The E mount line from Sony looks much more promising than there A mount line. The a6000 does look pretty good and you have the option to go full frame mirrorless later on if you buy into the FE lenses early.
Just a warning that Sony do like to shake the market, and release more cameras than lenses.
I started with a entry level A55v DSLR, which was one of the new SLT designs when they released a couple of years ago and the future looked bright, but now there focus seems shifted to these mirrorless systems like the RX1/RX1R/A7/A7R/A7S
Not saying that they will abandon the line E line later on, but they seem to take radical changes in the markets they want to appeal in, while this is good for innovation and choice, it's also bad for stability knowing they make stop supporting the mount later on down the line.
Again not trying to put you off Sony, they make some of the best sensors and there cameras are really good, but just look at the lens lineup before you buy into a system.
If you like landscapes, portraits and street photography, I would really say go mirrorless unless you need that extra resolution for landscapes or that more creamier dof/bokeh for portraiture.
So something like the EM-1, EM-5, EM-510, XT-1, X-PRO, XE-1, XE-2, A6000/5000, NEX line and the Panasonics.
For fast moving subjects like sports or bird watching or stuff that requires long zoom lenses, DSLRs are much more advantagous here, they have better motor drives and AF for that kind of stuff. A lot of the higher end models have better weather sealing as well for the rougher outdoors.
If you like sports, then something like the nikon 7000/7100, canon 70D/7D or pentax K5/K3, but your really need the uber-expensive models for this if this will be your focus.
Best thing to do is to go to a store physically hold them in your hands a get a feel for them, try the menus and see how you get on with them.
Find a DSLR with a decent lens and try to imagine if you'd be happy carrying that around your neck everytime you go out shooting, takes some pics and then do the same with a mirrorless camera and see which of the tradeoffs suits you better.
Mirrorless is definitely lighter and smaller and this is coming from someone who has a A55v probably one of the smallest DSLR's, yet once you add lenses and filters, they start becoming a chore to carry, can't imagine walking around with a D4 or 1DX around my neck for a full day.
Of course there's always those who will say the APS-C/M43 sensors in mirrorless systems aren't up to par with full frame cameras, they're probably right, but it's minimal at best at low ISO's. Maybe the DOF is more creamier and smoother and the image may not look as good under a pixel peepers eye, but at the end of the day, the sensors are so good now that it's hardly worth fighting over.
If you go full frame, then be prepared to shell out some major $$$ for lenses that are made for full frame.
I personally would only look into full frame if I thought the larger sensors would benefit me, but at this point I'm nowhere near enough good enough to warrant using full frame.
Were DSLRs excel is they're much more versatile and generally have larger sensors has you move up the line into the enthusiast/prosumer line of bodies.
The entry level DSLRs and most of the cheap lenses are very plasticky, again this doesn't stop them taking great photos, but this may put you off if you're looking for something that feels like quality in your hands.
Canon/Nikon seem to cripple their entry level cameras to justify there higher end cameras, things like not having 100% viewfinders, some bodies not having AF motors and generally removing features to entice you to upgrade to full frame.
That's why Pentax seems to shine, while having no full frame route is bad for people wanting to upgrade to full frame, it also pays off for customers because they don't cripple or design the cameras any less.
But again Canon/Nikon have a better lens lineup and and your more likely to find stuff available in shops than other brands.
Canon and Nikon have some great fast lenses that Pentax lacks, especially 1.2f primes, but these come at real expense.
What do you think of the a6000 Sony's about to put out? I have no problem with spending a few hundred dollars over the $1000 budget I talked about, I'm just trying to figure out if what's going to be a smarter purchase right now.
The hardest part for me is that I don't know exactly what I'm looking for yet and what types of pictures I'll finally settle into taking (assuming I enjoy the hobby), so I know that what ever I get, I'll probably be happy with and will work for me. Still, I enjoy buying semi-quality equipment, regardless if I've been doing something for years or just getting into it.
The A6000 looks like a very nice camera, and the NEX6 that it replaces was a nice camera too. The thing with Sony E mount is, make sure they have the lenses you want now, and don't expect them to release them in the future if they don't.
The E mount system is still lacking compared to M43rds, but it has a decent selection that covers most things.
Here's a number of lenses missing off the top of my head from the E system that M43rds has:
1. Pro style F2.8 weather sealed standard zoom (m43 has two, 12-35/2.8 and 12-40/2.8)
2. Pro style F2.8 weather sealed telephoto zoom (m43 has one 35-100/2.8, and another 40-140/2.8 which should be out later this year)
3. High quality short telephoto prime (m43: 75/1.8 )
4. Long telephoto prime, M43 doesn't have it yet but probably 2015 (Olympus 300/4)
5. Long telephoto zoom (m43 has 2, 75-300 and 100-300)
6. 90-120mm-sh macro prime (m43 has both, 45/2.8 and 60/2.8 )
7. Any lens faster than F1.8 (m43 has 42.5/1.2 and 25/1.4)
Choosing between Mirrorless and a DSLR all depends on what your needs are. As someone who almost exclusively shoots wildlife and landscapes (let's face it, you can never have enough light in the wee hours of the morning under a thick cover of trees, not can you get enough resolution for a full landscape shot), a mirrorless just wouldn't do the trick for me. 24-36mp allows me to crop a lot more, noise reduction is much, much better/easier, low-light performance is better, and autofocus speed is absolutely crucial for getting that shot of animals in their natural habitat.
I'm currently using a Nikon D7000, which is 16mp, and it's doing the job just fine, but there are definitely times I wish I had the extra pixels, especially when shooting birds and landscapes. Everything I shoot is either in low-light, moves fast, needs a buttload of detail, or all of the above. Therefore, DSLR is the obvious choice, and mirrorless is a no-go, but that is just my personal preference!
Choosing between Mirrorless and a DSLR all depends on what your needs are. As someone who almost exclusively shoots wildlife and landscapes (let's face it, you can never have enough light in the wee hours of the morning under a thick cover of trees, not can you get enough resolution for a full landscape shot), a mirrorless just wouldn't do the trick for me. 24-36mp allows me to crop a lot more, noise reduction is much, much better/easier, low-light performance is better, and autofocus speed is absolutely crucial for getting that shot of animals in their natural habitat.
Makes sense.
I'm currently using a Nikon D7000, which is 16mp, and it's doing the job just fine, but there are definitely times I wish I had the extra pixels, especially when shooting birds and landscapes. Everything I shoot is either in low-light, moves fast, needs a buttload of detail, or all of the above. Therefore, DSLR is the obvious choice, and mirrorless is a no-go, but that is just my personal preference!
Oh, but a D7000? Same resolution as EM1, and only half a stop better at high ISO. I shot extensively with an A580, which has the same 16MP Sony sensor as the D7000, and practical differences between that and the EM1/EM5 are very small. I find lens quality much more important actually, a great lens on my EM1 outperforms a good lens on the A580.
D7000 is probably better at AF tracking than the EM1, D7100 certainly is, and most other mirrorless cameras (aside from XT1 and A6000) suck at AF tracking, so that's probably enough reason to avoid them for wildlife, plus lack of long lenses for Fuji/Sony.
I'm curious, what lens are you using on the D7000 for wildlife?
I agree! Sony has awesome sensors in their mirrorless bodies. As you pointed out, slower autofocus makes it pretty unattractive to me. How is the weather sealing on the EM1/EM5? The D7000 has survived falls onto sharp rocks from 6 feet up, being completely drenched in saltwater, blizzards and sandstorms. Still works like a charm.
I know for sure that AF tech will improve over the years, so my other concern is survivability to the elements, and the cold.
As for the lenses I use, it really depends on what I'm shooting. I've used the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for a long time, but it is a very slow lens. It has pretty good IQ, but the main reason I keep it with me is because of the VERY good optical stabilization. I'm able to get sharp shots, handheld, at 1/20-1/40th @300mm. The VR has saved my butt at dusk when things are quite dark.
I also have the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Sharpest lens I've ever shot with, blazing fast AF, best Vibration Reduction of the bunch. Yes, it is a macro lens, and it's a bit on the short end for wildlife, but with it being much faster than my 70-300mm, as well as significantly sharper, I'm able to crop and get a lot out of it. I am in love with that lens. Macro lenses are GREAT for portraits, too.
Lately, my friend lent me his 70-200 f/2.8, and boy, it's incredible. Same IQ as the 105mm, but longer reach.
I've been longing (no pun intended) for something much longer though, around the 500mm mark. Unfortunately, fast super-tele's are ridiculously expensive. I've read about Tamron's new 150-600mm f/5-6.3, and I'm curious. Problem is, it's quite slow, but that extra reach sounds amazing.
For landscapes, it depends on my shots. I use the 70-300mm to get a nice compression of the background, some of my best landscape shots were captured with this lens. My favorite lens for landscape though, is the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8. Super sharp, pretty fast, though I'm always stopping down to F/12-14 for landscapes anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Canon EF 50mm 2.5 macro falls into that price range, but that is a 1:2 macro (which means it doesn't focus quite as close as a 1:1 macro, but still very close).
Tamron 90mm 2.8 also falls into that price range for a used copy, especially one of the older models (all are good). Its a 1:1 macro and at 90mm you get more working distance (you'll be further from your subject which is important for anything that moves, and you won't block your light).
Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX DG, 1:1 macro lens, similar to the Canon 50/2.5 but does 1:1. Beware older versions as they may not be compatible with DSLRs/only do 1:2. Used or maybe even new can be found in that price range-ish.
Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX DG, another 1:1 macro, is also a good bet, but probably in the $350-400 range used.
Macro lenses are almost universally extremely good lenses, with good, even sharpness across the frame, and are slow (and sometimes loud) to AF. Though many people stick to MF for macro lenses.
Awesome, thanks for all the info, super helpful. I think I will look into getting a used Tamron 90mm 2.8 as it seems to be the best fit for what I would want
I agree! Sony has awesome sensors in their mirrorless bodies. As you pointed out, slower autofocus makes it pretty unattractive to me.
