LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I can’t speak to the superior IS of the OMD. What I can say is that the Fuji OIS is superior to Nikon’s VR when comparing lenses of the same focal length. I can hand hold 2-3 stops slower than I could with my Nikon. Part of that may be that my Fuji is less than 1/2 the weight of my Nikon.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

With the em1ii, I can’t think of a reason to turn it off...even on a tripod. Olympus has come out and said it’s ok to have on when mounted to a tripod.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Probably different on your camera, but on my Canon, I turn off IS when I’m shooting high shutter speeds because it seems to AF faster, but others leave it on. I sometimes turn it off when mounted on a tripod depending on the lens (different EF lenses have different recommendations).

But the point I was making is what are the situations where IS allows you to use a lower ISO with less noise making up for the difference in sensor size? Many Fuji lenses do have IS (such as the 18-55 that I mostly use). i believe that the general consensus is that in-body IS is more effective at shorter FLs, while in-lens IS is more effective at longer FLs (and using both if available may be an advantage), but I am no expert on various IS systems and their relative performance.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Thanks. Now I have a better reference point. Also, where does the new GH5s fit in and which one of the new ones are starting to make you drool.

rcdovala

The new GH5S is designed for low light situations. Panasonic has reduced the pixel count to 10 MPixels. This allows each pixel to be physically larger. Larger pixels gather more light. In a nutshell, so to speak. I have enough cameras and am old enough to drool without thinking about cameras.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I like Fuji's sensor and processor technology. You have almost two stops more headroom when compared to others, meaning that exposing to the right has more benefit. I just wonder how a M4/3 sensor directly compares to a larger format. My personal experience does not include M4/3, but I did recently acquire a 20 mp Sony RX10M4, which has even a smaller sensor, which has a 2.7x crop factor compared to the 2x on the M4/3, and it behaved exactly as I would have expected. It could capture excellent detail at short and medium distances, but I found that the fine details of foliage and textured surfaces like rocks, building facades and other features tended to clump together. Using the camera at ISO 100 helped this a bit. I did experience detail clumping in a limited way with APS-C, but when I upgraded to a D800/D810 I found that details, no matter how tiny and far away, are faithfully captured.

Before plunging in to a new system, I strongly suggest you rent either an Olympus, Panasonic or Fuji - and decide if any of these will address your style of photography and subject matter choices.

FWIW, I just came back from a 3 week trip to Ireland, and I really enjoyed NOT bringing a giant camera bag filled with multiple bodies, a half dozen lenses and all the other stuff that I have dragged with me in the past. The RX10M4 did everything I expected it to, with it's biggest weakness being the fine detail in my landscape images. I would give it a 9/10.

[edit]

I did just find this comparison with a M4/3 and a D800E, and thought it was very interesting.

http://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-between-full.html
http://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-part-2-between.html

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

If you are going into a new system I would suggest driving down to the Lens rental lot and giving each a good test drive.... You are going to invest substantial $$ and a serious commitment to a new system; actual look and feel sometimes Trumps specs. ( no pun intended ). Spend the money for the rentals...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

GH5s is for low light video. It has a “dual native ISO” of 400 and 2500. With 10.2 MP, it isn’t first pick for stills.

Serious video filmmakers want two of the GH5 and a GH5s. Serious stills photographers using Micro 4/3 want G9s or OM-D E-M1 Mark IIs. I’d be happy with a GH5.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

That test is similar to one I did with a friend’s help when I got my GH4. Our conclusions were similar.

Where Micro 4/3 starts to look different, sooner, is at progressively higher ISOs. As I get above 800 ISO, I start to see some noise and dial it back in Lightroom. My preference is to avoid anything higher than ISO 1600, but 2000 or 2400 can be quite usable.

If I worked often in available darkness, I’d worry about Micro 4/3. But so far, it’s not been a hindrance.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I really like the top deck look on the G9... maybe draw some EOS users in ? That " Casio " look has been around for a while and I personally like it. Might try a Lumix body down the line.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I used Canons for years. That top panel was one thing I don’t miss. Those readouts should be in the finder so you don’t have to put reading glasses on after taking your eye off the finder.

le boecere

Every time I see these debates and read such "tests" I wonder why the principle that makes the M4/3rd prowess (apparently) an irrefutable fact, does not also make it true of the infamous and very popular cameras with the 1" sensor. If the M4/3 can meet, match, or beat any camera with a larger sensor, why can't a (say) 1/1.7" sensor meet, match or beat any camera with a larger sensor?

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I am a 4/3rds user and all the test I have seen, including the one I have sighted in this thread, don't not state "the M4/3 can meet, match, or beat any camera with a larger sensor". It's just like Burkphoto mentioned in this thread; if one is consistently shooting in low light levels, the 4/3rds and smaller sensors do not make a good choice. And there are some UHHs that the smaller size is a handling problem along with menus different from standard Canon/Nikon menus and no optical viewfinder. And if one feels they need a forty or fifty megapixel sensor, they will not find it with 4/3rds except as a special shift mode that requires a good part of a second to take the picture. But for people that can handle the smaller, lighter, less costly size, don't mind an EVF, want 5.5 to 6.5 stops of image stability, and do not shoot a lot in low light levels, the 4/3rds and smaller cameras may be just right for them.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Perhaps, but generally there is a significant increase in the amount of noise with 1/1.7 sensors

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The point isn't whether Micro 4/3 "has prowess" or is "better than" any other format in an absolute sense. It is whether it can be used successfully for YOUR applications, in YOUR situations, in a manner that fulfills your photographic needs.

The simple fact is that EVERY photographic format ever made is superior to others for some tasks. In many cases, it matters that it is suitable for a RANGE of tasks. The tests linked above simply point out that, for the conditions chosen, Micro 4/3 is worthy of the task. For many of us, that is enough to say:

"I don't want to carry that full frame dSLR and heavy lenses around any longer." (Micro 4/3 native lenses weigh 1/3 to 1/4 what full frame lenses of equivalent coverage weigh.)
"I no longer need to endure finder blackout at the moment of exposure." (Electronic viewfinders don't have to black out.)
"I no longer need to put up with ANY camera noise." (Mirrorless cameras can have electronic shutters. They won't let anyone around you get distracted, or know you are photographing.)
"I no longer have to carry a separate video camera to record video and stills of the same subject matter for my training content." (Because one small camera does it all.)
"I no longer have to put up with crappy audio in my videos." (At least the Panasonic GH3, GH4, and GH5 series cameras have good pre-amps, limiters, meters, level controls, and external audio input options.)
"I no longer have to check camera cases as baggage, because my rig fits under an airline seat." (Applies to some of us.)
"I no longer have to use a big, imposing beast that draws attention at social events." (Micro 4/3 bodies may not be much smaller, but their lenses are.)
"I no longer have to play the stupid, "mine's bigger than yours" game." (Because I'm sneakier. And snarky-er!)
"I no longer have shutter shock OR mirror slap during macro photography." (Because I use the electronic shutter and trip it from a smartphone.)

For those and other benefits, some of us are willing to give up two stops of dynamic range and high ISO performance, and sell off all our old glass in favor of new Micro 4/3 lenses.

The format is far from perfect (ALL formats are imperfect), but the advantages are real for those who need them.