[Dan Rentea]

It has been six months since I've started a new full-time job, and after being out of the photography world for a while, I am writing with sadness that I will be buying into another camera system.

While the Pentax K-3 II and D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 lens has been instrumental to my work in the last year of my tenure as a sports photographer for my college, I have had a number of issues with this and my Pentax gear generally, ranging from AF sub-mirror delamination on my Pentax K-3 II to the gear simply being too large and heavy for me to carry on a daily basis. Ricoh's lack of significant technological progress over the last few years has not helped. After some thoughts about my requirements, I've decided that Micro Four Thirds is the way to go, and I'll be getting an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III, most likely in early April. It will be purchased in a kit with the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens.

For the time being, I am not selling any of my Pentax equipment, and may even get an adapter to reuse some of my existing Pentax glass (particularly the D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8). Indeed, I realize there are situations where there's ultimately no substitute for a traditional DSLR, and I have not ruled out getting Pentax's long-awaited APS-C flagship due to be released later this year. Also, Pentax has a line of ultra-compact primes that I have not fully explored...

Your thoughts on this?

Draco

Starting with this detail "sports photographer for my college" I'm not sure that going to a smaller sensor to which you add an f4 lens would help. Size and weight yes, performance on the other hand... I think there are better options. For example, for Sony APS-C there is the new Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 that weights 800g.

Please try to rent/borrow the Oly combo before buying it. I'm not saying that Oly doesn't make good cameras, but for similar price you probably can get a better deal, especially if shooting sport is still going to be one of your activities.

[ChristianRock]

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 series cameras are larger than the K-S1, plus they are able to be outfitted with battery grips. Ditto for the Panasonic G9, which is also of similar size to the K20D.

Well the people I know that shoot Olympus shoot with E-M5 and E-M10 models. Those are tiny.

E-M1 models are usually in the price range of full frame cameras...

[luftfluss]

Well the people I know that shoot Olympus shoot with E-M5 and E-M10 models. Those are tiny.

E-M1 models are usually in the price range of full frame cameras...

Fortunately, the OP specified that he intends to buy an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III, so we don't have to worry that he might be plagued by a tiny camera!

Of course, there is the old Panasonic GM1 - smaller even than a Pentax Q7!

[Sandy Hancock]

After some thoughts about my requirements,I'll be getting an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III, most likely in early April. It will be purchased in a kit with the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens.

Looking at the B&H website, that kit will cost you $2900USD! For half the sensor size and a vastly inferior lens from what you currently shoot.

the gear simply being too large and heavy for me to carry on a daily basis. Ricoh's lack of significant technological progress over the last few years has not helped.

Your K-3 is pretty long in the tooth. Would the new DFA 70-210 and a (new technology!) KP be a better fit for your needs?

[RobA_Oz]

I bought into the Olympus system with an OM-D EM-5 II, in the run-out lead up to the launch of the model III, just to test the mirrorless waters a little further. It was a relatively cheap supplement to my experience in the field (I already had a Fujifilm X30 – the lesson there was that, no matter how good the EVF might be, if the sensor’s too small or has poor low-light performance, it’s little if any better than an OVF). It’s fine for what it is, but I find I’m still hauling the K-1 around, most days, simply because the IQ is so much better.

[bwDraco]

Truth be told, it is a bit sad for me to take this first major step away from Pentax, but I still have hope that they'll come out with something awesome.

As for adapting lenses, I realize it isn't exactly optimal to adapt modern full-frame glass to M4/3, and I'll need a mount adapter with aperture control to use the D FA* 70-200mm, but I kinda want to be able to use what I already have. Of course, as others have suggested, I'll be looking into getting the M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO in the future, and possibly even the upcoming M.Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 PRO. Indoor sports photography is no longer a focus of mine so sensor size and lens speed aren't as critical as they used to be.

If I'm selling gear, it'll probably be later rather than sooner. I'm not entirely ready to leave the Pentax ecosystem.

@rawr: As far as I can tell, the E-M1 Mark III uses the same sensor as the one in the E-M1X and E-M1 Mark II. Low-light performance and dynamic range are at worst unchanged and at best slightly improved due to the new TruePic IX processor.

