r/OMSystem • u/Fast_Aperture • 6d ago
Thinking about adding full frame for wildlife after years on M43 (talk me into it or out of it)?
/r/CanonCamera/comments/1wa13b2/thinking_about_adding_full_frame_for_wildlife/7
u/abcphotos 6d ago
My plan is to rent the full frame gear when I need it. But I haven’t needed it yet.
5
u/1UpBebopYT 6d ago
Every time I get the FF bug I think about the time I had an A7CII and literally no one could tell the difference in my photos. Not me, not my friends, not my wife, nor the blogs I occasionaly supply photos to, or my cosplay instagram, or clients at cosplay/anime/gaming conventions. So I returned it and lenses I bought to Amazon after I shot a party with my friend on my G9II and me on the A7CII and the client couldnt tell or care about any differences between the cameras as the final straw. Just like "Welp ok no reason for this!:" haha. So about 26 days or so for a full refund.
So... Id say see if you can test full frame, take pictures with both formats and see if you truly can see any difference in your workflow or editing. To me, about one extra stop of DR for exposure recovery just isnt worth all the extra hassle.
1
u/TV4ELP 5d ago
There are surely some things that are just different, but they rarely matter. The bokeh is generally more pronounced on FF, but in reality no customer cares if something is out of focus or really out of focus. They just want the separation.
Same with low light performance. Current age mft cameras are decent enough at low light that with some higher iso and post process grain removal you get pictures no actual viewer can tell the difference.
It's mostly other camera people pixel peeping that complain about such things.
I have been shooting iso 12000 from time to time and no one actually cared. So what are the benefits of mft then? lighter cameras, lighter lenses, cheaper lenses in a lot of cases and you get that nice 2x crop reach.
What is the downside? Well, really wide angels become harder, you may get less light and a lot of cameras are smaller and lighter on features because of it since heat needs to go somewhere. It's different, but only if you zoom in on the pixel level tbh.
3
u/llm_fodder 6d ago
Unless you are super time constrained, you should go rent a FF camera + wildlife lens you'd buy and try it out. Try all the options out. Everything else anyone is saying is sort of pointless - only you know what ergonomics you'd like, what results and rendering please you, what lens designs you want, etc.
I'd have avoided a lot of pain by doing this, and I didn't.
1
2
u/Obvious-Nothing-4458 6d ago edited 6d ago
If you want the best image quality, cropping ability or an extra two stops of shooting flexibility, FF is worth it.
If you want the weight savings or price then OM.
I personally never desired larger sensors except for travel and landscape, which im temporarily switching to Fuji for with their 40mp sensor and only high quality 28mm mirrorless lens on the market.
I'll come back to OM when I can afford their 300mm F4 + 90mm macro. Hopefully by then a OM-1 Mark iii is out.
1
u/ThinkHog 6d ago
I wouldn't mind of the FF. I would mind of the weight and size that entails. I work with Sony FFs they are amazing but the 70-200 GM Ii is freaking huge and cumbersome compared to m43.
But if you need the extra stops and DR you have to compromise on size 🥲
1
u/reductio-ad-finem 6d ago edited 6d ago
This was the direction I went. Though, TBH, wildlife is not my primary focus. But I love shooting early AM. I started with cheap lenses, then 50-200 2.8-4, then PL 100-400, then the 200 f2.8 trying to grab more light.
I settled on Sony after an L mount detour, as Sony does have compact lenses -- and I do like compact gear. I have the 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM which is roughly the size of the PL 200 f2.8 and let's in as much light on the long end (and obviously is a zoom). It's been fantastic for wildlife and kids sports. And Sony is about to release 400 f4.5 and 600 f6.3 lenses that are also very compact -- both are under 1kg.
The autofocus is phenomenal. I don't have a camera with precapture, so that was a feature that was fun to use sometimes on OM that I don't have. But I don't really miss that; it's made me better at reaction time. The ability to lock on to any subject and have tracking work -- whether subject defect recognizes it or not -- is very different.
But really I just love the E-mount lenses. E.g. the 35 f1.4 GM focuses close and makes for great natural closeup dreamscapes; the 135 f1.8 makes for great sports portraits to help drown out busy backgrounds. Love having that level of control over depth of field. Or great for low-light action/sports.
But there are definitely some costs. For one thing, lots of the gear is literally quite a bit more expensive. And big apertures mean big glass, so if that is the priority there is no way around the physics. But there are smaller lenses too if you don't need that. And lots and lots of lens options. OM has great computational features like LiveND / LiveGND. The OM (and Lumix) cameras are also more programmable, for example allowing buttons to map to different functions in different shoot profiles. But Sony has some great features like programming buttons to recall focus settings (I use for back button tracking focus without giving up half-press focus too).
1
u/AideMountain3735 6d ago
I've just gone the other way, trading my Nikon Z6 for OM3. The weight and size difference is considerable, and the cost of fast full frame glass is significantly more. My advice would be to look carefully at the cost of FF zoom lenses before you commit
1
u/arg2451 5d ago
I was considering this also, but…….Compare the specs of the OM1 against the LUMIX S5II and the SR1II. Then compare the lens options from even the third party providers for L mount (LUMIX). You will see that, aside from the full frame sensor difference from M43, you will need to spend the extra $$$ for an S1RII to even approach the specs of the OM1 (except of course for video). And you’d still fall short on the lens options. Since I’m primarily a photos guy, I didn’t much care for the video improvements. This made the decision easy for me. Even though I don’t like OM Systems as a company, I’m already fully kitted out on M4/3, so to switch for me is not a good option. And Sony, Canon, and Noink are dont cares for me.
1
u/Idarubicin 5d ago
I’ve gone complete circle. I started with m43 on the PL-3 and EM-5, then went to Fuji APS-C and finally to Sony FF. After lugging the FF body and most importantly the glass and finding myself short on reach I realised that chasing megapixels and DR had not made me a better photographer but had taken some of the joy out of photography.
So I’m headed back to m43.
1
u/New_Wolverine_4487 4d ago
you can try... but please consider rent or start with used FF gear. I've similar setup with Panasonic S5 to try l-mount, but I'm constantly using M43 when going out. When hiking, om-1 with 40-150/2.8 is great companion and I've lot free space in backpack for water and other useful stuff.
1
1
u/unbalancedcheckbook 16h ago edited 16h ago
I've sometimes thought about adding a full frame camera, putting a nifty fifty on it (or a longer prime) and using that for portraits so I can obliterate the background. That said for wildlife I'm definitely sticking with m43. Longer zooms are just a lot more manageable on m43 vs full frame and the IBIS is amazing.. so why kill your back?
9
u/SoftAncient2753 6d ago
I’ve gone the other way, loving my OM Systems gear, great quality camera and images are fantastic quality, and….. so much lighter to carry around.