Possible change to Micro 4/3

Messages
3,786
Name
Ceri
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
At present I’m using Canon 7D mk1 body and Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS mk2 lens for local rugby images every weekend. I also enjoy portrait and landscape photography. My other Canon lenses are 24-105mm, 17-40mm, 24-70mm, 60mm macro and 70-300mm

However, I have recently been told I need spinal surgery so just wondering if changing to smaller camera with less weight would be beneficial?

I like the idea of looking at micro 4/3 but wouldn’t know where to start and not sure if I would have to change all my lenses along with the body or are there adapters available to allow me to keep my current lenses? Also would micro thirds be ok for sports photography?

I would be very grateful for any advice please regarding the best micro 4/3 brands that would compliment my current equipment and my sports photography.
Thanks
 
You will certainly save a lot of weight - take your 70-200 lens alone, the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 is 1/5th the weight at only 357g, pair that with a Panasonic G9 which is almost half the weight of a 7D and you're already off to good start on the weight saving side. The G9 is plenty good enough for sports, there's also the Olympus Em1 mkII, Olympus also have a good fast tele lens in the 40-150 2.8, though it is a fair bit heavier than the Panasonic @760g, but this is still half the weight of your current 70-200. Olympus also have a 60mm macro that is tiny, yet by all accounts extremely sharp and has fast AF. To replace your 17-40 you would be looking at either the Olympus 12-40 2.8 pro [a lens I own and it's excellent in every way] or the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 mkII. Either will fit the bill, I use a Panasonic camera but still prefer the Olympus zoom in this range. Have a look in the Panasonic and Olympus threads - you'll probably get answers quicker in those.
 
I second Keith’s words , as a pure birder where you need fast accurate focussing I cant really fault the system . I use a Panasonic g80 and a Panasonic Leica 100-400 , plus the wife now has control of the Olympus omd10-mkii plus a Panasonic 100-300 , .given that the system has a 2x crop factor that gives plenty of reach . And b.t.w my camera and lens weigh a amazing weight of just under 1.5 kg the wife’s is a lot lighter .
I have plenty of shots on here including b.i.f
 
Last edited:
I also use a Panasonic G80 and 100-400 lens. I do a mixture of wildlife, landscape and portraits.
It's so much lighter than my previous Nikon D7000 and Sigma 150-600 lens.
I also have the Panasonic 12-60mm lens and the Sigma 60mm art lens.
My Panasonic kit does everything I need, and is much kinder on my back.
 
I use the E-M1 MkI and MkII to photograph running events almost every weekend. My most used lens is the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, followed by the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8. I also have access to a Canon 5DMkIII and some good Canon primes but I prefer to use the Olympus setup.

The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 would give you an equivalent Field Of View of 80-300mm, so you would "gain" 100mm FOV if you switched from the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. It also takes the 1.4x Olympus teleconverter extremely well. IQ of the Olympus PRO lenses in general is absolutely superb.

Be aware though that the Depth Of Field of the Olympus f/2.8 lens is equivalent to f/5.6 in full-frame terms but I've actually found that to be beneficial when photographing sports.

In terms of size and weight it's much more manageable than the Canon 5DMkIII.
 
I use the E-M1 MkI and MkII to photograph running events almost every weekend. My most used lens is the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, followed by the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8. I also have access to a Canon 5DMkIII and some good Canon primes but I prefer to use the Olympus setup.

The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 would give you an equivalent Field Of View of 80-300mm, so you would "gain" 100mm FOV if you switched from the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. It also takes the 1.4x Olympus teleconverter extremely well. IQ of the Olympus PRO lenses in general is absolutely superb.

Be aware though that the Depth Of Field of the Olympus f/2.8 lens is equivalent to f/5.6 in full-frame terms but I've actually found that to be beneficial when photographing sports.

In terms of size and weight it's much more manageable than the Canon 5DMkIII.

The 7D is APSC, so the 40-150 is about the same as a 70-200, and the equivalence in DOF on what he has currently would be F4, so nothing much in it.
 
Go and have a look at the work of the Olympus ambassadors Scott Bourne and Mike Inkley - there may be others on the website - and see what they can get out of the cameras.. I don't use mine for basketball but did when I was post knee op - I prefer my FF Canon for that - although it isn't obviously able to match that in every way.
 
