Smallest MFT camera with usable AF-S, decent DR, and dual-ISO?

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Lastly, the FP seems to only have OIS options for 24-105 and 28-200, but they're not in the camerasize database, so pictured above is the 24-70/2.8 which is a tank.

The new 28-200 is roughly the same size and weight as the 20-60mm so it is a lot more balanced to the Fp.

It has a a great range and having the OIS offers an interesting proposition of it turning the Fp into a very compact Cinecorder.

However, it is very, very slow on the long end though, particularly for only 200mm.

Not that ultra shallow depth of field is the be all and end all of course but f7.1 is a bit of a stretch.

Of course the swing to that particular roundabout is that you don't have to worry so much about the camera not having sentient AF !

[PannySVHS]

I still like my GX85 and even more than ever for what it is. I love to use it and pretty much everything about it. All i wish for is an alteration with 10 bit HLG and beefed up codec for HD. Will not occur though I assume. So GX85/9 are the last of their kind I think, unfortunately. Sony A6700 looks ugly in my eyes, OM1 the same. Omd Em10III has oversampled 4K afaik. GH5S is interesting, a somewhat puritanistic, practical, straight forward camera. Good alternative to the much bigger P4K.

[PPNS]

On 3/3/2024 at 4:04 PM, kye said:

So the GH5S is better than the GX85, but is larger and has worse DR than the P2K, so it's sort of wins and losses in comparison.  Considering I already own a GH5 and a P2K, it's a tough sell to buy a whole new camera for essentially no net benefit.

does the gh5s have worse DR than the P2k? it uses the same sensor as the p4k/micro studio

[PPNS]

On 3/3/2024 at 4:04 PM, kye said:

So the GH5S is better than the GX85, but is larger and has worse DR than the P2K, so it's sort of wins and losses in comparison.  Considering I already own a GH5 and a P2K, it's a tough sell to buy a whole new camera for essentially no net benefit.

does the gh5s have worse DR than the P2k? it uses the same sensor as the p4k/micro studio

[kye]

4 hours ago, PPNS said:

does the gh5s have worse DR than the P2k? it uses the same sensor as the p4k/micro studio

CineD says so.

I've kept a spreadsheet of all their DR tests and random mentions, and the following image appeared in one of their early reviews before they got serious about publishing the lab tests - it includes both the P2K and GH5S:

They haven't tested the external RAW update, so if you want to assimilate your GH5S into the collective then that might give a bump?

DR is a tricky beast though, depending heavily on how you test it and the NR applied, etc, so I'd suggest the above is a rough statement rather than a definitive result without any caveats, because we don't know exactly what they did and why in the test.

[MrSMW]

15 hours ago, kye said:

I guess the summary is that there isn't anything in MFT, but if I wanted to completely re-buy everything in my entire camera bag, there are options that are larger, incredibly more expensive, and better, but no-where near better enough to make me consider any of them for a single second.

“All I want is the perfect camera”.

I hear you. We should add the word ‘system’ after the word camera because there is too much emphasis on the body, but if the glass is not there…

The best F1 car on normal road tires is a nicely painted tin can.

I wish M4/3 could work for me as it’s primary appeal is the size & weight but the reality is the kit I would want is the bigger stuff, the OM-1 or G9ii and the 10-25 + 25-50 zooms and we’re talking as big as FF with a number of performance deficiencies in comparison.

Discounting MF, at FF we have everything I want and need, but at the most weight, size and cost.

APSC still seems to be the sweet spot for me, all factors considered and I am pretty sure that with a clean sheet and a reasonable budget for 2024 (I have neither) then I would go back to Fuji who have come good since I left the system at the end of 2020.

2021 the XT4 was the new boy and was just about where I needed the body side of the equation and they already had the glass and since then, Tamron joined the party.

Fxxking Cxvid. If that arsehole had not come along, I would still be a Fuji dude.

At heart, I think I still am. 

[mercer]

@kye we've discussed this a bit in the past regarding selling everything and moving to a new system and normally I would be against it... I still consider my 5D3 with ML Raw as my main camera... but if my main camera was a m4/3, I might consider it.