Actually, the speed isn't the issue at all. Really, with most M43rds lenses, and the newer bodies, focusing is crazy fast, much faster than most DSLR bodies/lens combos. For single AF at least, CDAF simply can't track very well though, so fast subject movement is hard. But even my EM5 when used with a prime, has fast enough AF to catch some subject motion in single AF mode, which is quite astounding really.
How is the weather sealing on the EM1/EM5? The D7000 has survived falls onto sharp rocks from 6 feet up, being completely drenched in saltwater, blizzards and sandstorms. Still works like a charm.
I have not had a chance to really stress it. I've dropped my EM1 in the snow a couple times. The EM1 is listed as splash and freeze proof. Check this out though: http://youtu.be/N9Omqui0SoI?t=5m1s
I know for sure that AF tech will improve over the years, so my other concern is survivability to the elements, and the cold.
Yeah the hybrid CDAF+PDAF(which the EM1 has) is going to only get better and better as processing power in cameras improves, we've seen rapid improvement in just the last year or so, exciting stuff really.
As for the lenses I use, it really depends on what I'm shooting. I've used the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for a long time, but it is a very slow lens. It has pretty good IQ, but the main reason I keep it with me is because of the VERY good optical stabilization. I'm able to get sharp shots, handheld, at 1/20-1/40th @300mm. The VR has saved my butt at dusk when things are quite dark.
So I've got the Panasonic 100-300mm 4-5.6, which means 600mm equivalent. The OIS of that lens, and the IBIS in the EM1 are pretty close, I can get shutter speeds down to similar levels, though when we're talking wildlife, I find It difficult to get anything usable at less than 1/250th, especially with birds and the tiny little micro movements that they make. I need to do more work with this lens, hopefully I will get a chance now that the weather is nicer. This lens is about the size of your 70-300mm btw, actually a bit smaller and lighter.
I also have the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Sharpest lens I've ever shot with, blazing fast AF, best Vibration Reduction of the bunch. Yes, it is a macro lens, and it's a bit on the short end for wildlife, but with it being much faster than my 70-300mm, as well as significantly sharper, I'm able to crop and get a lot out of it. I am in love with that lens. Macro lenses are GREAT for portraits, too.
Yeah the Nikkor 105 is pretty much legendary. On M43 the Olympus 75/1.8 is probably very close (except for the macro capability) being one of the sharpest lenses in the system, and very portable for a 150mm equiv. One of my favorite lenses. 75/1.8 samples: http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=28511&page=179
Lately, my friend lent me his 70-200 f/2.8, and boy, it's incredible. Same IQ as the 105mm, but longer reach.
Yeah I had the Sigma EX DG version, while not quite as good as the Nikon its a very good lens, only problem is it weighs 3 pounds so I almost never used it. I may pick up a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 though, its absolutely tiny: http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.366,7.107,ha,t
The 35-100 won't have quite the same reach as a 70-200 on an APS-C body, but Olympus is coming out with a 40-150/2.8 that will.
I've been longing (no pun intended) for something much longer though, around the 500mm mark. Unfortunately, fast super-tele's are ridiculously expensive. I've read about Tamron's new 150-600mm f/5-6.3, and I'm curious. Problem is, it's quite slow, but that extra reach sounds amazing.
I've personally used the Tamron 200-500mm, a very good lens. But huge, and slow, and slow to focus. Its difficult getting enough light/fast enough shutter speed for a 750mm equivalent lens. But the only alternative is a 500/4 at 9 pounds at $8.5K. I think the 150-600 is as good/better than the 200-500, but its even bigger still. Maybe look at a used 200-500mm, for $700-ish, not so bad then.
For landscapes, it depends on my shots. I use the 70-300mm to get a nice compression of the background, some of my best landscape shots were captured with this lens. My favorite lens for landscape though, is the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8. Super sharp, pretty fast, though I'm always stopping down to F/12-14 for landscapes anyway, so it doesn't matter.
The Panasonic 7-14/4 (14-28mm equiv) is a fantastic lens, and lives on my camera whenever I'm doing cityscapes and the like, such a useful focal length for cramped spaces. I like something a bit longer for landscapes too, I'll often use a 25mm or 45mm prime.
Awesome, thanks for all the info, super helpful. I think I will look into getting a used Tamron 90mm 2.8 as it seems to be the best fit for what I would want
Yeah that would be my top recommendation on that list too.
Actually, the speed isn't the issue at all. Really, with most M43rds lenses, and the newer bodies, focusing is crazy fast, much faster than most DSLR bodies/lens combos. For single AF at least, CDAF simply can't track very well though, so fast subject movement is hard. But even my EM5 when used with a prime, has fast enough AF to catch some subject motion in single AF mode, which is quite astounding really.
I have not had a chance to really stress it. I've dropped my EM1 in the snow a couple times. The EM1 is listed as splash and freeze proof. Check this out though: http://youtu.be/N9Omqui0SoI?t=5m1s
Yeah the hybrid CDAF+PDAF(which the EM1 has) is going to only get better and better as processing power in cameras improves, we've seen rapid improvement in just the last year or so, exciting stuff really.
So I've got the Panasonic 100-300mm 4-5.6, which means 600mm equivalent. The OIS of that lens, and the IBIS in the EM1 are pretty close, I can get shutter speeds down to similar levels, though when we're talking wildlife, I find It difficult to get anything usable at less than 1/250th, especially with birds and the tiny little micro movements that they make. I need to do more work with this lens, hopefully I will get a chance now that the weather is nicer. This lens is about the size of your 70-300mm btw, actually a bit smaller and lighter.
Yeah the Nikkor 105 is pretty much legendary. On M43 the Olympus 75/1.8 is probably very close (except for the macro capability) being one of the sharpest lenses in the system, and very portable for a 150mm equiv. One of my favorite lenses. 75/1.8 samples: http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=28511&page=179
Yeah I had the Sigma EX DG version, while not quite as good as the Nikon its a very good lens, only problem is it weighs 3 pounds so I almost never used it. I may pick up a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 though, its absolutely tiny: http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.366,7.107,ha,t
The 35-100 won't have quite the same reach as a 70-200 on an APS-C body, but Olympus is coming out with a 40-150/2.8 that will.
I've personally used the Tamron 200-500mm, a very good lens. But huge, and slow, and slow to focus. Its difficult getting enough light/fast enough shutter speed for a 750mm equivalent lens. But the only alternative is a 500/4 at 9 pounds at $8.5K. I think the 150-600 is as good/better than the 200-500, but its even bigger still. Maybe look at a used 200-500mm, for $700-ish, not so bad then.
The Panasonic 7-14/4 (14-28mm equiv) is a fantastic lens, and lives on my camera whenever I'm doing cityscapes and the like, such a useful focal length for cramped spaces. I like something a bit longer for landscapes too, I'll often use a 25mm or 45mm prime.
Well, hang on a sec, we're comparing completely different sensors. We could probably go on and on with the pros and cons of each. There's so many differences in terms of cost, size, weight, Dynamic Range, bokeh, noise, etc etc. M4/3, APS-C, Full-Frame, each have their advantages, IMO.
Where smaller sensors really shine is the long-range tele. I've considered getting a Nikon 1 mirrorless, getting the F-mount adapter and running my 70-300mm on it. The 2.7x crop factor would give me an 810mm focal length, which would be amazing for wildlife, if only it were a bit brighter and the low-light performance were better on smaller sensors.
Something I like to bear in mind are the ergonomics as well. I don't know about you guys, but small cameras just feel horribly awkward in my hands, no matter how light. Even using a small prime lens on my D7000 feels unbalanced, I like the weight and stability of a big lens. The 105mm f/2.8 despite being a prime, is build like a tank, it's heavy, stable, and I love it.
Where smaller sensors also do well is for macro, from what I've seen. It is easier to get greater magnification as well as a greater depth of field as opposed to APS-C, and Full-Frame. I often have to stop down to f/14-16 to get enough of an insect in focus. Like this:
I think the megapixel race is over, for now, despite having DSLR's entering the medium format range (D800, for example). What I want is better noise performance. I recall reading about Canon working on a sensor with ridiculously huge photosites for capturing the most detail in near-pitch black darkness.
Well, hang on a sec, we're comparing completely different sensors. We could probably go on and on with the pros and cons of each. There's so many differences in terms of cost, size, weight, Dynamic Range, bokeh, noise, etc etc. M4/3, APS-C, Full-Frame, each have their advantages, IMO.
---Sorry, didn't see your response here until now.
Yeah of course, though there isn't too much to argue about, if we use M43rds as a baseline and assume current generation sensors:
APS-C gives 2/3rds stop narrower DOF at the same aperture and equiv focal length and about 2/3rds stop better high ISO noise and dynamic range
FF gives 2 stops narrower, and 1.5-2 stops better high iso/DR
Saying all that, in terms of noise/dr, my EM1 gets pretty close to a Canon 5DII or my Sony A900 that I just sold. Actually better dynamic range than a 5DII, which is pretty crazy. I think we're to the point where everything M43 and up is good enough for 95% of uses. Only real exceptions are extreme low light, making massive prints.
2/3rds of a stop between M43rds and APS-C, I think this gets blown ridiculously out of proportion on the internet/camera forums/etc, and I say that having shot extensively with all 3 systems. The difference between M43 and FF is a noticeable one, and so is the size, weight and cost(generally). But the difference between APS-C and M43? Ah well, this is probably the bit you meant we could argue about. :poly124:
Where smaller sensors really shine is the long-range tele. I've considered getting a Nikon 1 mirrorless, getting the F-mount adapter and running my 70-300mm on it. The 2.7x crop factor would give me an 810mm focal length, which would be amazing for wildlife, if only it were a bit brighter and the low-light performance were better on smaller sensors.
Big advantages at the long end, but also big advantages in size/weight at the wide end as well. My 7-14(14-28mm equiv) is absolutely tiny compared to a similar FF UWA zoom. Really, all around M43rds has a big size/weight advantage. To me this means I can take more gear with me, which makes me a happy guy.