I’m just Switching to Fuji with the XT1 & XT2, currently supported by the 23mm f2 and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. I also have a Gripped Olympus Pen-F and EM-1 mkII supported by the 30mm f3.5 Macro, 75mm f1.8, 12-100mm f4 Pro Lens and the 40-150mm f2.8 Pro Lens with 1.4 t/c.

Both Systems are easy to carry for an all day shoot, the weight is negligible compared to you current Canon set-up. If your seriously looking to move over to the Micro side, drop me a line or watch the classifieds as my m4/3 gear will be giving someone a Super Christmas Present in the coming weeks.
 
You will certainly save a lot of weight - take your 70-200 lens alone, the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 is 1/5th the weight at only 357g, pair that with a Panasonic G9 which is almost half the weight of a 7D and you're already off to good start on the weight saving side. The G9 is plenty good enough for sports, there's also the Olympus Em1 mkII, Olympus also have a good fast tele lens in the 40-150 2.8, though it is a fair bit heavier than the Panasonic @760g, but this is still half the weight of your current 70-200. Olympus also have a 60mm macro that is tiny, yet by all accounts extremely sharp and has fast AF. To replace your 17-40 you would be looking at either the Olympus 12-40 2.8 pro [a lens I own and it's excellent in every way] or the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 mkII. Either will fit the bill, I use a Panasonic camera but still prefer the Olympus zoom in this range. Have a look in the Panasonic and Olympus threads - you'll probably get answers quicker in those.

Thank you for your advice. I have been reading up this afternoon on the Panasonic’s but you explain it far more easily!
 
I second Keith’s words , as a pure birder where you need fast accurate focussing I cant really fault the system . I use a Panasonic g80 and a Panasonic Leica 100-400 , plus the wife now has control of the Olympus omd10-mkii plus a Panasonic 100-300 , .given that the system has a 2x crop factor that gives plenty of reach . And b.t.w my camera and lens weigh a amazing weight of just under 1.5 kg the wife’s is a lot lighter .
I have plenty of shots on here including b.i.f

Thanks Jeff
I bought your wife’s 7D for my husband earlier this year but I’m now thinking of changing my gear to be a lot lighter. I’m going to have to go to the local camera shop and try the camera and lens out to get a feel for them. It’s really daft that all my equipment is not being used very often because it’s too heavy with my back complaint.
By the way the hubby is loving your old camera.
 
I use the E-M1 MkI and MkII to photograph running events almost every weekend. My most used lens is the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, followed by the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8. I also have access to a Canon 5DMkIII and some good Canon primes but I prefer to use the Olympus setup.

The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 would give you an equivalent Field Of View of 80-300mm, so you would "gain" 100mm FOV if you switched from the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. It also takes the 1.4x Olympus teleconverter extremely well. IQ of the Olympus PRO lenses in general is absolutely superb.

Be aware though that the Depth Of Field of the Olympus f/2.8 lens is equivalent to f/5.6 in full-frame terms but I've actually found that to be beneficial when photographing sports.

In terms of size and weight it's much more manageable than the Canon 5DMkIII.

Thank you for your reply. It’s nice to know that I won’t lose any FOV and maybe even gain some. Depth of field could be nice advantage in blurring the background to rid the pesky spectators at times.!
 
Go and have a look at the work of the Olympus ambassadors Scott Bourne and Mike Inkley - there may be others on the website - and see what they can get out of the cameras.. I don't use mine for basketball but did when I was post knee op - I prefer my FF Canon for that - although it isn't obviously able to match that in every way.

Thanks Chipper, guess where I’m about to go viewing?
 
I’m just Switching to Fuji with the XT1 & XT2, currently supported by the 23mm f2 and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. I also have a Gripped Olympus Pen-F and EM-1 mkII supported by the 30mm f3.5 Macro, 75mm f1.8, 12-100mm f4 Pro Lens and the 40-150mm f2.8 Pro Lens with 1.4 t/c.

Both Systems are easy to carry for an all day shoot, the weight is negligible compared to you current Canon set-up. If your seriously looking to move over to the Micro side, drop me a line or watch the classifieds as my m4/3 gear will be giving someone a Super Christmas Present in the coming weeks.

Thanks Gandalf. I’ve been very lucky to have so many useful comments. Will try to get to local camera shop to have a feel of the cameras and will certainly keep a look out in the classifieds.
 
I haven’t yet done anything with them ,but I got a small burst of a kestrel today in flight ,t.b.h it was just a speck in the sky ,the processed shots are clear as a bell will publish results tomorrow ,and after 9 months use I amazed
 
The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 would give you an equivalent Field Of View of 80-300mm, so you would "gain" 100mm FOV if you switched from the Canon 70-200 f/2.8.
Bear in mind that the OP's 7D is a 1.6x crop camera, so the 70-200 is an 'effective' 112-320 on that body. The 40-150 on a micro 4/3 would give a similar range - just a fraction shorter, but there's nothing much in it.
 
I also use a Panasonic G80 and 100-400 lens. I do a mixture of wildlife, landscape and portraits.
It's so much lighter than my previous Nikon D7000 and Sigma 150-600 lens.
I also have the Panasonic 12-60mm lens and the Sigma 60mm art lens.
My Panasonic kit does everything I need, and is much kinder on my back.

Thank you for your reply. It really does seem the right way to go to get my equipment lighter so I can still enjoy my photography.
 
Thank you for your reply. It’s nice to know that I won’t lose any FOV and maybe even gain some. Depth of field could be nice advantage in blurring the background to rid the pesky spectators at times.!

Switching to M4/3, the background will be less blurred than with a larger format.

Changing formats is really about choosing a different set of compromises. You can certainly save weight with M4/3 but hand in hand with that goes reduced image quality (less sharp, more noise, reduced dynamic range) and less scope to control shallow depth of field.

But so long as you're aware of those limitations and comfortable working within them, then M4/3 makes a very good choice.
 
Switching to M4/3, the background will be less blurred than with a larger format.

Changing formats is really about choosing a different set of compromises. You can certainly save weight with M4/3 but hand in hand with that goes reduced image quality (less sharp, more noise, reduced dynamic range) and less scope to control shallow depth of field.

But so long as you're aware of those limitations and comfortable working within them, then M4/3 makes a very good choice.

The op has a 7D which is arguably hardly the cutting edge in APS-C image quality. DoF tables will give the figures for the 7D and MFT but from a quick look I can't see anything to worry about there.
 
Switching to M4/3, the background will be less blurred than with a larger format.

Changing formats is really about choosing a different set of compromises. You can certainly save weight with M4/3 but hand in hand with that goes reduced image quality (less sharp, more noise, reduced dynamic range) and less scope to control shallow depth of field.

But so long as you're aware of those limitations and comfortable working within them, then M4/3 makes a very good choice.

Thanks HoppyUK. I think my photography should be ok with M4/3. We will still have my husbands 7D and 70-200 lens for the sharpness etc. I just can’t carry the heavy equipment anymore so it’s either give M4/3 a try or just give up which would be a real shame.
 
Switching to M4/3, the background will be less blurred than with a larger format.

Changing formats is really about choosing a different set of compromises. You can certainly save weight with M4/3 but hand in hand with that goes reduced image quality (less sharp, more noise, reduced dynamic range) and less scope to control shallow depth of field.
.

This might be true in general Vs APSC, but not so much compared to older Canon models like the 7D. Modern M43 sensors are actually slightly better in terms of DR and ISO noise. Check any comparison site and files appear to be much sharper from the likes of the G9 also. It's not like comparing to FF, Canon APSC have a 1.6x crop, the difference even between later Canon models and M43 is minimal. The massive difference here is the weight saving, which is OP's priority
 
The other often not mentioned fact about MFT is that legacy glass I.e old manual focus lens +adaptors seem to work better on them , even with manual focus I have managed fast moving gulls in flight with a old 200mm lens that cost £24. , in fact overall the cost in general of all the system lenses is way way down on the big brand named ones
 
The other thing, if you are interested in Olympus, is that you can borrow the kit through the Olympus WOW scheme. Google it and see if there is a dealer near you. There are lots of doom mongers out there about MFT - even a thread dedicated to it with the word 'doomed' in it! As it costs nout, other than transport to borrow one, why not?
 
The other thing, if you are interested in Olympus, is that you can borrow the kit through the Olympus WOW scheme. Google it and see if there is a dealer near you. There are lots of doom mongers out there about MFT - even a thread dedicated to it with the word 'doomed' in it! As it costs nout, other than transport to borrow one, why not?

This is what I did, I borrowed the OM-D E5 MkII and purchased one along with the 12-40mmPro lens and love it. I have major neck issues and find that I’m taking my camera out with me far more since getting my Olympus, I’m also very impressed with fast af!
 
The other thing, if you are interested in Olympus, is that you can borrow the kit through the Olympus WOW scheme. Google it and see if there is a dealer near you. There are lots of doom mongers out there about MFT - even a thread dedicated to it with the word 'doomed' in it! As it costs nout, other than transport to borrow one, why not?

Lol, that was my thread, but the title was to highlight what's doing the rounds on YT and forums like this. I've been an advocate for the system about a year now, it's impressed me more than enough. I don't get all the bullying to try push people to bigger sensor systems as if it really concerned these people. I don't get the obsession with extreme shallow DOF or 19 stops of DR or whatever. I shot FF, I hated it. I gave up photography for over a year because it had become a chore after I bought all that hefty gear, I didn't enjoy taking it out for 'fun' shoots anymore. I was actually happier when i had a dinky little bridge camera, and I learned more because of it's limitations. M43 is perfect for the casual enthusiast, it's beyond me why the gear head obsessives push so hard against it. It should be embraced, we're not going to steal their jobs when using these teensy, good-for-nothing crappy sensors now are we? :D

Not one person I know, across friends and family, ever noticed that i had changed systems. They see camera gear, and that's all, they have no clue about make or model let alone sensor type. If I even began to try explain the difference they'd just drift off or start scrolling FB on their phone with "Yeah, sure, oh, how interesting" responses :ROFLMAO:
 
This might be true in general Vs APSC, but not so much compared to older Canon models like the 7D. Modern M43 sensors are actually slightly better in terms of DR and ISO noise. Check any comparison site and files appear to be much sharper from the likes of the G9 also. It's not like comparing to FF, Canon APSC have a 1.6x crop, the difference even between later Canon models and M43 is minimal. The massive difference here is the weight saving, which is OP's priority

I was really correcting a misunderstanding and making a general point about format changes, but it's true that there's not a great deal of difference between APS-C and M4/3.

Another option to save a substantial amount of weight, without changing format, would be to look at the Canon EOS-M series. This would also have the advantage of familiarity with the Canon user-interface, plus the ability to use existing Canon lenses via an adapter. In fact, it would seem logical for the OP to look at that option first.

The other often not mentioned fact about MFT is that legacy glass I.e old manual focus lens +adaptors seem to work better on them , even with manual focus I have managed fast moving gulls in flight with a old 200mm lens that cost £24. , in fact overall the cost in general of all the system lenses is way way down on the big brand named ones

That's really an advantage of all mirrorless systems rather than just M4/3 - and not without considerable downsides.
 
<snip>

Not one person I know, across friends and family, ever noticed that i had changed systems. They see camera gear, and that's all, they have no clue about make or model let alone sensor type. If I even began to try explain the difference they'd just drift off or start scrolling FB on their phone with "Yeah, sure, oh, how interesting" responses :ROFLMAO:

Unfortunately, that is true no matter what system or format we change to - significant differences to the end result are hard for non-photographers to see :eek: And the more we try to justify and explain, we just dig a bigger hole. "And you paid how much? Just for that?!"

We do it for personal and operational reasons - the images are just as rubbish as before :D
 
Hoppy I have yet to find these considerable downsides you allude to , if your carefull in your choice of lenses and take care not to buy dusty or fungus filled ones then apart from A/F I find in a lot of circumstances the results are on a par or superior to normal lenses . Like anything else it’s a case of research before buying .
 
Another option to save a substantial amount of weight, without changing format, would be to look at the Canon EOS-M series. This would also have the advantage of familiarity with the Canon user-interface, plus the ability to use existing Canon lenses via an adapter. In fact, it would seem logical for the OP to look at that option first.