Draco

[luftfluss]

Looking at the B&H website, that kit will cost you $2900USD! For half the sensor size and a vastly inferior lens from what you currently shoot.


Your K-3 is pretty long in the tooth. Would the new DFA 70-210 and a (new technology!) KP be a better fit for your needs?

While the Oly setup is not exactly presenting the best value in terms of pure image quality, a case can be made that the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III + 12-100/4 PRO can mostly replace a Pentax KP + DA 16-85 + DA 50-135/2.8 + DA 100/2.8 Macro. The focal lengths among all those lenses wind up covering the same fields of view, and the Oly 12-100 is capable of 1:2 macro. The Pentax setup is ultimately capable of greater image quality, but the the Oly setup is no slouch and so portable and convenient. The Oly also has supercool tech like handheld hi-res mode, in-camera focus stacking, and amazing image stabilization (7.5 stops claimed).

[rawr]

@rawr: As far as I can tell, the E-M1 Mark III uses the same sensor as the one in the E-M1X and E-M1 Mark II.

If that turns out to be the case, you could probably save a decent amount just by getting a Mark II instead of the latest and greatest Mark III. Spend the savings on fast glass.

Be aware that Olympus has the lens release button on the left hand side, unlike sensible brands like Pentax and Sony. To me, it's a very annoying feature when I use other camera brands (eg Nikon) which also have the lens release button in the wrong place.

Less importantly, I also don't like the ugly font work on the front of the Mark III - 1980's stuff. Would not buy the Mark III on that basis alone.

[Rondec]

Starting with this detail "sports photographer for my college" I'm not sure that going to a smaller sensor to which you add an f4 lens would help. Size and weight yes, performance on the other hand... I think there are better options. For example, for Sony APS-C there is the new Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 that weights 800g.

Please try to rent/borrow the Oly combo before buying it. I'm not saying that Oly doesn't make good cameras, but for similar price you probably can get a better deal, especially if shooting sport is still going to be one of your activities.

I think Dan is right. If you are interested in sports photography and want to stay with a crop sensor, Sony APS-C or even a D500 will give you really good performance -- particularly as you probably should have f2.8 lens for the job.

[Ivan]

[/COLOR]Of course that it comes understand why people choose 4\3, need turn in the other forum...I will briefly say that my first camera was exactly M4\3.It was a random purchase, a second child appeared).I enjoyed it.I became interested in photography.Bought first APS-C,with 35mm F1. 8 at the moment the Nikon 5200 was a good camera, and now it looks good on tests, on TESTS.Then came the magic of the full frame...High-speed objects.Bought a Pentax for the soul).I thought a larger matrix would give me less noise, better photos.In my case, nothing but personal experience I don't priobrel, it was worth the money. My main camera is Oli 5M2, and it gives me excellent results even in dark conditions.At home in the evening I shoot only Olympus, without flash without a tripod), and ISO is not more than 1600.My 1.8 or 2.8 are excellent, they give me depth of field, quality.autofocus is weak for movement, I want to replace it with em1m_.

---------- Post added 02-27-20 at 01:18 PM ----------

I can't edit the text sorry.

[mecrox]

It has been six months since I've started a new full-time job, and after being out of the photography world for a while, I am writing with sadness that I will be buying into another camera system.

While the Pentax K-3 II and D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 lens has been instrumental to my work in the last year of my tenure as a sports photographer for my college, I have had a number of issues with this and my Pentax gear generally, ranging from AF sub-mirror delamination on my Pentax K-3 II to the gear simply being too large and heavy for me to carry on a daily basis. Ricoh's lack of significant technological progress over the last few years has not helped. After some thoughts about my requirements, I've decided that Micro Four Thirds is the way to go, and I'll be getting an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III, most likely in early April. It will be purchased in a kit with the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens.

For the time being, I am not selling any of my Pentax equipment, and may even get an adapter to reuse some of my existing Pentax glass (particularly the D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8). Indeed, I realize there are situations where there's ultimately no substitute for a traditional DSLR, and I have not ruled out getting Pentax's long-awaited APS-C flagship due to be released later this year. Also, Pentax has a line of ultra-compact primes that I have not fully explored...