Unfortunately, m4/3 as a small camera system is a thing of the past. Any new cameras will be as big as Panasonic's FF offerings, so if you want any of the upgrades you mentioned, the only option is to change systems or deal with the bigger m4/3 bodies. Sony could be a great option, as @BTM_Pix mentioned because you can use some of your current manual focus m4/3 lenses with a simple adapter while you decide what lenses you'd like to invest in. Also, eventually there will be no m4/3... it may not be for a few years, but the writing is on the wall... so your Voigtlander lenses will become VERY expensive paper weights. Sell them while you still can.

Then again, if you are happy with the images you are getting with what you already own, then there's no reason to upgrade.

But if you want some of the features you mentioned, the only options are a change in systems... hell you can have a lot, if not all including size, by going full frame. In the end, after selling off/trading what you have, you could probably end up with more money. 

[John Matthews]

Invariably, the conversation goes to FF. Personally, I thought about that Sigma FP and Panasonic 28-200 (with IS). That combo seems super versatile now. Size-wise, the FP is the size of a mid-range MFT camera. The equivalent of the Panasonic lens would be a 14-100 f/2-2.8 zoom, which would be incredible. The package would come in at 830-ish grams.

I've always thought this: if L-mount comes out with smaller pancakes and a few reasonably priced very small bodies, MFT would be on a path to obsolete. Until then, MFT cameras will continue to make decent strides in terms of features and at least on the used market, their prices continue to rise- the true indicator of a camera's value.

On a side note, I'd wait because there have been reports on a small Panasonic camera is in the works. My bet is that it will have PDAF and some other decent features. This could be more than a year away though.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

On a side note, I'd wait because there have been reports on a small Panasonic camera is in the works. My bet is that it will have PDAF and some other decent features. This could be more than a year away though.

That would be interesting as they stated officially there would be no more small (or compact anyway) cameras.

But there are indeed some very valid FF body/lens combos now that are not exactly massive and bigger/longer lenses can be compensated for with cropping, ie, larger sensors and AI etc...

Sony A7RV for instance is basically the same weight as my S5ii and Z6ii, but smaller and with 2.5x the sensor size.

They can be had for a little over 3k euros from reputable dealers with warranty used in 'like new' condition and when you compare it size-wise with say the OM-1 M4/3 camera, it's spec and real world capability are just nuts.

With E Mount, there are also the largest range of smaller lenses from any other FF manufacturer.

I went Z6ii with Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 myself as the best compromise of cost vs size/weight vs outright ability for my needs, but could easily have made a case for the A7RV with the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 which in APSC mode produces a more detailed 26mp file at an equivalent focal length around 40-110mm so a bit shorter, but I could make that work because I could crop a bit harder still and really, only I would know.

M4/3 is up against it IMO though. Always has been. Ever more so. It's advantage was size & weight (or lack of) and with older stuff, that can still be the case, but the move forward that many have needed on the tech side, have come at the cost of it's primary appeal.

APSC is still a good shout though with Fuji and Sony leading the way. Canon I don't think have the lenses and no one else is really in the game.

Sometimes, a clean sheet is the answer, but for most of us, pro or otherwise, we can't easily do that.

[BTM_Pix]

2 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I've always thought this: if L-mount comes out with smaller pancakes and a few reasonably priced very small bodies, MFT would be on a path to obsolete.

I think the closest that you're going to get with that will be the Sigma contemporary range.

They are behemoths compared to what you can get in MFT but, actually, when you line it up against an MFT package of actual equivalence (or slightly less in this case) then the story changes.

Its just that with MFT you have the option and thus far in L mount then you don't.

Unless....

You don't mind sacrificing a daft amount of money and going APS-C and picking up the Leica range that they made for the TL and CL which are very compact indeed.

Leica have abandoned APS-C and Panasonic seem content to sit either side of it with their MFT and L mount so it might be a place that Sigma could carve a niche for themselves with an APS-C body, particularly as they have an excellent set of fast primes and a zoom for it.

With the trials and tribulations of them trying and thus far failing to make a full frame Foveon, it could well be that it would find a home for an interim APS-C version in a rehoused Fp. 

Realistically, though, the only current way to get pancake-ish full frame in L mount is to go for the manual focus route of using M mount on them like I've done on mine here with a 35mm f2.

