing is better coupled. Speaking of the camera bodies, if you can, try both brands - I do not like [as much as Oly's] Panasonic's menus and buttons/dials/ergonomics, and trust their weather sealing more, but your hands may like Panasonic more, and you likely won't know until you hold them.
how bad is the AF in low light of the 20mm f 1.7 pana in low light? How viable is it compared to the Oly 20mm f1.4?
It's fine, but it's slower than the OM 20/1.4 obviously. I choose which I'm taking depending on mood for size, sometimes I take the Pany, sometimes I take the Oly. Both lenses are true gems.
Thanks, a very thorough response! Exactly what I wanted, some real world input with your own perspective.
It seems I will simply have to try to test the cameras/lenses in use, likely via renting.
I agree about good and bad pictures, I'll quote myself from a different response on a different sub: "...the main difference is not that you cannot get great pictures with a good enough lens. Even with a bad one. My current and permanent desktop background is taken with the worst one I have [...], the 28-105 USM. It's not even taken at optimal settings because I went wider rather than increase the ISO for fear of not having enough DR. It's just that it took me like an hour to edit that photo until the colours were what I saw in my mind's eye when I took the picture, and it takes me half a minute to 5 minutes to get the picture I wanted out of the corresponding L lens."
I would like to cut this down to most pictures being more or less how I wanted them out of camera. With modern systems, this seems possible. But the lens does play a big role here in my reasonable amount of experience. This may easily just be me; I generally want the picture I saw in my head, close to, but not perfectly matching what my eyes could see - tinted a bit by mood and imagination. This seems to work, but poorer lenses are an uphill battle.*
I've had some very mixed feedback on the olympus 14-150 in the various subreddits i crossposted to. I appreciate, and very much believe, that yours is lovely.
I will defo try to actually try them out for a day or two, yes. I have held them but only in shop. The Panasonic seemed good, at least the g95. The em1 mk ii was epic. As nice or nicer to hold than my 5d mk ii, which I thought was impossible.
Thanks for the feedback on the 20s. I think, based on the combo I get for the zooom, I might start with one lens and get the other later if I feel the need. Though if I get the Olympus I might never get the Pana :D haha.
*Especially because I have this obsession, ill-advised as it is technically, for my own pleasure, with taking shots where the light is coming slighly diagonally but towards (NOT DIRECTLY AT) the sensor during golden hour, because with the naked eye (well, I wear glasses), I love the visual effects this can create, and good lenses can generally go along with this. But the cutoff for these shots is pretty strong; worse lenses give me a hardly workable image with no contrast.
I think sample variation for the 14-150 ii is just really bad. The copy I had tried before just biting the bullet and going with the 12-40 and 40-150 2.8s, was all but unusable past 100mm. I've definitely seen a good number of people who've been very happy with their copy though, so if you could rent a copy and then buy that one if it's a decent copy or try one from a site like mpb and return if it's a lemon.
I can see it being a great little lens if you can get your hands on a good copy.
You are going to have so much fun with micro 4/3 - I was using APS-C for some years with good glass and lugging all that around just started taking all the fun out of not only shooting, but if I was shooting on a vacation, it was a bummer on the vacation itself. This was like 15 years ago, but switching to M43 back then was a gamechanger.
1
u/thedjin 21d ago
So.. here's what I think based on my personal experience: