comparison G9-ii and Om1 (2 Viewers)

[njlarsen]

This is probably the first meaningful comparison I have seen. The video talks about some technical details that exist between the cameras, but for me the most important thing to hear was "No Winner - they are just so b..... good both of them". AF was seemingly very similar for stills and seemingly mostly with video. Some other tech details for video that In my personal opinion would not make me chose one over the other. The person talking talked about maybe an 90% success with the AF. In really difficult situations, AF could fail on both.

G9ii vs OM1 UPDATED – REAL-WORLD comparison (on safari!) – 43 Rumors

www.43rumors.com

Niels

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

This is probably the first meaningful comparison I have seen. The video talks about some technical details that exist between the cameras, but for me the most important thing to hear was "No Winner - they are just so b..... good both of them". AF was seemingly very similar for stills and seemingly mostly with video. Some other tech details for video that In my personal opinion would not make me chose one over the other. The person talking talked about maybe an 90% success with the AF. In really difficult situations, AF could fail on both.

G9ii vs OM1 UPDATED – REAL-WORLD comparison (on safari!) – 43 Rumors

www.43rumors.com

Niels

I think if you have either, you would be happy. I'm glad Panasonic made such a solid effort on the G9ii. I wonder if OM systems can keep up.
It's nice on M43 to get the reach with half the focal length. Wildlife is the only reason I can think of to go with M43 now that othere systems are losing weight quickly, while M43 seems to be gaining weight.

 

[njlarsen]

Are the other systems losing weight on shorter lenses too? Many people have argued that they need the full frame systems in order to get the paper-thin depth of field, but you only get that if you have the lenses with small F-numbers. Those lenses by necessity are heavy when you need to cover a large sensor.
Niels

 

[MiddleRiver]

Can anyone point me towards a good app-c vs 4/3 discussion? I’m an a6600 user but have been wanting to lighten the load…

 

[njlarsen]

Not really, but I can give a review of what I have picked up from several years of discussions and likely colored by my own bias.
Most of the discussions center about either noise or depth of field. For noise, the two main things that seems to influence this are sensor generation and pixel size (there is another, more technical word for this which escapes me at the moment). That means that for the same sensor generation, two cameras with the same pixel count would show a difference in noise levels because the APC is a slightly larger sensor and therefore has larger pixels. If the APC has additional pixels so the surface area needs to be divided into more units, then the difference becomes less. I am not sure about the pixel count on the a6600, but it is 20 mpix on OM1 and 25 mpix on G9-ii. I believe the sensors on these two are quite up to date but historically m43 tech was a little behind leaving the noise levels a little wanting. Comparing your camera, I do not think this is the latest model from Sony?

The relationship with noise is complex because post processing software is becoming better at removing noise without eradicating all detail. But how relevant this is for you also depends on where you are shooting: at dawn in a cloud forest or under sun in a semi desert makes very different challenges to the camera.

Depth of field is usually larger on a smaller sensor than on a larger one. I like the DoF on my 100-400 panalaica, I would not want it to be thinner; some people insist that a photo showing the eye in focus but the bill and wings out of focus is better (I may be exaggerating here, but some really like a paper thin DoF). For shorter lenses, M4/3 has some F1 or less lenses available, which can get you closer to that goal. But it is true that for the same focal length, an F1.8 lens will have larger DoF in m4/3 than with larger format cameras.

Build quality: I think this is as good in m4/3 as anywhere else, especially OM systems claim some really impressive weather sealing with Pana not far behind.
Niels

 

[pppppvvvv]

some people insist that a photo showing the eye in focus but the bill and wings out of focus is better

But we know better than to listen to these people, don't we!

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

Are the other systems losing weight on shorter lenses too? Many people have argued that they need the full frame systems in order to get the paper-thin depth of field, but you only get that if you have the lenses with small F-numbers. Those lenses by necessity are heavy when you need to cover a large sensor.
Niels

I think the difference is less pronounced on shorter lenses. If I didn't shoot telephoto, I don't think lens weight would be a consideration.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I'm not as concerned with DOF as simply IQ. Even with a 100-400GM lens (35mm equiv of 140-560mm on aps-C), I'm often cropping significantly. The body is 24.2MP which is adequate. Options are to use smaller/lighter aps-C lens (I also own the 70-350) or to go 4/3. I've also considered moving to FF, where one of the 60+MP bodies would essentially give me same crop pixel density as the a6600, but it's even heavier/bigger.

In the ideal world I'd love to see a comparo showing test targets photographed with 4/3 and aps-C, with lenses providing same 35mm equiv. Looking at the dpreview comparisons, I think I lose a lot of IQ going down to 4/3 even in spite of slightly higher pixel density etc. I'm just not sure...

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

I'm not as concerned with DOF as simply IQ. Even with a 100-400GM lens (35mm equiv of 140-560mm on aps-C), I'm often cropping significantly. The body is 24.2MP which is adequate. Options are to use smaller/lighter aps-C lens (I also own the 70-350) or to go 4/3. I've also considered moving to FF, where one of the 60+MP bodies would essentially give me same crop pixel density as the a6600, but it's even heavier/bigger.

In the ideal world I'd love to see a comparo showing test targets photographed with 4/3 and aps-C, with lenses providing same 35mm equiv. Looking at the dpreview comparisons, I think I lose a lot of IQ going down to 4/3 even in spite of slightly higher pixel density etc. I'm just not sure...

Well, going smaller will lose you something, but I think the lens you choose makes more difference. An APS-C system with a so-so lens will lose to an M43 with excellent glass.

 

[MalR]

I'm not as concerned with DOF as simply IQ. Even with a 100-400GM lens (35mm equiv of 140-560mm on aps-C), I'm often cropping significantly. The body is 24.2MP which is adequate. Options are to use smaller/lighter aps-C lens (I also own the 70-350) or to go 4/3. I've also considered moving to FF, where one of the 60+MP bodies would essentially give me same crop pixel density as the a6600, but it's even heavier/bigger.

In the ideal world I'd love to see a comparo showing test targets photographed with 4/3 and aps-C, with lenses providing same 35mm equiv. Looking at the dpreview comparisons, I think I lose a lot of IQ going down to 4/3 even in spite of slightly higher pixel density etc. I'm just not sure...

This video gives you something of what you're looking for.

Malcolm

 

[MiddleRiver]

Well, going smaller will lose you something, but I think the lens you choose makes more difference. An APS-C system with a so-so lens will lose to an M43 with excellent glass.

Agree.
Both the Sony teles I own are superb optically but there's also focus responsiveness/speed (?) to consider with birds. The 100-400GM is noticeably quicker and better than the 70-350. It's the main reason I carry it even tho it's nearly 2x the weight.

 

[MiddleRiver]

This video gives you something of what you're looking for.

Malcolm

Excellent vid. Thanks ;-)

 

[njlarsen]

Regarding focus speed: G9-ii is able to give you 60 frames/sec with continuous focus during the burst. Pretty sure you cannot get close to that with your sony.
There is even a new 100-400 which can take a TC; but remember, even without a TC you are up at 800 mm eq at the long end. Unfortunately, the 100-300 is not up to the same standard optically.

regarding weight: the pl 100-400 is about 400g or 14 oz lighter than your gm.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Regarding focus speed: G9-ii is able to give you 60 frames/sec with continuous focus during the burst. Pretty sure you cannot get close to that with your sony.
There is even a new 100-400 which can take a TC; but remember, even without a TC you are up at 800 mm eq at the long end. Unfortunately, the 100-300 is not up to the same standard optically.

regarding weight: the pl 100-400 is about 400g or 14 oz lighter than your gm.