Nikon 1 is interesting, its a shame they don't really have a great sensor in those cameras. If they put Sony's 1" sensor from the RX100/RX10 into those cameras they would be really interesting. Nikon also seems to purposely cripple those cameras in fear that they will cut thier low end DSLR sales, its a shame, I feel if they went full effort there they could put out something interesting. Same with Canon and the EOS M, just a half baked system.
If we go by basic sensor size = image quality metrics (which match up accurately with M43, APS-C and FF), than the Nikon 1 system punches below its weight, being 1.3 stops or so worse at high iso/DR than M43 (it should be closer to 0.7 if sensor efficiency was even).
Something I like to bear in mind are the ergonomics as well. I don't know about you guys, but small cameras just feel horribly awkward in my hands, no matter how light. Even using a small prime lens on my D7000 feels unbalanced, I like the weight and stability of a big lens. The 105mm f/2.8 despite being a prime, is build like a tank, it's heavy, stable, and I love it.
I agree here to an extent, I don't get along well with the tiny mirrorless bodies, especially the small NEX's with still rather large lenses, it all feels terribly unbalanced.
The EM1 on the other hand has absolutely fantastic ergonomics, easily as good as most mid-range DSLRs like the 70D, D7100, etc. It could stand to be 5-10% bigger, but if feels almost perfect in my hands.
Really to me, I feel like M43 is the perfect balance of size, weight, and image quality. I can take my EM1, 7-14/4, 25/1.4, and 42.5/1.2 in a very small messenger bag and carry it around all day and basically not feel it. To me its less the weight of a specific camera, or a specific lens, but the weight of carrying around a system. With a FF kit or even most APS-C DSLRs kits I really feel that weight even after a half hour or so. Really depends on the person of course and your tolerance for lugging around huge cameras/bags/lenses.
Where smaller sensors also do well is for macro, from what I've seen. It is easier to get greater magnification as well as a greater depth of field as opposed to APS-C, and Full-Frame. I often have to stop down to f/14-16 to get enough of an insect in focus. Like this:
In theory the wider inherent DOF of M43 is better for macro, but not really in practice. On APS-C, you can stop the lens down 2/3rds stops, and bump the ISO 2/3rds stops and get essentially the same DOF and image quality. Same for FF, stop down 2 stops and bump ISO 2 stops. There is no free lunch here really.
The same sort of works in reverse though, if you've gotta bump ISO and stop down to get the same DOF, for macro, or lowlight in general (where getting *enough* in focus is often a struggle), you're essentially throwing away that bigger sensor advantage.
I think the megapixel race is over, for now, despite having DSLR's entering the medium format range (D800, for example). What I want is better noise performance. I recall reading about Canon working on a sensor with ridiculously huge photosites for capturing the most detail in near-pitch black darkness.
Yep, 16MP is all I really need even for quite large prints, over that and you get diminishing returns and file storage issues. High ISO is clearly the latest marketing trend, though honestly I care more about dynamic range than ISO at this point (they tend to go together tho so I will gladly take improvements with both). Even my EM1 can shoot usable at ISO3200, and good enough at 6400 or even higher for web viewing or small prints, coupled with a fast lens that means shooting all but the lowest of light.
I ended up buying the a6000 with a 35mm 1.8 prime, should be here tomorrow. Any specific memory cards you guys recommend?
Been looking into them for a couple days, seems pretty straight forward. The quicker the better, larger storage capacity, etc.
Cool, the A6000 looks like a really good camera in that price point.
I have a Sony 94MBPS 16GB card that I like, it's not as fast as a Sandisk 95MBPS when it comes to write speeds (45mbs vs 90mbs) but you can sometimes find the Sony card at half the price or so, and I can't tell much of a difference in write speeds in real use.
Also my Sandisk 95mbs card gives me card errors, think I may have gotten a bum one, sort of scares me off of using that card/buying more of the same.
Sup polycount,
So lately I've been feeling the urge to get into photography and in turn pick up an entry level (ish) DSLR just for messing around with.
I've spent the better part of the last week reading reviews on a variety of cameras, all of which are floating around the £400-450 mark, as that's about as high as I'm willing to go for the hardware at the moment. So far I'm pretty settled on getting a Nikon, as that's what I've been familiar with in the past although that could change.
But before I did, as it is a fair few quid, I wanted to, hopefully, hear from some of you photography folk on whether or not it would be a complete waste of money; and if there is in fact something that's a better all rounder out there for someone wanting to start to get into it.
These days I have a hard time recommending an entry level DSLR over a mirrorless camera. Mirrorless cameras (Sony NEX, Olympus/Panasonic M43rds, Fuji X) give you the same or better image quality, the same or better AF, and are generally significantly smaller than even the smallest entry level DSLRS (moreso when you consider lenses).
With a mirrorless camera you get a much smaller camera, and the lenses tend to be smaller as well. Personally I've sold off all of my heavy pro style DSLR gear for mirrorless equipment. The biggest reason? I actually take the mirrorless kit out of the house and use it. So really ask yourself, if you're going to spend that much money on a camera, how often will it leave the house? Will you mind hauling it around? Will it sit at home most of the time while you take cellphone pictures instead?
Mirrorless cameras do tend to be more expensive though, and they lack optical viewfinders. Electronic viewfinders these days are quite good though, and offer serious advantages (live exposure and white balance preview) over OVFs. An EVF generally won't replace a high end OVF on pro level cameras for tracking sports (Canon 1D, Nikon D4, etc), but they are generally significantly better than the small, dark viewfinders in entry level dslrs like the D5300 or Canon Rebel. EVFs do not come on all mirrorless cameras though, usually only the mid-high end models which cost more. Panasonic GX7, Olympus EM10, Sony A6000 and Fuji EX2 would be good examples of mid-range mirrorless cameras with viewfinders, I think all are a bit more than the D5300.
All that said, the D3300 is a very good entry level camera, and will give a big step up in image quality over a point and shoot or a cell phone.
You should also think about lenses. A camera is only as good as the lens you put on it, so you need to factor that into your budget. If you plan on getting a entry level DSLR and sticking with the kit lens, DONT. There are better fixed lens compact options if that's all you want, like a Sony RX100II or RX100III if you want a viewfinder.
Now with all of that out of the way, what/how/where will you use the camera? Its hard to give specific recommendations without more details.
Hmm. I've been thinking of making the switch to mirrorless as well. I currently have a D5100 and it's kind of a pain to carry around when I'm out. I just end up using a point-and-shoot most days.
What do you all think of the Fujifilm X20? Seems to be a great balance between portability and function.
Hmm. I've been thinking of making the switch to mirrorless as well. I currently have a D5100 and it's kind of a pain to carry around when I'm out. I just end up using a point-and-shoot most days.
What do you all think of the Fujifilm X20? Seems to be a great balance between portability and function.
I'm very happy with the switch. I sold off thousands of dollars of FF/APS-C dslr cameras and lenses, and bought M43 stuff, my current gear is around half the weight now, I can go out with my EM1 and a small messenger bag with 2-4 lenses thats a just a few pounds total, and carry it around all day without any real fatigue.
The X20 seems like a nice high end compact, I haven't used it though. I'm a little skeptical of these compacts that are near the size of a mirrorless camera though. If I'm going to go that big, I might as well have a EM10/GX7 or something and a pancake lens, and have the option to throw different lenses on it. I would probably go with one of the RX100's over the X20, as it has a bigger sensor/better image quality in a smaller size. The version III has a pop up EVF too which is brilliant.
Cheers for the advice! Really useful stuff and mirrorless cameras sound interesting, hadn't heard much at all about them but going to have a hunt through whats around now!
I was planning on simply using it as a general camera as I've found myself taking a lot more photos lately and I'm getting sick of my super old compact and phone. It's the kind of thing I'd like to be able to carry about without much hassle, so it sounds like DSLRs might not really be the best option.
Going to have a hunt through some of the cameras you mentioned and see what peaks my interest. Thanks again, I'm sure I'll be back here shortly once I get to the lens buying stage
Just to jump in on some info- I've recently purchased a mirrorless, and I think it is pretty awesome.
I researched the topic for weeks before I made my purchase. I had my eyes on the fujifilm x-m1 for a long time. Ultimatly I was sold on the Samsung NX300. It fit my budget nicely and has all the options I could ever ask for. can't wait to get a pancake lens for it!
Been reading through the last few pages of this thread. Some very helpful advice.
I'm considering selling my Canon 650D (T4I) and Lenses and going for something like a used Fuji X100 or a Olympus EM5. One reason is for money to help build a new PC. The wide angle lens alone can almost cover the cost of a new camera and I don't use the camera enough to justify having it with multiple lenses. I'm also not a fan of carrying around different lenses (most of the time), I pretty much just use two. Wide angle for landscapes and a prime for portrait / street.
I hike a lot and rock climb so I would prefer something smaller with just one lens to carry but I don't want to sacrifice much in image quality.
Heres what I am looking at so far, any recommendations for other cameras around the same price range would be great.
Fuji X100 (the older model not the new 100s) I seen some pics from the X100 I was impressed with but worried that being only 12MP it may not be the best in landscapes. The screen is also very small. Apart from that from what I read online it seems great. I also enjoy using a fixed lens.
Olympus EM5. This is more expensive, but I had an E-PL1 before the canon and I really liked it. The EM5 reminds me of this but just better everywhere.
Im going to look into the Fuji X20 after seeing it in this thread as well as a few others that were mentioned.
My main uses would be street / night photography and landscapes. Thats basically all I take pics of. Having a decent macro would be a plus. Im 90% committed to selling all my equipment for a smaller camera, I just need to find the right one now and any help + advice on what to get would be great.
The X100 is an excellent camera if you can live with the fixed 35mm equivalent focal length. The older model is pretty slow to focus I think and may have some other quirks, though there were some improvements through firmware.
