The images I recently took in Cuba are made with a new Sony A7RIII mirrorless camera with a manual Zeiss Loxia 35mm F2 lens. I sold my Nikon D800 and Olympus E-M5II at KEH without any trouble and picked up this new camera in Miami before I landed in Havana. So this combo was completely new to me on the trip through Cuba.
Why this Sony?
Most albums on this blog I made with the Nikon D800 (36Mp) from 2012 - 2015. (Amazonas 2015). On trips I lugged around with a bag of 4.5kg+. I got fed up with the bulk and weight of the DSLR body plus lenses, batteries and chargers. In 2016 I bought a small secondhand Olympus Pen E-P5 with some prime lenses. I took the camera with me whenever I left the house and was delighted. And I wrecked the E-P5 when being in the rain and touching the camera with wet, salty hands. So I bought a secondhand Olympus E-M5II (16Mp) I loved these Olympus cameras and felt the small sensor produced good images when the conditions were OK. Working on higher ISO gave problems, the dynamic range and 16Mp was limiting for my style of photography.
But still I wanted to switch to the latest generation E-M1II, which has a bit better sensor, and 2 quality prime lenses. (I am now convinced that a good 24Mp+ sensor needs the best quality glass and have to invest in them)
To my surprise this Olympus is be a bit more expensive, heavier and bigger then a Sony FF 24Mp A7III with 2 lenses.
This came as a shock to me. I realized that the only positive reason that sets Olympus M43 apart from FF and APS-C is that a smaller sensor makes smaller lenses possible and that counts more with longer (tele) lenses. The better IBIS and other feature of the Olympus cameras are not better by design but because other did not catch up yet.
Lens size; In wide angle and medium tele lenses the autofocus and in lens stabilization make the difference in size between Olympus M43 and FF lenses much less obvious. Diaphragms of f/.1- F/1.2 versus F2.8 too made the differences between M43 and FF lenses smaller. And Olympus has stepped too in the race for F/1.0-F/1.2 lenses, which results in monstrous big chunks of glass.
I think Olympus has only inherent benefits for its extremely light, small and good tele lenses for wildlife, birding and sports photography. With a small setup one benefits in price, weight and size and less complicated traveling by airplane. And one saves lugging around a heavy tripod when using a 500-600mm FF lens. But I have no interest in this type of photography.
If Olympus had developed an E-M5III with state of the art small and light F1.8-2 HQ primes (AF and manual), more in the Leica way but in a modest price range, I should have continued with Olympus.
After extensive evaluating specs and reviews I settled for Sony with manual Zeiss and Voigtlander manual prime lenses while FF gave a lot more headroom to take pictures in more challenging conditions and manual focus limits weight and seize a bit more.
The A7II (24Mp) was not available on short notice before I went to Cuba so it became the more expensive Sony A7RIII (42Mp) with a Zeiss 35mm F2 manual lens!!
The last time I had used manual focus was 40 years ago. But according to reviews the mirrorless cameras have excellent features to use manual lenses with ease. It was a gamble so I bought only one lens, de Zeiss Loxia 35mm F2. I preferred the Voigtlander 40mm F1.2 but that one was also not available on short notice.
I have abandoned zoom lenses. After analyzing my 9000 best images in Lightroom, it appeared I preferred the 20mm, 30-40mm and 75-85mm focus distant. Larger then 120mm I hardly used over the last 10 years.
I settle for a 21mm Voigtlander F3.5 Scopiar, the 35mm F2 Loxia and 75/85mm Voigtlander or Zeiss Loxia
I leave now the house with a combi of 1.6kg, a bit larger and heavier than the Olympus E-M5II but manageable. The Sony gives wonderful images with plenty of headroom to crop and lift shadows. And up to ISO 2000 the files are OK.
I am sure the Olympus E-M1II has better ergonomics and better IBIS. But the Sony is OK and gives a lot of pleasure with the results. Getting used to manual took a few weeks. I think AF is only a great benefit with lenses with an extreme shallow depth of field and fast sports and nature photography. I did have very few unsharp images and most of the time this happened while I forgot to focus due to 40 years use of AF.
To see the difference between FF (42Mp) and M43, look at the images of Cuba contra Jardin/Jericho which I have shot half year ago. I expect my quality as a photographer nor my way of processing has altered much.