Yes, I'm well aware of the weight savings ;-)
When I say focus speed I was referring to the fact that the 70-350 seems to 'hunt' more than the GM lens. While I appreciate the 60f/sec, I don't really care about it as I've not had it be a game changer. I suppose if I was a pro, maybe. In general the alpha Sony's work well for me, but I'm always looking for ways to lighten the load. But IQ is my # priority and I'm not convinced I don't give some up with moving to smaller sensor. They are pretty close, but I'd love to try my own real-world tests...
In keeping with OP, it does seem like perhaps the OM-1 is doing a little better than the G9?
So many variables... and then you need to consider the lens!

 

[njlarsen]

In keeping with OP, it does seem like perhaps the OM-1 is doing a little better than the G9?

It seemed to me that there was advantages and disadvantages to both. If cropping, starting from 25 mpix would be an advantage; in low light I am not yet sure which one would be better.

When I say focus speed I was referring to the fact that the 70-350 seems to 'hunt' more than the GM lens. While I appreciate the 60f/sec, I don't really care about it as I've not had it be a game changer.

The reason I brought it up was to say this: if you can have focus between shots at 60f/s, then there is not much time for hunting.

Regarding the lenses: I could send you to my gallery here at birdforum. However, this would not be you taking images like you take them etc., and additionally, I am still using a much older camera body. Therefore, don't know how much that would help you.
Niels

 

[MiddleRiver]

It seemed to me that there was advantages and disadvantages to both. If cropping, starting from 25 mpix would be an advantage; in low light I am not yet sure which one would be better.

The reason I brought it up was to say this: if you can have focus between shots at 60f/s, then there is not much time for hunting.

Regarding the lenses: I could send you to my gallery here at birdforum. However, this would not be you taking images like you take them etc., and additionally, I am still using a much older camera body. Therefore, don't know how much that would help you.
Niels

Thanks Niels, I have poked around and looked at images. In general I'm pretty impressed with aps-C (which is why I have resisted the FF temptation), but what I need to do before I consider jumping ship, is to find someone local where we can shoot same target and then share files etc. I could go the 'order from B&H and return it after evaluating' but I've never liked doing that. I also need to look carefully at lens selections.

I'm pretty invested in Sony universe so it's a fairly big leap to switch. That said, every time I shoulder my pack, I think 'i gotta quit carrying all this shite!'

...and I gotta admit, that G9ii looks pretty darn nice. It even looks like all the buttons are in the right place!

 

[njlarsen]

Just for fun, I started making some calculations. Let us for a second assume you did have a 530 mm lens which on your camera would give you 800 mm equivalent reach, similar to what you would have with a m43 and a 100-400, and let us assume this is also a zoom so we do not have differences in real reach from zoom to primes to contend with.

Let us say you have an subject that you can fit onto about half the size of your image, corresponding to using 16.7 mm x 11.1 mm of your sensor. The identical reach of the lenses would mean that the subject would also take up a similar number of millimeters on the m43 sensor. If my calculations are correct, you would have the following number of mpix covering the subject from your sony, the OM1 and the G9-ii:
Sony 12 mpix
OM1 16.6 mpix
G9-ii 20.6 mpix

The reality is, that your lens does not reach to 530 but to 400, so the difference in number of pixels covered by a given subject would actually be larger. If I am correct, the sony number should be lowered to something like 9 mpix to correspond to the numbers for the others.

Given that the real size of the lens would be the same (100-400) the amount of background blur (depth of field) is the same in both situations.

The backside is the size of each pixel on these cameras, which based just on the numbers and without counting in any distance for walls between pixels would become (these are my own calculations, I did not try to look up if there were numbers released):
Sony 0.0039x0.0039 mm
OM1 0.0033x0.0033 mm
G9-ii 0.0030x0.0030 mm
So therefore, expectation is slightly lower performance (higher noise) in the m43 cameras, but with the caveat of possible difference in sensor generation/technology.

Hope this helps, if was fun to calculate
Niels