As @MrSMW has just posted, the E mount system is currently better served with compact FF lenses particularly in regard to 3rd party manufacturers like Samyang.

The closed shop nature of the L mount alliance (in terms of electronic lenses at least) is definitely a hindrance in that regard.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think the closest that you're going to get with that will be the Sigma contemporary range.

If only the 60mp FP-L had:

IBIS

4k 50/60p

A tilt screen 

No banding with stills under certain lighting conditions.

It would be my forever system.

The f2 lenses are gems and the f2.8 90mm can easily crop for all my needs well past ‘150mm’ with 60mp.

I know there is an aftermarket option for the tilt screen, but it’s not enough to sway me as there are just too many compromises for me.

But if Sigma do bring out another and it fixes at least 2 of my above 4 ‘issues’, everything gets packaged up and sent to MBP.

But are Sigma going to even make another camera ever again or is it just lenses now?

[ac6000cw]

6 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

If only the 60mp FP-L had:

IBIS

4k 50/60p

A tilt screen 

Those are exactly the issues I have with the FP or FP-L - I like the small form-factor, but a camera without IBIS for video is basically ruled out for me, as I film almost 100% hand-held (and stabilizing in post is sometimes very difficult with the subjects I film, as well as being time-consuming).

[kye]

 

6 hours ago, MrSMW said:

“All I want is the perfect camera”.

Not really.

All I want is a GX85 with a modern sensor, so Dual ISO and higher DR.  

I don't need / want LOG, 10-bit, 422, ALL-I, RAW, PDAF, a flippy screen, dual card slots, 6K or more, mic-in, etc, etc, although if they came with no penalties then I wouldn't hate having them.  In the real world though, they do come with penalties - huge ones (see rant at the end of this post).

6 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I hear you. We should add the word ‘system’ after the word camera because there is too much emphasis on the body, but if the glass is not there…

Absolutely.

6 hours ago, mercer said:

@kye we've discussed this a bit in the past regarding selling everything and moving to a new system and normally I would be against it... I still consider my 5D3 with ML Raw as my main camera... but if my main camera was a m4/3, I might consider it.

Unfortunately, m4/3 as a small camera system is a thing of the past. Any new cameras will be as big as Panasonic's FF offerings, so if you want any of the upgrades you mentioned, the only option is to change systems or deal with the bigger m4/3 bodies. Sony could be a great option, as @BTM_Pix mentioned because you can use some of your current manual focus m4/3 lenses with a simple adapter while you decide what lenses you'd like to invest in. Also, eventually there will be no m4/3... it may not be for a few years, but the writing is on the wall... so your Voigtlander lenses will become VERY expensive paper weights. Sell them while you still can.

Then again, if you are happy with the images you are getting with what you already own, then there's no reason to upgrade.

But if you want some of the features you mentioned, the only options are a change in systems... hell you can have a lot, if not all including size, by going full frame. In the end, after selling off/trading what you have, you could probably end up with more money. 

Yeah, this thread was more of a temperature check, just to make sure there wasn't something I'd forgotten, and to have another thorough think-through of it.

I'm not sure I'd swap to another system right now even if it was free.

The GX85 with 12-35mm still feels on the large side, so casually stretching to something 50% larger isn't a casual proposition at all.

4 hours ago, John Matthews said:

On a side note, I'd wait because there have been reports on a small Panasonic camera is in the works. My bet is that it will have PDAF and some other decent features. This could be more than a year away though.

That's my feeling too.  

Panasonic has said there won't be more compact cameras, but has also said over and over that they're fully behind MFT, and having spent a long time developing the dual-gain PDAF sensor in the GH6 it would be pretty easy for them to capitalise on that investment by doing refreshes of the rest of the lineup.  Hell, even if things trickled down and they released a GX camera with the sensor and processors from the GH5, that would be a good outcome for me.

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

That would be interesting as they stated officially there would be no more small (or compact anyway) cameras.

But there are indeed some very valid FF body/lens combos now that are not exactly massive and bigger/longer lenses can be compensated for with cropping, ie, larger sensors and AI etc...