The EM5 is a great camera too, I have one along with the EM1. The question there would be which lens? Maybe the 12-35/2.8 or 12-40/2.8 (focuses very close, I think 1:3, I doubles for me as a macro), both are quite good and will give you more range than the X100 while covering your basic requirements. Though both are pretty expensive and not exactly small as well. You could go with the 17/1.8 (faster af) or 20/1.7 (smaller, but slower AF and banding at high iso on the EM5) and have a prime lens very similar to the X100, but unless you're going to get more lenses (there are many good ones for M43rds) there isn't much of a point to that over the X100.
An EM5 with a 17/1.8 or 12/2 for landscapes/street and a 45/1.8 for portraits makes a very strong kit, and this was my basic kit when I first started using M43rds as a secondary kit to my DSLRs, I was so happy with the results from this basic kit that I went into M43 wholesale. Very light, very small, exceptional lenses and the kit will do everything but tracking for sports, extremely narrow depth of feild, and extreme high ISO/low light, 3200 is good, 6400 is usable for web viewing and beyond that is really only emergencies only, but this is basically the same with your Rebel.
Oh also, if you're shooting landscapes or cityscapes at night, you can use really slow shutter speeds hand held with the IBIS in the EM5 (provided you don't need to freeze motion) which means keeping ISO low and negating some of the image quality benifits Fuji X100 sensor has.
If you find your gear too heavy to take out, I definitely recommend swapping. A camera is only as good as the photos you actually take, and cameras left on the shelf can't take photos.
I have an Olympus EPL1 which I love. Small enough to take any where. Went all over Cambodia with it and 2 lenses, it takes great shots easily and weighs nothing. Probably a bit outdated now but will upgrade the body at some point. So much easier than a standard sized DSLR.
Damn! Got logged out during my reply so had to retype everything!
Earthquake : Thanks a lot, your post is a great help.
The EM5 really looks brilliant, like it pretty much does everything I would need. The only thing is the lenses can be quite expensive. The 12-40/2.8 or 17/1.8 would be the lens I would choose I think. But again, its whether I want to spend that much.
At the minute the X100 is about the same as a EM5 Body cost wise. However I have been reading on the slow focus though you mentioned and I think this could annoy me depending on how bad it is and how much the firmware helps it. No IS as well is another down point. I also read it can be awkward to use, but if you get used to it then it can be great and images are very good.
I think for me it will have to come down to could I live with the fixed lens and can I afford to pay the extra for the EM5 as I have a new PC to think about as well.
The only other option I could maybe try is holding onto the Rebel and getting rid of all my lenses and going for a 24mm pancake lens. I have a 40mm pancake at the moment which is great IQ wise and makes the camera look very small compared to having a zoom lens. However its to long for my everyday needs. I would need the equivalent of 35mm full frame. But again would there be any point keeping the canon if I'm just going to have a fixed pancake lens on it.
I'll keep reading up on it and searching for some good deals locally before deciding what to do. Thanks again for the help though. Anymore advice or recommendations on other cameras would be more than welcome.
Easter: I really loved my E-PL1 as well, was fun to use and really like the different modes it had. For the price of it, it performs really well.
Damn! Got logged out during my reply so had to retype everything!
Earthquake : Thanks a lot, your post is a great help.
The EM5 really looks brilliant, like it pretty much does everything I would need. The only thing is the lenses can be quite expensive. The 12-40/2.8 or 17/1.8 would be the lens I would choose I think. But again, its whether I want to spend that much.
Yeah, going with the EM5 isn't really a value proposition, and the good lenses are relatively expensive. You should look into the EM10 as well, a little smaller, a few extra features (like wifi), but a few downgrades as well (smaller EVF, smaller battery, no weather sealing).
Look into the used market as well, you can probably find the EM5 body for $500, the 17/1.8 for $350, the 45/1.8 for $250-300. Even if you don't feel comfortable getting the body used, I would highly recommend the lenses. You can often find used excellent/like new M43 gear that people barely use and resell for significant discounts. I've purchased most of my lenses that way (I only buy new lenses where there isn't a significant discount to be had or its brand new and not available used.
At the minute the X100 is about the same as a EM5 Body cost wise. However I have been reading on the slow focus though you mentioned and I think this could annoy me depending on how bad it is and how much the firmware helps it. No IS as well is another down point. I also read it can be awkward to use, but if you get used to it then it can be great and images are very good.
Having owned a Fuji XE1 and briefly used at X100, my general opinion of these cameras is that they are quirky, and slow to use. Great if your style is slow, deliberate, calculated, etc. Great for landscapes or other subject matter that isn't fleeting. The AF, and general operation on Fuji cameras (I think the XT1 is an exception) tends to be slow. They also have more traditional full manual controls, which is cool in a sense, but can be slower in operation too, depends on how you work.
Overall, something like the EM5 will be significantly more responsive in pretty much every way. If you can try them out in a store before hand I would really recommend it.
I think for me it will have to come down to could I live with the fixed lens and can I afford to pay the extra for the EM5 as I have a new PC to think about as well.
Yeah, if you can live with a fixed 35 (and some people can) the X100 is a good choice.
The only other option I could maybe try is holding onto the Rebel and getting rid of all my lenses and going for a 24mm pancake lens. I have a 40mm pancake at the moment which is great IQ wise and makes the camera look very small compared to having a zoom lens. However its to long for my everyday needs. I would need the equivalent of 35mm full frame. But again would there be any point keeping the canon if I'm just going to have a fixed pancake lens on it.
Well, the 40/2.8 EF lens is really the only pancake you'll find for your rebel. You can get a 24mm 2.8, which isn't a large lens by any means but...
Though I think the older 24/2.8 non IS is a little smaller (then again no IS, and its slower than the 17/1.8 and the Fuji as well.
I'll keep reading up on it and searching for some good deals locally before deciding what to do. Thanks again for the help though. Anymore advice or recommendations on other cameras would be more than welcome.
Easter: I really loved my E-PL1 as well, was fun to use and really like the different modes it had. For the price of it, it performs really well.
Yeah again if you can find them in a shop to try out you definitely should, so much of what makes a good camera is how it feels and works in your hands.
Yeah, going with the EM5 isn't really a value proposition, and the good lenses are relatively expensive. You should look into the EM10 as well, a little smaller, a few extra features (like wifi), but a few downgrades as well (smaller EVF, smaller battery, no weather sealing).
Look into the used market as well, you can probably find the EM5 body for $500, the 17/1.8 for $350, the 45/1.8 for $250-300. Even if you don't feel comfortable getting the body used, I would highly recommend the lenses. You can often find used excellent/like new M43 gear that people barely use and resell for significant discounts. I've purchased most of my lenses that way (I only buy new lenses where there isn't a significant discount to be had or its brand new and not available used.
Yeah, I am a fan of buying used lenses to. In my experience there always in great condition and much cheaper. Most likley the body I buy will be used as well.
Having owned a Fuji XE1 and briefly used at X100, my general opinion of these cameras is that they are quirky, and slow to use. Great if your style is slow, deliberate, calculated, etc. Great for landscapes or other subject matter that isn't fleeting. The AF, and general operation on Fuji cameras (I think the XT1 is an exception) tends to be slow. They also have more traditional full manual controls, which is cool in a sense, but can be slower in operation too, depends on how you work.
Just curious, how did you compare the XE-1 to the X100? The XE-1 is something I had looked at to, but its more expensive than the X100. And if I was spending that much I'd probably go for the EM5. Just curious though, how you found the image quality between the X100 and XE-1?
Overall, something like the EM5 will be significantly more responsive in pretty much every way. If you can try them out in a store before hand I would really recommend it.
Yeah, if you can live with a fixed 35 (and some people can) the X100 is a good choice.
Yeah, been reading a ton of info on the EM5. Really just sound great, it can suit any need and the pics I have seen look brilliant to.
Though I think the older 24/2.8 non IS is a little smaller (then again no IS, and its slower than the 17/1.8 and the Fuji as well.
Yeah again if you can find them in a shop to try out you definitely should, so much of what makes a good camera is how it feels and works in your hands.
Yeah, I had a look online and there was no other pancakes for it. Also, that website really puts things into perspective. I didn't realize just how much smaller the Oly is compared to the Canon. Especially when you add the kit or wide angle lens etc to it. Will make such a difference carrying it around.
I'm going to start looking around locally now and see what deals are on and get a trip to a store and try them out myself.
Yeah, I am a fan of buying used lenses to. In my experience there always in great condition and much cheaper. Most likley the body I buy will be used as well.
Ok cool, well the price shouldn't be all that bad then.
Just curious, how did you compare the XE-1 to the X100? The XE-1 is something I had looked at to, but its more expensive than the X100. And if I was spending that much I'd probably go for the EM5. Just curious though, how you found the image quality between the X100 and XE-1?
I did not extensively compare the X100 to the XE-1, I only used the X100 breifly in the store so I can't give an in depth review or anything. From what I know, the image quality from what I understand is about the same with both cameras (similar sensors).
Which is to say, a bit better than the EM5 when you get into very high ISO, most noticeable at ISO 6400 or higher. Though one thing to understand with Fuji's sensors is, they have a special demosiacing thing that has to be done, which means noise reduction is built in, even in raw. So if you compare raw files, the Fuji's might *seem* around two stops better at high ISO, but thats because you're forced to use the built in noise reduction, apply some NR to the EM5 files and they aren't far behind. The proprietary demosiacing also does not work well at all from raw in lightroom, you need to use another raw converter as ACR/lightroom doesn't support Fuji sensors very well. Some people really like the "look" of Fuji files, especially jpeg, so if you don't shoot raw, there's that to consider.
Having said that the Fuji sensors are a little better in dynamic range and noise, but I think you would need to print pretty large to see the difference in real use. The current gen of M43rds sensors are going to be good enough for almost all use. The fixed 23mm lens on the X100 is probably a little better than the 17/1.8 as well as its matched to that sensor.
The current M43 sensors are essentially as good as Canon's APS-C sensors (little more high iso noise, but better dynamic range), while the Fuji's are more comparable to the Sony/Nikon(which are also sony) APS-C sensors.