Valid though the existing Canon lenses will likely still be much heavier than M4/3 designed lenses, so if the principle aim is to reduce weight, M4/3 or a system with lighter lenses makes more sense (though I think there are some smaller lenses designed for the M range - I am not sure).
 
Unfortunately, that is true no matter what system or format we change to - significant differences to the end result are hard for non-photographers to see :eek: And the more we try to justify and explain, we just dig a bigger hole. "And you paid how much? Just for that?!"

We do it for personal and operational reasons - the images are just as rubbish as before :D

Precisely! I can be just as crap with smaller lighter equipment as I was carting 10kg of metal and glass about :D Honestly, those who enjoy my images do so just as much nowadays as they did when I had £10K worth of gear. They didn't notice when I jumped from a bridge camera to dslr, nor when I jumped from APSC to FF and much pricier lenses to go with, and they haven't noticed I downsized to M43 after a year either - personally I don't feel I'm missing out on much either. Sometimes I'd love the ISO capabilities, but it's not enough to make a big splurge for

I did consider the M50 at one point, as there's a few nice Canon primes I'd love to try, but the more I looked into it, the more it seemed the M50 was a downgrade from the G80. The only advantage it has is the bigger sensor. It lacks IBIS, weather sealing, decent 4K video and the generous amount of on-body/physical controls. I don't doubt it's a great little camera, but another down side for the OP would be the limited range of M glass. I think they want rid of the heavier lenses, not to just attach them to a lighter body.
 
Last edited:
Precisely! I can be just as crap with smaller lighter equipment as I was carting 10kg of metal and glass about :D Honestly, those who enjoy my images do so just as much nowadays as they did when I had £10K worth of gear. They didn't notice when I jumped from a bridge camera to dslr, nor when I jumped from APSC to FF and much pricier lenses to go with, and they haven't noticed I downsized to M43 after a year either - personally I don't feel I'm missing out on much either. Sometimes I'd love the ISO capabilities, but it's not enough to make a big splurge for

I did consider the M50 at one point, as there's a few nice Canon primes I'd love to try, but the more I looked into it, the more it seemed the M50 was a downgrade from the G80. The only advantage it has is the bigger sensor. It lacks IBIS, weather sealing, decent 4K video and the generous amount of on-body/physical controls. I don't doubt it's a great little camera, but another down side for the OP would be the limited range of M glass. I think they want rid of the heavier lenses, not to just attach them to a lighter body.


All I will say is the M50 is a mean little power machine when using the Canon 22mm. Insanely compact and good with a very nice lens. One of my favourites! :p
 
All I will say is the M50 is a mean little power machine when using the Canon 22mm. Insanely compact and good with a very nice lens. One of my favourites! :p

I wouldn't say no to one, I'd just not trade my G80 for it ;) Be nice to have both, just opens up more options. Reckon I would get an adapter and stick the 85mm 1.8 on there mostly, maybe the cheap and cheerful 55-250mm too
 
I wouldn't say no to one, I'd just not trade my G80 for it ;) Be nice to have both, just opens up more options. Reckon I would get an adapter and stick the 85mm 1.8 on there mostly, maybe the cheap and cheerful 55-250mm too

haha I see! Well I think I'm going hardball - keeping the Panasonic set up and the Canon set up.. and will rid myself of; G3X, Leica X1, Sony HX90V - that will leave both SLR models and the Sony RX10 3. More than enough!

Or do I keep the G3x and the car camera in place of the Sony HX90 (which is pretty poo quality in comparisons anyway in anything other than Florida style sun!)
 
Hoppy I have yet to find these considerable downsides you allude to , if your carefull in your choice of lenses and take care not to buy dusty or fungus filled ones then apart from A/F I find in a lot of circumstances the results are on a par or superior to normal lenses . Like anything else it’s a case of research before buying .

Vintage glass is cheap - and there's a clue in that fact.

There are lots of optically good vintage lenses around (and plenty of lemons too) but let's be realistic - they're all manual focus and have manual aperture control (if there is any aperture control at all). Most people would regard those as considerable downsides.
 