I'm actually deeply suspicious about the current size comparison between MFT, S35, and FF cameras, and how they're all a similar size and weight.  The FF bodies with IBIS do tend to be heavier, but are the same size, and something smells fishy to me.

If a sensor is smaller then it takes less power to run it, and it takes FAR less power to move it around for IBIS.  The sensor is also a lot lighter, and the IBIS motors will be dramatically lighter.  This means that if all else was equal the batteries should be smaller or last longer, and the internals should be smaller and lighter.  I understand that the screen is independent of sensor size, as are lots of other things in the camera, but when combined with a smaller sensor with a lower resolution the processors should be smaller.  The camera module from the iPhone is practically microscopic.

BUT, that's not what we're seeing.

I suspect it's a combination of lowered IBIS performance (the motors not being able to move as fast or as far, but no technician out there will get their shit together and actually make a test setup for this), combined with the manufacturers just not trying, which I think is quite sad.

What this means in practice though is that it should be easily possible for a GX sized camera with modern components and design to offer a serious challenge to the specs of the larger S35 and FF cameras.

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think the closest that you're going to get with that will be the Sigma contemporary range.

They are behemoths compared to what you can get in MFT but, actually, when you line it up against an MFT package of actual equivalence (or slightly less in this case) then the story changes.

Its just that with MFT you have the option and thus far in L mount then you don't.

Unless....

You don't mind sacrificing a daft amount of money and going APS-C and picking up the Leica range that they made for the TL and CL which are very compact indeed.

Leica have abandoned APS-C and Panasonic seem content to sit either side of it with their MFT and L mount so it might be a place that Sigma could carve a niche for themselves with an APS-C body, particularly as they have an excellent set of fast primes and a zoom for it.

With the trials and tribulations of them trying and thus far failing to make a full frame Foveon, it could well be that it would find a home for an interim APS-C version in a rehoused Fp. 

Realistically, though, the only current way to get pancake-ish full frame in L mount is to go for the manual focus route of using M mount on them like I've done on mine here with a 35mm f2.

As @MrSMW has just posted, the E mount system is currently better served with compact FF lenses particularly in regard to 3rd party manufacturers like Samyang.

The closed shop nature of the L mount alliance (in terms of electronic lenses at least) is definitely a hindrance in that regard.

Now I've moved to zooms, I seem to be swimming against the prevailing winds of the camera market once again.

I want MFT zooms to be F2.8 or slower, a standard 3x (~24-70mm) or 10x zoom ratio, and as small as possible.  I'd be happy if the attempts to make them smaller meant that they were 12MP or less in resolution.

Instead, the market has put making the fastest and sharpest lenses known to man as the first priority, relegating size to third priority (there is no second priority), and because everyone is shooting wide open they've managed to get the whole industry to basically stop discussing anything else except 150fps animal-eye-detect focus performance.

When I think about a FF camera with an F2.8 lens I think of it having too shallow DoF for my compositions, and by the time I stop it down I now need the second base ISO just to give it a normal exposure after the sun has gone down.  

It's been a long journey for me, but now MFT seems to be the sweet spot of DoF and exposure to create the right aesthetic in a sensible amount of light, which makes the AF performance far less critical, and when combined with a 4K sensor the data rates aren't stratospheric, the lenses can be budget friendly, you can do it on affordable SD cards internally, making the whole camera package smaller.  ....not to mention you don't need a supercomputer to edit the footage.

The "better" cameras on the market seem to have "improved" every aspect, but the challenge is that when you "improve" one aspect you make all the others far worse, in a never-ending game of "one step forward, six steps back, and how will you be paying for this today sir?".

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I'm actually deeply suspicious about the current size comparison between MFT, S35, and FF cameras, and how they're all a similar size and weight.  The FF bodies with IBIS do tend to be heavier, but are the same size, and something smells fishy to me.

I suspect there would not have been a G9ii of they had not done it in existing FF S5 body…

I will be surprised to see another unique M4/3 body from Lumix going forward…

No idea what the official sales figures are, but I would not be surprised if it’s been a steady downward decline in sales of both M4/3 bodies and lenses.

We know that overall sales of all cameras is down over the last decade, especially at the lower priced and more compact end of the market.

Logic and basic economics suggests to me if the market is in decline as I believe it is, then so is investment.