Your thoughts on this?

Draco

I use a lot of Olympus equipment. The 12-100mm f4 is a fine lens and I have one. However, for what you have in mind the real workhorse is probably the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 (80-300mm equiv). This can be safely left on f2.8 while you shoot away. Superb quality at all lengths, built like a tank. I have taken more keepers with this than with any other lens. A 1.4x and a 2x teleconverter are available for it too. Both are quality, potentially extending the lens to 600mm at f5.6 but at that aperture you will want reasonable light. There are other, slower zooms in the Olympus and Panasonic stables but my experience is that with smaller sensors you want the fastest glass you can afford. I’ve found Olympus to be generally excellent and with top WR. Many love Panasonic gear just as much but Oly strikes me as better for action since Panny cameras lack phase detect AF. Two other top lenses which I don't have are the Panny 200mm f2.8 and the Oly 300mm f4.

However, as others have said there are several choices out there and it may be that a Nikon D500 say with an appropriate lens will offer better performance and value, and very possibly superior tracking AF which it sounds as if you will need. Unless you have set your heart on Oly, it would certainly be worth checking out other systems.This might especially apply if you are shooting indoors where low light could be an issue.

[bwDraco]

I've looked into the Nikon D500 myself but ultimately decided not to go in that direction because 1) it's still quite large and 2) the D500 is four years old.

It is true that the sensor and EVF used in the otherwise new E-M1 Mark III are not new and have been around for the last several years as well. However, after a trip to B&H to try it out (it was on display with the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 PRO attached), I came away impressed at the performance and compactness of this setup, being not much larger than the Panasonic FZ1000 I've been using the last couple of years. The autofocus, while not flawless, is exceedingly fast in low light and tracks moving targets much better than expected. While I'm pretty sure the Nikon D500 will outperform the E-M1 Mark III in AF and low-light performance, the D500 + 2.8/70-200 combination is substantially heavier than the E-M1.3 + 2.8/40-150 setup.

To be honest, this isn't an easy call. I'm still strongly leaning towards the mirrorless solution but will be looking at other possibilities as well.

Draco

[clackers]

I've looked into the Nikon D500 myself but ultimately decided not to go in that direction because 1) it's still quite large and 2) the D500 is four years old.

It is true that the sensor and EVF used in the otherwise new E-M1 Mark III are not new and have been around for the last several years as well. However, after a trip to B&H to try it out (it was on display with the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 PRO attached), I came away impressed at the performance and compactness of this setup, being not much larger than the Panasonic FZ1000 I've been using the last couple of years. The autofocus, while not flawless, is exceedingly fast in low light and tracks moving targets much better than expected. While I'm pretty sure the Nikon D500 will outperform the E-M1 Mark III in AF and low-light performance, the D500 + 2.8/70-200 combination is substantially heavier than the E-M1.3 + 2.8/40-150 setup.

To be honest, this isn't an easy call. I'm still strongly leaning towards the mirrorless solution but will be looking at other possibilities as well.

Draco

If you're into sports I'd stay away from that Olympus, Draco, honestly.

Obviously a D5 gets you full frame. A D500 only gets you APS-C, but it has the same AF hardware as the D5.

[luftfluss]

If you're into sports I'd stay away from that Olympus, Draco, honestly.

Obviously a D5 gets you full frame. A D500 only gets you APS-C, but it has the same AF hardware as the D5.

On balance, a new Oly kit will be as good or better than the Pentax kit the OP has previously shot sports with. He has stated he wants a kit that is smaller and lighter, so a D500 doesn't meet that requirement.

It is also possible that the OP has sufficient skill that he does not require top of the line AF.

[rawr]

It is also possible that the OP has sufficient skill that he does not require top of the line AF.

For sports or events, where you often need telephoto (ie a long, dark lens) and will be shooting in less than optimal lighting (evening, overcast, poor indoor lighting), decent low-light/high ISO performance is just as (if not more) important than top of the line AF.

In fact, in low-light camera AF will often go flaky, so it can be a double whammy - poor IQ + struggling AF. m4/3's sensors will usually be at a disadvantage here.