I wouldn't call having a physical aperture a downside at all, let alone a considerable one. I know modern snappers are for the most part a pampered lot, but some of us enjoy slowing down now and then, we like the nostalgia, the lenses generally feel better in hand than modern plastic ones, and we don't expect them to be on par IQ-wise [though some of the better ones are] - we like the character they possess, they do tend to have their own unique look that no PP can properly mimic, even the bad ones! And yes, they can be cheap, hence nothing to lose giving them a go. How I look at vintage lenses: If I get a couple of nice images from one, it's paid for itself.
 
Vintage glass is cheap - and there's a clue in that fact.

There are lots of optically good vintage lenses around (and plenty of lemons too) but let's be realistic - they're all manual focus and have manual aperture control (if there is any aperture control at all). Most people would regard those as considerable downsides.

Are there any vintage manual lenses that don't have aperture control? They must surely be few and far between and possibly specialist?

Some vintage lenses may be cheap but another way of looking at it is that a lot of these lenses are acceptable to good stopped down and arguably only really show limitations at wider apertures and in some extreme situations such as those in which optical aberrations could be shown to be at their worst. I'm quietly confident that there are many cheap old manual lenses which when stopped down a bit will give image quality in whole pictures or even in pictures viewed closely which many people will not be able to pluck out from a pile of pictures including ones taken with modern lenses. The old lenses will also very possibly still be useable in 50 years time whilst the electronics in modern lenses will probably long since have disintegrated. Look at like that old lenses could be seen to be an absolute bargain, if your shooting style and subject suit them.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call having a physical aperture a downside at all, let alone a considerable one. I know modern snappers are for the most part a pampered lot, but some of us enjoy slowing down now and then, we like the nostalgia, the lenses generally feel better in hand than modern plastic ones, and we don't expect them to be on par IQ-wise [though some of the better ones are] - we like the character they possess, they do tend to have their own unique look that no PP can properly mimic, even the bad ones! And yes, they can be cheap, hence nothing to lose giving them a go. How I look at vintage lenses: If I get a couple of nice images from one, it's paid for itself.

I understand the appeal of vintage lenses and good luck to you.

But Jeff said "Hoppy I have yet to find these considerable downsides you allude to" so for the benefit of the uninitiated and in the interests of a more balanced view, I pointed out a couple of the more obvious ones. And despite the genuine affection some people have for vintage lenses, there are good reasons why they remain more esoteric than mainstream.
 
I understand the appeal of vintage lenses and good luck to you.

But Jeff said "Hoppy I have yet to find these considerable downsides you allude to" so for the benefit of the uninitiated and in the interests of a more balanced view, I pointed out a couple of the more obvious ones. And despite the genuine affection some people have for vintage lenses, there are good reasons why they remain more esoteric than mainstream.

It's certainly not for everyone, it's a bit of a side hobby in itself inside of a main hobby. But it's something you can just lightly dip into whenever the mood takes you. I only have 2 MF lenses atm, though I have been researching and have a bit of an itch for some more. I tend to have a couple at any one time, I sell them on and buy a couple more, I'm not the type to build a mad collection of them. Just a bit of fun for me mostly, but ... there's potential there too. Say for fast, more exotic glass at a fraction of what you would pay for anything similar with AF. A 300mm 2.8 for less than $500, or 300mm F4 for less than £300 - and these are well regarded lenses too. I'm eyeing some 300mm F4 lenses, Canon FD, Nikon AI etc ... they can be had for buttons in comparison to their modern AF equivalents. And I have no problem with MF, I've been doing it on and off for many years, takes me no more than a second to lock on to a small bird in the garden - you learn to predict their movements and patterns and pre-focus on hot spots. There's some side skill that goes along with, but with practice it's not very difficult. It's one of those thing you either want to give it a shot, or not. But I certainly wouldn't deem MF a considerable downside, not since I do a lot of macro and that is the only way to do it ;)
 
I’m thinning my current collection down I had 10 at one point but the two I won’t sell are the 200mm f3.5 vivitar used above , and a nikkor 50mm f1.4 ais. That’s as sharp as a razor . Once funds ease up after Xmas I might add more it’s just a bit of fun but it works well for me
 
Back
Top