Yeah, been reading a ton of info on the EM5. Really just sound great, it can suit any need and the pics I have seen look brilliant to.
I had a couple complaints with the EM5, but the big one was fixed with a firmware update (small AF box points). The ergonomics can be a bit cramped (I like my EM1 better, but its much more expensive too).
No real issues with it that aren't also issues with other mirrorless cameras. Its fast and very accurate to focus, but it can get tricked by busy background elements and miss focus entirely (the small AF points help A LOT). This is true of basically all mirrorless/CDAF cameras, including the X100/XE1/etc though. DSLRs are better in this regard, but they also have PDAF front/back focusing errors which is its own brand of terrible (personally I prefer the occasional shot to be totally out of focus than half my shots to be slightly out of focus due to PDAF errors).
Yeah, I had a look online and there was no other pancakes for it. Also, that website really puts things into perspective. I didn't realize just how much smaller the Oly is compared to the Canon. Especially when you add the kit or wide angle lens etc to it. Will make such a difference carrying it around.
I'm going to start looking around locally now and see what deals are on and get a trip to a store and try them out myself.
The current M43 sensors are essentially as good as Canon's APS-C sensors (little more high iso noise, but better dynamic range), while the Fuji's are more comparable to the Sony/Nikon(which are also sony) APS-C sensors.
I had a couple complaints with the EM5, but the big one was fixed with a firmware update (small AF box points). The ergonomics can be a bit cramped (I like my EM1 better, but its much more expensive too).
No real issues with it that aren't also issues with other mirrorless cameras. Its fast and very accurate to focus, but it can get tricked by busy background elements and miss focus entirely (the small AF points help A LOT). This is true of basically all mirrorless/CDAF cameras, including the X100/XE1/etc though. DSLRs are better in this regard, but they also have PDAF front/back focusing errors which is its own brand of terrible (personally I prefer the occasional shot to be totally out of focus than half my shots to be slightly out of focus due to PDAF errors).
Just thought I would update you. I went to the local store to try the Oly and Fuji, but it had neither. It was the only store locally, so instead I just searched around for some used EM5's and X100. I was able to find a great price on the limited X100. So I ended up going for it, knowing that if I wasnt happy with it I could sell it on with no loss.
It took a bit of reading and getting used to some of the Fuji settings at the beginning ( I was used to controlling everything from the canon touchscreen), but I have to say I am very happy with it. The fact I can fit it into my pocket has made a massive difference, I can basically take it anywhere with me. I plan to go on holiday soon as well, it will be so much handier carrying the Fuji around.
There are 2 big cons that I would say about the camera, both which I knew before buying and which you told me, but thought I would mention anyway. Night images. The Fuji doesnt handle them well without a tripod or surface to steady the camera. On the handheld shots I tried I got blur in them all. 2nd is Macro, this is hit and miss. Times macro can look excellent on it, but others the camera finds it very hard to focus when close to an object and no matter how hard you try even at distances you would expect it to focus no problem. But again, its hit and miss with that. I dont normally use macro, so its not much of an issue for me. The night photography though I like alot, and I dont always want to have a tripod with me. It beats the point in having a small easy to cary camera.
Apart from those two issues, everything else about the camera is great. I am very impressed with the IQ on it. I am not 100% sure on weather I will keep it or sell it yet. However, using it has made me decide to get rid of the canon. I think I have used this more in the past 2 weeks than I have used the canon all year. The only thing I will miss with the canon is the wide angle lens and also not getting a chance to try some astro images, had kept meaning to get a telescope but never did.
I have yet to take the Fuji hiking with me, so I will see how it gets on with Landscapes. That will pretty much decide weather I keep it or sell it and test the EM5. Overall though, very pleased I purchased it.
Glad to hear the X100 is working out, I'll be curious to see how they compare if you pick up an OMD.
To be honest, if the Fuji X cameras had IBIS, I would probably be shooting them instead of M43rds. I too see very little point in needing to carry around a tripod with a mirrorless camera. I almost never have one, unless I am doing something specific like HDR panoramas. My EM1 lets me get down to as slow as 1, 1.3 or so seconds handheld with wider lenses.
wow, the stabilization is that good it handles 1+ seconds? i thought you'd get 1-2 stops extra out of that at most...
Wide-Angle lenses aren't affected by hand shake nearly as much as longer lenses, so this doesn't really surprise me. Maybe if you're pixel peeping at 100% magnification you'll see blurring, but for general use on the web, I think it would work just fine.
The 5-asix IS in the EM5/EM1 is really, really effective. With the 7-14(14-28mm equiv) I can get down as low as 1.3 seconds handheld. With the 25/1.4(50mm equiv), as low as .5 seconds or so.
Thats the 25 at 0.5 seconds, which is what, 5 stops or so? I don't get 100% keepers at speeds this slow, but I dunno, 33-50% or so, so I fire off a 3 shot burst and usually get a good one.
Of course, shooting at shutter speeds this low doesn't help to freeze motion, but for static shots in low light, or when you don't care about subject motion (or purposely want it to show movement, a busy crowd, a waterfall, etc). In those situations it means you don't have to take a tripod, and you actually get much better noise performance as you can use a lower ISO than APS-C or FF cameras (though thats moot if you have an IS lens on the larger format camera too, but there is no IS 50mm equiv prime for most other systems, Sony 35/1.8 OSS is the only one I can think of).
This is with the 7-14 at 14mm and 1.3 seconds. Both of these look decent (not perfect) at closer inspection too, I wouldn't make a two foot print from them, but mabye a 12x8.
Alright, so I did a bit of research before posting back here again.
Recently, I have been using my D5100 primarily for photo-sourcing textures. I only use a 35mm prime lens (I believe 52mm because of the sensor) with a circular polarizer. The problem is that the camera is so large that I don't always have it with me and I end up missing a lot of great opportunities to take material ref/photo textures when I'm out an about.
Currently, I am looking at the RX100 (not sure whether I should go with the I,II, or II) with a magnetic polarizer to replace the D5100. Most photos will be taken in the daylight or shade.
Is there anything that I will miss on the D5100?
Oh and I just want to thank everyone here again (especially Earthquake) for the insight and advice.
If there was a fixed lens compact that is capable of replacing a DSLR or mirrorless interchangable lens camera, its certainly the RX100. I would go with the III for the EVF, but if you can live without it, the I and II model can be found for good prices.
For texture reference, I would saying having a camera with you all the time so you actually use it is more important than having the maximum image quality. Unless of course you go out specifically just to take reference shots, then the size doesn't really matter that much.
Just a little update. I ended up going with the RX100 I. Really great camera. Image quality is great AND it's really easy/quick to adjust shutter speed/aperture/ISO.
Seems like a great deal. I've been interested in a nicer camera for awhile, been working with my phone for awhile, but I miss photography and want to take it a bit more seriously without investing TOO much.
Seems like a great deal. I've been interested in a nicer camera for awhile, been working with my phone for awhile, but I miss photography and want to take it a bit more seriously without investing TOO much.
Its a nice entry level mirrorless, great image quality, small package, but limited touchscreen based controls. For the price you can't really go wrong though. Should be a good step up from your phone even with the kit lens, though you many want to consider the 20, 30 or 45mm prime lenses for better image quality/low light.
Sorry to bring up the mirrorless discussion again, but I'm a bit torn at the moment.
Lately I've begun doing a lot of freelance work, and I will be setting off to travel the world. I love my DSLR setup to death. I have all the glorious lenses I need, some of which are professional-grade (70-200 f/2.8, 105mm f/2.8 macro), longer telephotos, and Ultra-Wide angle primes. I've never seen any other lenses rival this IQ.
However, my previous traveling experience taught me that it's heavy as hell to lug around, especially when you're backpacking for months on end. So I'm looking into a lighter setup.
While mirrorless bodies are awesome now, full-frame sensors, high MP, excellent Dynamic Range, I've found the lens selection to be lacking. The normal to wide-angle range is great, but at the longer end they are really falling short. The only options I've seen are 200mm + 1.4x teleconverter which just ends up being extremely slow at f/6.3.
My question is, has anyone here had good experience with birding or wildlife shooting with mirrorless bodies? What is the autofocus speed like on fast-moving subjects? I can't imagine it being as good as a DSLR's Phase-Detection AF.
Af tracking fast moving subjects is one of mirrorless' biggest weakness, as is wildlife photography in general. To do wildlife well, you need big, big lenses. At that point the size of the body is only a minor concern, so there isn't a whole lot of reason to switch. The problem there is basic physics, a 200mm lens needs to be 150-200mm or so long. Lenses in the standard range can be made much smaller due to the shorter flange, however with teles, there is no free lunch.
Some of the recent bodies, like Oly EM1, Fuji XT1, Samsung NX1 and Sony A6000 do focus tracking rather well, but not on par with a Canon 7D II or anything, but generally as good as your average mid-range dslr.
Now, you can reduce size drastically if you go with a smaller sensor. Again, M43rds offers the best balance of physical size/weight and image quality.
Absolutely tiny 150-600mm equiv with the Olympus 75-300 4.5-6.7 (though quite slow, you will need a lot of light for BIF etc)
Moderately sized 80-300 equiv with Olympus 40-150/2.8, with 1.4x you get 120-420/4 equiv
Very small 70-200 equiv with Panasonic 35-100/2.8.
F2.8 M43rds lenses give a DOF like an F5.6, but this isn't really a concern for long lenses/teles, the DOF will be very thin even at 5.6 equiv in most cases.
Oly is coming out with a 600mm equiv, 300/4 which should be pretty good for birding along with the 1.4x.
An A7 with a 70-200/4, while mirrorless, really gives you very little benefit in size/weight over a 5D or similar, with worse AF. Plus at F4, you only have a 1 stop benefit over M43rds and an F2.8 lens, and zero benifit over APS-C with a 2.8 lens.