For my needs, we have already reached ‘peak camera’ in various forms such as a system exists for me now with; Nikon, Fuji, Sony and Canon, but sadly not within L Mount.

That’s 3x FF brands/systems and 2x APSC with small compromises that make little to know difference between FF and APSC, but M4/3 is too big.

For me. For my needs. YMMV.

For me personally, the current conundrum and potential future one, is how much smaller and lighter can we get this stuff without sacrificing performance?

For me, switching to a (much) smaller sensor is not a viable option and neither is swapping out an f2.8 for an f4 or something even slower.

But none of it matters as I have very good options for this coming season that suit me very well and all I am personally interested in for the future is can I get the same performance out of a smaller & lighter set up?

Probably…

Can I afford to do it?

Maybe…

Am I going to do it?

Almost certainly, but not in ‘24!

 

[kye]

9 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I suspect there would not have been a G9ii of they had not done it in existing FF S5 body…

I will be surprised to see another unique M4/3 body from Lumix going forward…

No idea what the official sales figures are, but I would not be surprised if it’s been a steady downward decline in sales of both M4/3 bodies and lenses.

We know that overall sales of all cameras is down over the last decade, especially at the lower priced and more compact end of the market.

Logic and basic economics suggests to me if the market is in decline as I believe it is, then so is investment.

For my needs, we have already reached ‘peak camera’ in various forms such as a system exists for me now with; Nikon, Fuji, Sony and Canon, but sadly not within L Mount.

That’s 3x FF brands/systems and 2x APSC with small compromises that make little to know difference between FF and APSC, but M4/3 is too big.

For me. For my needs. YMMV.

For me personally, the current conundrum and potential future one, is how much smaller and lighter can we get this stuff without sacrificing performance?

For me, switching to a (much) smaller sensor is not a viable option and neither is swapping out an f2.8 for an f4 or something even slower.

But none of it matters as I have very good options for this coming season that suit me very well and all I am personally interested in for the future is can I get the same performance out of a smaller & lighter set up?

Probably…

Can I afford to do it?

Maybe…

Am I going to do it?

Almost certainly, but not in ‘24!

 

Yeah, but remember, our situations have almost nothing in common.  You're shooting dreamy images for someone else to pay you money and doing so in a situation where you're expected to be taking up space and using as impressive a camera setup as possible.  I am shooting environmental images for myself in situations where I'm discouraged from taking up space and where having the smallest possible setup is to my advantage.

As far as my understanding goes, if I was doing what you do then I'd also have the same thoughts as you.  I imagine that if you were doing what I do then you'd also understand why I have the priorities that I do.

It's easy to look in at a situation from a distance and see enough of it to have a good overview, but to be far enough from the details that the subtleties aren't apparent. 

The FF user telling the MFT user who wants small cameras that FF is just as good as MFT is like the cinematographer telling the wedding shooter that an FX9 is just as good for shooting wedding videos as a mirrorless, and completely missing that the price, size, weight, workflow, and a dozen small details make the proposition impractical at best.  The comparison probably isn't bulletproof and you could probably find weaknesses in it, but I've had enough issues in the field with the size of my XC10 and GH5 that I can pretty confidently say that the considerations involved are real, even if they aren't obvious to outsiders.  I mean, the other recent thread from @John Matthews was about cameras substantially smaller than the GX85!

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, kye said:

As far as my understanding goes, if I was doing what you do then I'd also have the same thoughts as you.  I imagine that if you were doing what I do then you'd also understand why I have the priorities that I do.

Oh I get it Kye. I’m just musing along various trains of thought more than anything but always with at least a nod to the OP and the post.

For sure if I did not need to earn a living from my kit, OM-1 with 12-40mm f2.8 would be my one and done right now.

Something longer I keep on a shelf but bring to that safari adventure, but otherwise, other than the lack of dual ISO, it’s a brilliant little thing.

[kye]

22 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Oh I get it Kye. I’m just musing along various trains of thought more than anything but always with at least a nod to the OP and the post.

For sure if I did not need to earn a living from my kit, OM-1 with 12-40mm f2.8 would be my one and done right now.

