Binfocus

Captain bob brown : I accepted your challenge on the green blob challenge and did in fact google it as you suggested. My research found that most were experiencing the issue “green blob” as coming from direct contact with sunlight. One guy even held his camera up to the sun for the experience! At any rate...it’s a fixable solution.
I have owned Olympus 4/3 since the OMD-EM-5 days...no problems here with the “green blob” you call it. But of course I treat my camera as I do my eyes...don’t look directly into the sun!
Your comment is misleading.....

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Yes the 100-400mm L MII is an incredible and versatile one lens to carry.
I agree smaller lenses and try an SL-2 Canon. Weighs less and is as small as many mirrorless systems and will use all your current lenses natively.
Give that camera a chance before jumping ship.

wildweasel

Also no issues with a "green blob" with my Olympus EM1 Mark ll.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Check out the new G9 from Panasonic nicest view finder in da business fast fast focusing dual card slots, da best image quality ever in a lumix camera. Pair it with their 100-400 lens and you can go birding till da cows come home! They also introduced a 200 mm F 2.8

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Lumix, 23.21 oz
Canon SL 2, 15.98 oz

John Matthews Loc: Wasilla, Alaska

The omd em-1mark2 is a great camera, small, durable and no green blob anywhere on my view finder. I use it for sports all of the time with legacy lenses w/o issue and I am very happy with the results. The lenses you are considering are large for the 4/3 format but not nearly as large as the corresponding apsc/fullframe equivalent quality lenses.

I would note that you are currently using lenses with 2.8 aperture and moving to f4. The micro 4/3 sensor is “noisier” then larger others (if I am shooting above 3200 I prefer my canon 6d if I don’t need a long reach or high frame rate). The camara has very good autofocus capability but will not match a Nikon d500 or the top of the line Sony according to all the reviews I have read.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Another vote for Fuji - substantially lighter and smaller than your current setup and any extra weight compared to an M43 solution is more than offset by the extra stop of low light/high ISO performance of the larger sensor in my opinion.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Thanks for the tip I was thinking of getting a M43 Oly system to try but Fuji seems to have better quality of construction, and APSC to boot. Is the "green blob" problem really that prevalent?

fvatcha

I have been using the Fuji X-T2 for the past 18 months and couldn't be happier. I travel a lot and switched from the Canon 7D because it was too heavy to lug around on my trips. Fuji make some great lenses and the X-T2 mirrorless is very light and such a joy to use.

fvatcha

I have been using the Fuji X-T2 for the past 18 months and couldn't be happier. I travel a lot and switched from the Canon 7D because it was too heavy to lug around on my trips. Fuji make some great lenses and the X-T2 mirrorless is very light and such a joy to use.

Binfocus

👍

Binfocus

No. I haven’t experienced it at any time. Like I previously said...my research and reading the whys as to what causes it is direct sunlight. Olympus has put out a excellent 4/3 camera. Period.

Binfocus

👍

rcarol

That is true when comparing lenses for Sony's FF mirrorless camera to DSLR FF camera but not true for MFT. The lenses for MFT are much smaller and lighter than those for crop sensor or FF DSLRs.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I agree with robertjerl, you could lighten your load considerably without changing systems, might see less reduction than you think making a switch.

Canon 80D (24MP, APS-C) body weighs 26 oz. The BG-E14 battery grip adds 10 oz., of course, but is removable and gives you a whole lot more shots per charge, as well as the vertical controls. CIPA rating is 960 shots per battery per charge.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 II ($1700, 20MP, m4/3) body weighs 20 oz. Do you plan to get an HLD-9 battery grip for it? That weighs 9 oz. CIPA rating for the camera is 440 shots per battery per charge. (Mirrorless cameras use a lot more power, largely because of their electronic viewfinder and because the image sensor is "on" whenever you are using the viewfinder. I don't know if it's the case here, but they also often use smaller format batteries to save size & weight.)

So you'll save roughly half a lb. with the change in camera bodies.

Sigma lenses tend to be heavy, too... plus those f/2.8 zooms are hefty.

For example, Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS weighs 49 oz. In comparison, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM weighs 34 oz. (with the separately sold tripod ring). That's nearly 1 lb. less.

Canon 17-55mm is about the same size, weight as the Siggy 17-55... nothing to gain there (and you probably wouldn't want to downgrade to a lightweight kit lens like 18-55mm).

Olympus 12-100mm is about 20 oz. and would replace both 17-50mm (21 oz.) and 50-150mm (49 oz.), saving quite a bit of bulk and weight... 50 oz. or a little over 3 lb., in fact.

Your Sigma 120-400mm OS weighs 62 oz. In comparison, Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM weighs 46 oz. That's another 1 lb. savings. Oly 300mm f/4 weighs 52 oz.... 1/2 lb. heavier than that Canon.

The Canon 300mm f/4L is also a stop faster than your Sigma zoom at 300mm... That Canon prime has better image quality, too, even when paired up with a Canon 1.4X II to make it a 420mm f/5.6 (versus the Sigma zoom at 400mm without a TC... I haven't used that TC, so can't say if the 300mm would work as well with the Sigma 1.4X).

Of course, the Sigma 120-400mm has 100mm longer focal length and the conveniences of a zoom.

The Tamron 60mm f/2 macro you have is relatively small and light.... can serve dual purpose too, as a low light/portrait lens, thanks to it's unusually large aperture. (You mention wanting a fast prime for the Oly kit, but weren't specific).

So the Oly kit you propose will cost you around $5000 and end up saving you about 4 lb. You'll have 20% lower resolution camera and need to carry twice as many batteries to be able to take the same number of shots.

Or you could replace a couple f/2.8 lenses in your current kit to save about 2 lb.... at a cost of about $2600 ($1250 for EF 70-200/4L IS USM w/Tripod Ring A-2 and $1350 for EF 300mm f/4L IS USM).

And, as I mentioned... I don't know how the Sigma 1.4X works with the Canon EF 300/4L IS. I use the Canon 1.4X II with mine and the performance and results are excellent. It's almost as if there's no teleconverter at all. Probably no weight savings changing teleconverters. I imagine the Sigma 1.4X and Canon 1.4X weigh about the same (and you probably wouldn't need to use a TC with the Oly, since the m4/3 format gives a 2X lens factor).

That's a very big gap in focal lengths between the Oly 12-100 and 300mm lenses. Because of that, I bet you end up shopping for something in between, which of course will reduce the weight savings.

In either case, you can sell some of your current gear to recoup some of your cost. You'll have a lot more to sell if you opt to go to the Olympus mirrorless, of course.

Also, in either case you might be able to reduce your cost a bit buying some used items. For example, there's a new version of Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS that's been announced and will be coming soon, so I bet a lot of the original and still excellent version of that lens will be showing up on the used market when people rush to "upgrade" (I won't bother... The new "II" lens mostly appears to have upgraded to the latest generation IS... but what's on the original is quite good, too.) Also, the 300mm f/4L IS has been in production for 10+ years, so it's pretty easy to find a good copy of it used too (I paid $900 for mine in like-new, lightly used condition).