Another thing to consider is how you use your gear. If you have a FF camera with a 2.8 lens, but often have to stop it down to F4 or F5.6 when shooting motion to ensure wide enough DOF, you really have very little to lose in terms of image quality by going to a smaller sensor, and a hell of a lot to gain in terms of lugging gear around.
One last thing, its easy to get caught up in pixel peeping and measurbating over different sensor sizes and lab measurements, but at the end of the day the worst photo is the one you don't take. For me, I had thousands invested in absolutely superb (technically) FF DSLR gear, that sat on the shelf most of the time unused. I've since switched to a much smaller system, I enjoy using it significantly more because its a lot easier to carry and I use it a lot more as well as I rarely have to make the "do I really want to take this out with me?" call. The differences between M43rds are easy to see when you're pixel peeping specifically to find them, but in real world use they make very little difference.
i haven't read this thread in a good long while. interesting to see how the wind has changed and now it's all mirrorless instead of fat SLRs.
i get the sentiment about having too much gear to lug around but for handling personally i like having a chunky body with well placed buttons in my hand. i've tried the compact camera route before and touch screen interfaces with nested menus and flimsy little cameras that are entirely too small for my hands or imbalanced with larger lenses are no fun to shoot with.
are these electronic viewfinders any good at determining if you truly are in focus? i find that tricky with the LCD's on the back of SLRs sometimes and prefer the optical viewfinder.
i recently upgraded from my old Pentax K-7 to a K-3 mainly for the improved autofocus and sensor. no real impressions so far other than it feels like home. comes with an even larger viewfinder, which is a bonus. combined with one of their small to medium size lenses like my smc 40 mm prime i find these cameras a joy to use and no problem to carry out on the road even in bad weather. definitely need no gear bag, two lenses at most, one mounted, the other stuffed into a backpack or men's purse.
I agree, while bigger and bulkier I do like how an DSLR fits my hand better than a mirror-less camera. I also think I would go nuts trying to see the back of an LCD screen on a bright sunny day.
i haven't read this thread in a good long while. interesting to see how the wind has changed and now it's all mirrorless instead of fat SLRs.
i get the sentiment about having too much gear to lug around but for handling personally i like having a chunky body with well placed buttons in my hand. i've tried the compact camera route before and touch screen interfaces with nested menus and flimsy little cameras that are entirely too small for my hands or imbalanced with larger lenses are no fun to shoot with.
There is huge variation in body style with mirrorless cameras, you have the absolutely tiny compact-camera sized Panasonic GM1/GM5, your more standard compact Olympus Pen, low end Sony/Samsung/Fuji etc, but also the mid-range cameras like Olympus EM5/10, Panasonic GX7, Fuji XE2 that actually have very good controls (better or as good as most mid-range DSLRs) and relatively good ergonomics all while being significantly smaller and lighter than DSLRs, all the way up to the higher end bodies like the EM1 (fantastic controls and ergonomics and still much smaller than a DSLR), Fuji XT1, Sony A7, and even DSLR sized/styled bodies like the Panasonic GH4 and Samsung NX1. There is much more choice and variation in mirrorless these days than DSLRs, where most cameras are roughly DSLR sized/shaped.
If you like a chunky DSLR sized body there are lots of options, and generally, when paired with the smaller and lighter mirrorless lenses, your overall system size tends to drop quite a lot, even with the larger mirrorless bodies.
are these electronic viewfinders any good at determining if you truly are in focus? i find that tricky with the LCD's on the back of SLRs sometimes and prefer the optical viewfinder.
Yes, actually, many can be set up with focus peaking or focus magnification which makes them significantly better for checking focus than an optical viewfinder. The better EVFs in the EM1, XT1, A7, etc really have huge (often bigger than even the best/biggest OVFs) high resolution EVFs with very few drawbacks compared to a OVF. An OVF has less lag than an EVF but even that gap is closing. Most decent/recent EVFS are pretty much better in every way than your average tiny, dark, crappy viewfinder on low-mid range DSLRs. Sure a nice bright full coverage full frame OVF is great to use, especially for tracking motion, but even then its not all roses. EVFs provide accurate exposure and white balance information which makes using them in manual mode much easier, and they provide a much brighter image in low light as well. In addition to accurate exposure and focus aids like focus peaking, some EVFs provide other benefits that are impossible to get with an OVF, for instance Oly's OMD line provides a stabilized view with any lens (even old adapted lenses) when half-pressing the shutter.
Personally, I used to be a die hard OVF user, and I've used a few EVFs which were simply not a replacement for an OVF. They were small, low resolution, laggy, and caused motion sickness. These days, a good EVF is as good and in some ways better than an OVF, and I would struggle to go back to the "hope your exposure is correct" world of OVFs if I had to switch.
i recently upgraded from my old Pentax K-7 to a K-3 mainly for the improved autofocus and sensor. no real impressions so far other than it feels like home. comes with an even larger viewfinder, which is a bonus. combined with one of their small to medium size lenses like my smc 40 mm prime i find these cameras a joy to use and no problem to carry out on the road even in bad weather. definitely need no gear bag, two lenses at most, one mounted, the other stuffed into a backpack or men's purse.
Yeah, if you stick with very small primes (Pentax makes a number of nice ones) and don't mind carrying only one or two lenses, you can carry a relatively DSLR small kit. Me, I can carry my EM1, and 3 lenses easily in a very small messenger bag, and I don't have to pick and choose which lenses either, I can take an ultra fast 1.2 portrait lens, a 2.8 tele zoom, a 2.8 standard zoom a 4.0 ultra wide zoom or any number of a wide range of fast primes without thinking too much about size/weight. If I want, I can carry constant aperture zooms that cover the 14-200mm equiv. range all in my tiny bag.
I agree, while bigger and bulkier I do like how an DSLR fits my hand better than a mirror-less camera. I also think I would go nuts trying to see the back of an LCD screen on a bright sunny day.
I'm not sure why you would have to? A rear EVF provides pretty much equal usability to an OVF. You would only be reliant on the rear screen on the lower end models.
Again for the die hard DSLR users, look into:
Olympus EM1
Panasonic GH4 (industry leading internal 4k for you video guys)
Sony A7 series
Samsung NX1
Fuji XT1
Or a little smaller/more affordable:
Olympus EM5/10
Panasonic GX7
Sony A6000
Fuji XE2
Now, if you're happy with your DSLR, I won't argue for you to switch, at the end of the day you should use what is comfortable for you. However, there are clearly some misconceptions here about mirrorless cams.
Oh one last note about focus. Its often assumed that DSLRs are way better when it comes to focusing. Some of the newer, high end models are, but only in specific tasks. Higher end DSLRs designed for sports tend to be better at tracking moving subjects, so if you shoot sports, or wildlife, a DSLR is probably a better fit. Saying that, most good/recent mirrorless cameras focus not only faster, but more accurately than DSLRs. Firstly, the lenses tend to have more modern designs than a lot of DSLR lenses, which enables fast and often near silent focus, and CDAF focusing typically results in more accurate focusing*. With PDAF systems, you have a separate AF sensor that is often not alligned correctly with your lens, so back/front focusing errors are very common on DSLRs, and are hard to correct for. Some high end DSLRs allow you to make micro-adjustments to account for this, but this is generally a poor solution for zooms which make front focus at one end of the range and back focus at the other. CDAF uses the actual image content from the sensor to focus, so it can be much more accurate. Certain mirrorless cameras have hybrid CDAF + PDAF on sensor focusing systems which gives you the best of both worlds, and mirrorless focusing systems have improved at a rapid pace. Within a couple years, they will be as good or better than DSLRs for all tasks.
*CDAF has more of a tendency to pick up on background detail and focus on that instead of your intended subject, which can be a problem, especially with older models with large AF target boxes.
i really enjoy shooting my A7 mkII, but when it comes to doing more serious work, nothing beats the ergonomics and feel of my nikon d810. i think mirrorless is coming on fast, but still has some distance to go.
i really enjoy shooting my A7 mkII, but when it comes to doing more serious work, nothing beats the ergonomics and feel of my nikon d810. i think mirrorless is coming on fast, but still has some distance to go.
Hehe, thats the same thing I said when I got my EM5 a few years back, even the bit about keeping the DSLR around for serious work. My A900 was one of the most comfortable cameras I ever laid my hands on. Then it sat unused for a year and I sold it. So much for serious work I guess. I'll be curious to hear if you feel the same after a year with the A7. Also, I would be curious to hear what sort of work you do that the A7 isn't suitable for.
Don't get me wrong, if I shot weddings or sports professionally I would pick up a 5DIII/D810 and a trio of 2.8 zooms without hesitation, but I don't, so for me it's overkill.
Yes, actually, many can be set up with focus peaking or focus magnification which makes them significantly better for checking focus than an optical viewfinder.
i see. focus peaking i find quite nifty now when trying to achieve shallow depth of field. but if i'm not after that i end up with what looks like flickering/noise all over the view. my new one has that for live view mode. thought it was some error at first.
has anybody used those manual focusing screens a la katzeye for the viewfinder? looking quite good in video demonstrations but not so sure how they affect metering or general viewfinder clarity.
i see. focus peaking i find quite nifty now when trying to achieve shallow depth of field. but if i'm not after that i end up with what looks like flickering/noise all over the view. my new one has that for live view mode. thought it was some error at first.
With a lot of mirrorless cameras, you can set one of the FN buttons to toggle peaking or magnification on/off. Some cameras, if you're using native mount AF lenses that talk to the camera, will automatically turn peaking on only when you're in AF mode.
If you don't peaking at all, you can turn it off entirely. On my EM1 I have it turned off as the peaking isn't implemented particularly well (it reduces the framerate), not really an issue as I find the EM1's AF to be insanely fast and accurate in SAF mode which I use 99% of the time. I think Panasonic and Sony have better peaking but haven't really invested it thoroughly.
has anybody used those manual focusing screens a la katzeye for the viewfinder? looking quite good in video demonstrations but not so sure how they affect metering or general viewfinder clarity.