Something longer I keep on a shelf but bring to that safari adventure, but otherwise, other than the lack of dual ISO, it’s a brilliant little thing.

Yeah, I think I'm just a bit frustrated overall TBH.  

I'm also fighting with Resolve over half-a-dozen small issues, to the point where I'm genuinely considering writing my own colour grading plugin where I can get what I want.  

I'm also rapidly becoming frustrated with the colourist forums too, as recently I randomly heard a snippet in a podcast that was a simple and beautiful answer to a question I asked several years ago and got zero helpful replies to, but that everyone involved in colour for the last 30 years would have done hundreds of times on the average project, so now I'm wondering what the quality of the rest of the info on there is.
I also watched something a number of months ago that was right at the cutting edge of colour science tools which was what I was thinking about but no-one is talking about.
I know it's a sign that I'm progressing beyond a certain level of knowledge/skill, but I just find it frustrating to be seemingly going against the current in yet another area of this stuff.

What does this all have to do with MFT cameras? (apart from being frustration in general..).  Well, the better I can capture things in camera the less work I have to do in post.

[MrSMW]

Same for many of us Kye, but pertaining to our own needs and we often use this place as both a sounding board and place to ramble and go down rabbit holes. And that's all good.

I'm in a place where I have been frustrated with the tools since about 2010 because for my specific needs, nothing really existed that was 'perfect for my needs' until around 2020/21.

But that then coincided with 2 years of Covid that caused so many issues, one of them being 'sending' me on a tangent I would not have otherwise gone on.

That tangent is called L Mount. Great video specs, but the reality has been not a single body from Lumix, Leica or Sigma that has met my needs and only a couple of lenses.

Chasing the holy grail? Nope, because both the bodies and the lenses 'perfect for my needs' exist with 4 other manufacturers.

So why not just bin L Mount lock stock and barrel and just flip to one of those?

€€€€€ or lack thereof in '23 and '24 and quite probably '25.

Regret L Mount? 

Regret is the wrong word and for the video side, I can't fault it. S1H + S5ii.

For pure stills, can't fault it. S1H.

For my specific hybrid work though, that is where it falls short as the combo of body and lens options I need (NEED), are too big and too heavy for the the duration I use them for.

I can get the result out of it I need, but the process is far from ideal.

So my answer to my own personal frustration/conundrum, has been to keep only the L Mount kit I absolutely need for my video work, and invest all of what I sold with some cash, into a Nikon + adapted E Mount solution for my stills.

My 'ideal' still does not exist. As above, that would be the Sigma FP-X and the contemporary lenses. My 'perfect' set up...except the body does not exist and possibly never will.

I can do it with Canon with the least amount of kit, but with the largest units and most cost...and a cost I cannot afford.

I can do another version totally in E Mount and it actually has a lot of appeal, but again, cost.

Fuji offer everything I need now and has HUGE appeal, but again, cost.

Nikon also have it, combined with E Mount and is at this time, by far and away the most affordable route. It could be my standalone option next year, but we'll see.

In the meantime, like you and many others, I muse over options and that's cool even if some folks don't like it!

 

 

 

 

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

Well, I was a m43 user, but moved on since I saw the writing on the wall (until now, my predictions are 100% accurate).

My 2 cents is my current camera: Fujifilm X-S20. A EVF hump bigger than the GX85 (which I had, and loved), IBIS (not amazing, but better than none), very good AF (much better than the Gen4 Fujis, and there is a firmware update on the way to improve it and give touch-tracking in video), 10 bit 4-2-2, and using Flog or Flog2 the DR comparison to a GX85 is enormous.

Size of the system is a bit larger than m43, but lenses still smaller than FF. The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is almost glued to my camera - very good image, diminutive size (shpuld be the blueprint for future m43 zooms, but...).

 

[MrSMW]

Going to revise my OM-1 to include and possibly prefer the XS20 from Fuji because yes, not quite as wide or as long with that lens choice, but as a compact package with arguably higher spec and capability in quite a few areas...

Threw in an 'average sized' FF, the S5ii with the Sigma/Leica 24-70 (because there is still no option for the Sigma 28-70 which is slightly smaller but the Sigma/Leica 24-70 still smaller than the HUGE Lumix 24-70).