Yes, I've used them, they make the viewfinder darker and generally obscure it, and they aren't particularly accurate for critical focusing. Same sort of problems peaking has if not worse, and you can't simply turn it off when you don't want it. More of a pain than it's worth IMO, unless you have one installed in a secondary body for specialized (macro?) work.
I wanted to say thanks to all the people who have contributed to this thread - it makes for an interesting read!
I'm a total newb at photography. I purchased the SONY RX100 Mk III a few months back and have been loving it. It's a fantastic point and shoot although I am soon looking to splash out on something more high-end and this thread is a goldmine!
Yes, I've used them, they make the viewfinder darker and generally obscure it, and they aren't particularly accurate for critical focusing.
yes they seem to obscure a bit with the circular prisma being so close to the center. but as for accuracy - when you used them, did you have the camera correct your lens focus? seems with the aftermarket focus screens often a little calibration is required.
i'm just curious at this point. still in gadget purchasing mode, so to speak. they are really really expensive and the dollar<->euro situation doesn't help. no second body either. compact equipment allowed only.
Replies
Just a warning that Sony do like to shake the market, and release more cameras than lenses.
I started with a entry level A55v DSLR, which was one of the new SLT designs when they released a couple of years ago and the future looked bright, but now there focus seems shifted to these mirrorless systems like the RX1/RX1R/A7/A7R/A7S
Not saying that they will abandon the line E line later on, but they seem to take radical changes in the markets they want to appeal in, while this is good for innovation and choice, it's also bad for stability knowing they make stop supporting the mount later on down the line.
Again not trying to put you off Sony, they make some of the best sensors and there cameras are really good, but just look at the lens lineup before you buy into a system.
If you like landscapes, portraits and street photography, I would really say go mirrorless unless you need that extra resolution for landscapes or that more creamier dof/bokeh for portraiture.
So something like the EM-1, EM-5, EM-510, XT-1, X-PRO, XE-1, XE-2, A6000/5000, NEX line and the Panasonics.
For fast moving subjects like sports or bird watching or stuff that requires long zoom lenses, DSLRs are much more advantagous here, they have better motor drives and AF for that kind of stuff. A lot of the higher end models have better weather sealing as well for the rougher outdoors.
If you like sports, then something like the nikon 7000/7100, canon 70D/7D or pentax K5/K3, but your really need the uber-expensive models for this if this will be your focus.
Best thing to do is to go to a store physically hold them in your hands a get a feel for them, try the menus and see how you get on with them.
Find a DSLR with a decent lens and try to imagine if you'd be happy carrying that around your neck everytime you go out shooting, takes some pics and then do the same with a mirrorless camera and see which of the tradeoffs suits you better.
Mirrorless is definitely lighter and smaller and this is coming from someone who has a A55v probably one of the smallest DSLR's, yet once you add lenses and filters, they start becoming a chore to carry, can't imagine walking around with a D4 or 1DX around my neck for a full day.
Of course there's always those who will say the APS-C/M43 sensors in mirrorless systems aren't up to par with full frame cameras, they're probably right, but it's minimal at best at low ISO's. Maybe the DOF is more creamier and smoother and the image may not look as good under a pixel peepers eye, but at the end of the day, the sensors are so good now that it's hardly worth fighting over.
If you go full frame, then be prepared to shell out some major $$$ for lenses that are made for full frame.
I personally would only look into full frame if I thought the larger sensors would benefit me, but at this point I'm nowhere near enough good enough to warrant using full frame.
Were DSLRs excel is they're much more versatile and generally have larger sensors has you move up the line into the enthusiast/prosumer line of bodies.
The entry level DSLRs and most of the cheap lenses are very plasticky, again this doesn't stop them taking great photos, but this may put you off if you're looking for something that feels like quality in your hands.
Canon/Nikon seem to cripple their entry level cameras to justify there higher end cameras, things like not having 100% viewfinders, some bodies not having AF motors and generally removing features to entice you to upgrade to full frame.
That's why Pentax seems to shine, while having no full frame route is bad for people wanting to upgrade to full frame, it also pays off for customers because they don't cripple or design the cameras any less.
But again Canon/Nikon have a better lens lineup and and your more likely to find stuff available in shops than other brands.
Canon and Nikon have some great fast lenses that Pentax lacks, especially 1.2f primes, but these come at real expense.
The A6000 looks like a very nice camera, and the NEX6 that it replaces was a nice camera too. The thing with Sony E mount is, make sure they have the lenses you want now, and don't expect them to release them in the future if they don't.
The E mount system is still lacking compared to M43rds, but it has a decent selection that covers most things.
Here's a number of lenses missing off the top of my head from the E system that M43rds has:
1. Pro style F2.8 weather sealed standard zoom (m43 has two, 12-35/2.8 and 12-40/2.8)
2. Pro style F2.8 weather sealed telephoto zoom (m43 has one 35-100/2.8, and another 40-140/2.8 which should be out later this year)
3. High quality short telephoto prime (m43: 75/1.8 )
4. Long telephoto prime, M43 doesn't have it yet but probably 2015 (Olympus 300/4)
5. Long telephoto zoom (m43 has 2, 75-300 and 100-300)
6. 90-120mm-sh macro prime (m43 has both, 45/2.8 and 60/2.8 )
7. Any lens faster than F1.8 (m43 has 42.5/1.2 and 25/1.4)
Fuji is missing many of these as well, though they've announced 2 WS 2.8 zooms: http://photorumors.com/2014/02/02/pictures-of-future-fujinon-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-16-55mm-f2-8-and-18-135mm-f3-5-5-6-lenses/ (quite big compared to M43 options).
Again this is all moot if Sony has the lenses you need today, for instance if you'll be happy with 2-3 of their primes.
I'm currently using a Nikon D7000, which is 16mp, and it's doing the job just fine, but there are definitely times I wish I had the extra pixels, especially when shooting birds and landscapes. Everything I shoot is either in low-light, moves fast, needs a buttload of detail, or all of the above. Therefore, DSLR is the obvious choice, and mirrorless is a no-go, but that is just my personal preference!
Makes sense.
Oh, but a D7000? Same resolution as EM1, and only half a stop better at high ISO. I shot extensively with an A580, which has the same 16MP Sony sensor as the D7000, and practical differences between that and the EM1/EM5 are very small. I find lens quality much more important actually, a great lens on my EM1 outperforms a good lens on the A580.
D7000 is probably better at AF tracking than the EM1, D7100 certainly is, and most other mirrorless cameras (aside from XT1 and A6000) suck at AF tracking, so that's probably enough reason to avoid them for wildlife, plus lack of long lenses for Fuji/Sony.
I'm curious, what lens are you using on the D7000 for wildlife?
I know for sure that AF tech will improve over the years, so my other concern is survivability to the elements, and the cold.
As for the lenses I use, it really depends on what I'm shooting. I've used the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for a long time, but it is a very slow lens. It has pretty good IQ, but the main reason I keep it with me is because of the VERY good optical stabilization. I'm able to get sharp shots, handheld, at 1/20-1/40th @300mm. The VR has saved my butt at dusk when things are quite dark.
I also have the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Sharpest lens I've ever shot with, blazing fast AF, best Vibration Reduction of the bunch. Yes, it is a macro lens, and it's a bit on the short end for wildlife, but with it being much faster than my 70-300mm, as well as significantly sharper, I'm able to crop and get a lot out of it. I am in love with that lens. Macro lenses are GREAT for portraits, too.
Lately, my friend lent me his 70-200 f/2.8, and boy, it's incredible. Same IQ as the 105mm, but longer reach.
I've been longing (no pun intended) for something much longer though, around the 500mm mark. Unfortunately, fast super-tele's are ridiculously expensive. I've read about Tamron's new 150-600mm f/5-6.3, and I'm curious. Problem is, it's quite slow, but that extra reach sounds amazing.
For landscapes, it depends on my shots. I use the 70-300mm to get a nice compression of the background, some of my best landscape shots were captured with this lens. My favorite lens for landscape though, is the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8. Super sharp, pretty fast, though I'm always stopping down to F/12-14 for landscapes anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Awesome, thanks for all the info, super helpful. I think I will look into getting a used Tamron 90mm 2.8 as it seems to be the best fit for what I would want
Actually, the speed isn't the issue at all. Really, with most M43rds lenses, and the newer bodies, focusing is crazy fast, much faster than most DSLR bodies/lens combos. For single AF at least, CDAF simply can't track very well though, so fast subject movement is hard. But even my EM5 when used with a prime, has fast enough AF to catch some subject motion in single AF mode, which is quite astounding really.
For instance, this shot: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101276167736590&set=a.10101276164298480.1073741842.16928919&type=3&theater is with the EM5, 45/1.8 prime, at sunset in single AF mode, fast enough to catch a small child running. Keeper rate isn't particularly high doing it this way though.
I have not had a chance to really stress it. I've dropped my EM1 in the snow a couple times. The EM1 is listed as splash and freeze proof. Check this out though: http://youtu.be/N9Omqui0SoI?t=5m1s
Yeah the hybrid CDAF+PDAF(which the EM1 has) is going to only get better and better as processing power in cameras improves, we've seen rapid improvement in just the last year or so, exciting stuff really.
So I've got the Panasonic 100-300mm 4-5.6, which means 600mm equivalent. The OIS of that lens, and the IBIS in the EM1 are pretty close, I can get shutter speeds down to similar levels, though when we're talking wildlife, I find It difficult to get anything usable at less than 1/250th, especially with birds and the tiny little micro movements that they make. I need to do more work with this lens, hopefully I will get a chance now that the weather is nicer. This lens is about the size of your 70-300mm btw, actually a bit smaller and lighter.
Yeah the Nikkor 105 is pretty much legendary. On M43 the Olympus 75/1.8 is probably very close (except for the macro capability) being one of the sharpest lenses in the system, and very portable for a 150mm equiv. One of my favorite lenses. 75/1.8 samples: http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=28511&page=179
Yeah I had the Sigma EX DG version, while not quite as good as the Nikon its a very good lens, only problem is it weighs 3 pounds so I almost never used it. I may pick up a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 though, its absolutely tiny: http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.366,7.107,ha,t
The 35-100 won't have quite the same reach as a 70-200 on an APS-C body, but Olympus is coming out with a 40-150/2.8 that will.
I've personally used the Tamron 200-500mm, a very good lens. But huge, and slow, and slow to focus. Its difficult getting enough light/fast enough shutter speed for a 750mm equivalent lens. But the only alternative is a 500/4 at 9 pounds at $8.5K. I think the 150-600 is as good/better than the 200-500, but its even bigger still. Maybe look at a used 200-500mm, for $700-ish, not so bad then.
The Panasonic 7-14/4 (14-28mm equiv) is a fantastic lens, and lives on my camera whenever I'm doing cityscapes and the like, such a useful focal length for cramped spaces. I like something a bit longer for landscapes too, I'll often use a 25mm or 45mm prime.
Yeah that would be my top recommendation on that list too.
Well, hang on a sec, we're comparing completely different sensors. We could probably go on and on with the pros and cons of each. There's so many differences in terms of cost, size, weight, Dynamic Range, bokeh, noise, etc etc. M4/3, APS-C, Full-Frame, each have their advantages, IMO.
Where smaller sensors really shine is the long-range tele. I've considered getting a Nikon 1 mirrorless, getting the F-mount adapter and running my 70-300mm on it. The 2.7x crop factor would give me an 810mm focal length, which would be amazing for wildlife, if only it were a bit brighter and the low-light performance were better on smaller sensors.
Something I like to bear in mind are the ergonomics as well. I don't know about you guys, but small cameras just feel horribly awkward in my hands, no matter how light. Even using a small prime lens on my D7000 feels unbalanced, I like the weight and stability of a big lens. The 105mm f/2.8 despite being a prime, is build like a tank, it's heavy, stable, and I love it.
Where smaller sensors also do well is for macro, from what I've seen. It is easier to get greater magnification as well as a greater depth of field as opposed to APS-C, and Full-Frame. I often have to stop down to f/14-16 to get enough of an insect in focus. Like this:
I think the megapixel race is over, for now, despite having DSLR's entering the medium format range (D800, for example). What I want is better noise performance. I recall reading about Canon working on a sensor with ridiculously huge photosites for capturing the most detail in near-pitch black darkness.
Been looking into them for a couple days, seems pretty straight forward. The quicker the better, larger storage capacity, etc.
Yeah of course, though there isn't too much to argue about, if we use M43rds as a baseline and assume current generation sensors:
APS-C gives 2/3rds stop narrower DOF at the same aperture and equiv focal length and about 2/3rds stop better high ISO noise and dynamic range
FF gives 2 stops narrower, and 1.5-2 stops better high iso/DR
Saying all that, in terms of noise/dr, my EM1 gets pretty close to a Canon 5DII or my Sony A900 that I just sold. Actually better dynamic range than a 5DII, which is pretty crazy. I think we're to the point where everything M43 and up is good enough for 95% of uses. Only real exceptions are extreme low light, making massive prints.
2/3rds of a stop between M43rds and APS-C, I think this gets blown ridiculously out of proportion on the internet/camera forums/etc, and I say that having shot extensively with all 3 systems. The difference between M43 and FF is a noticeable one, and so is the size, weight and cost(generally). But the difference between APS-C and M43? Ah well, this is probably the bit you meant we could argue about. :poly124:
Big advantages at the long end, but also big advantages in size/weight at the wide end as well. My 7-14(14-28mm equiv) is absolutely tiny compared to a similar FF UWA zoom. Really, all around M43rds has a big size/weight advantage. To me this means I can take more gear with me, which makes me a happy guy.
Nikon 1 is interesting, its a shame they don't really have a great sensor in those cameras. If they put Sony's 1" sensor from the RX100/RX10 into those cameras they would be really interesting. Nikon also seems to purposely cripple those cameras in fear that they will cut thier low end DSLR sales, its a shame, I feel if they went full effort there they could put out something interesting. Same with Canon and the EOS M, just a half baked system.
If we go by basic sensor size = image quality metrics (which match up accurately with M43, APS-C and FF), than the Nikon 1 system punches below its weight, being 1.3 stops or so worse at high iso/DR than M43 (it should be closer to 0.7 if sensor efficiency was even).
I agree here to an extent, I don't get along well with the tiny mirrorless bodies, especially the small NEX's with still rather large lenses, it all feels terribly unbalanced.
The EM1 on the other hand has absolutely fantastic ergonomics, easily as good as most mid-range DSLRs like the 70D, D7100, etc. It could stand to be 5-10% bigger, but if feels almost perfect in my hands.
Really to me, I feel like M43 is the perfect balance of size, weight, and image quality. I can take my EM1, 7-14/4, 25/1.4, and 42.5/1.2 in a very small messenger bag and carry it around all day and basically not feel it. To me its less the weight of a specific camera, or a specific lens, but the weight of carrying around a system. With a FF kit or even most APS-C DSLRs kits I really feel that weight even after a half hour or so. Really depends on the person of course and your tolerance for lugging around huge cameras/bags/lenses.
In theory the wider inherent DOF of M43 is better for macro, but not really in practice. On APS-C, you can stop the lens down 2/3rds stops, and bump the ISO 2/3rds stops and get essentially the same DOF and image quality. Same for FF, stop down 2 stops and bump ISO 2 stops. There is no free lunch here really.
The same sort of works in reverse though, if you've gotta bump ISO and stop down to get the same DOF, for macro, or lowlight in general (where getting *enough* in focus is often a struggle), you're essentially throwing away that bigger sensor advantage.
Yep, 16MP is all I really need even for quite large prints, over that and you get diminishing returns and file storage issues. High ISO is clearly the latest marketing trend, though honestly I care more about dynamic range than ISO at this point (they tend to go together tho so I will gladly take improvements with both). Even my EM1 can shoot usable at ISO3200, and good enough at 6400 or even higher for web viewing or small prints, coupled with a fast lens that means shooting all but the lowest of light.
Cool, the A6000 looks like a really good camera in that price point.
I have a Sony 94MBPS 16GB card that I like, it's not as fast as a Sandisk 95MBPS when it comes to write speeds (45mbs vs 90mbs) but you can sometimes find the Sony card at half the price or so, and I can't tell much of a difference in write speeds in real use.
Also my Sandisk 95mbs card gives me card errors, think I may have gotten a bum one, sort of scares me off of using that card/buying more of the same.
So lately I've been feeling the urge to get into photography and in turn pick up an entry level (ish) DSLR just for messing around with.
I've spent the better part of the last week reading reviews on a variety of cameras, all of which are floating around the £400-450 mark, as that's about as high as I'm willing to go for the hardware at the moment. So far I'm pretty settled on getting a Nikon, as that's what I've been familiar with in the past although that could change.
After a fair bit of looking around I was swaying toward picking this up, [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00HQCW7TM/ref=gno_cart_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE"]Nikon D3300[/ame].
But before I did, as it is a fair few quid, I wanted to, hopefully, hear from some of you photography folk on whether or not it would be a complete waste of money; and if there is in fact something that's a better all rounder out there for someone wanting to start to get into it.
Cheers!
With a mirrorless camera you get a much smaller camera, and the lenses tend to be smaller as well. Personally I've sold off all of my heavy pro style DSLR gear for mirrorless equipment. The biggest reason? I actually take the mirrorless kit out of the house and use it. So really ask yourself, if you're going to spend that much money on a camera, how often will it leave the house? Will you mind hauling it around? Will it sit at home most of the time while you take cellphone pictures instead?
Mirrorless cameras do tend to be more expensive though, and they lack optical viewfinders. Electronic viewfinders these days are quite good though, and offer serious advantages (live exposure and white balance preview) over OVFs. An EVF generally won't replace a high end OVF on pro level cameras for tracking sports (Canon 1D, Nikon D4, etc), but they are generally significantly better than the small, dark viewfinders in entry level dslrs like the D5300 or Canon Rebel. EVFs do not come on all mirrorless cameras though, usually only the mid-high end models which cost more. Panasonic GX7, Olympus EM10, Sony A6000 and Fuji EX2 would be good examples of mid-range mirrorless cameras with viewfinders, I think all are a bit more than the D5300.
All that said, the D3300 is a very good entry level camera, and will give a big step up in image quality over a point and shoot or a cell phone.
You should also think about lenses. A camera is only as good as the lens you put on it, so you need to factor that into your budget. If you plan on getting a entry level DSLR and sticking with the kit lens, DONT. There are better fixed lens compact options if that's all you want, like a Sony RX100II or RX100III if you want a viewfinder.
Now with all of that out of the way, what/how/where will you use the camera? Its hard to give specific recommendations without more details.
Hmm. I've been thinking of making the switch to mirrorless as well. I currently have a D5100 and it's kind of a pain to carry around when I'm out. I just end up using a point-and-shoot most days.
What do you all think of the Fujifilm X20? Seems to be a great balance between portability and function.
I'm very happy with the switch. I sold off thousands of dollars of FF/APS-C dslr cameras and lenses, and bought M43 stuff, my current gear is around half the weight now, I can go out with my EM1 and a small messenger bag with 2-4 lenses thats a just a few pounds total, and carry it around all day without any real fatigue.
The X20 seems like a nice high end compact, I haven't used it though. I'm a little skeptical of these compacts that are near the size of a mirrorless camera though. If I'm going to go that big, I might as well have a EM10/GX7 or something and a pancake lens, and have the option to throw different lenses on it. I would probably go with one of the RX100's over the X20, as it has a bigger sensor/better image quality in a smaller size. The version III has a pop up EVF too which is brilliant.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#555,396,521.30,472.397,ha,t
If I wanted a carry around fixed lens camera, this would definitely be it.
Before I ask any more questions I'm gonna read through a lot of this thread. I'm sure there's some great info in here that I'm missing.
Cheers for the advice! Really useful stuff and mirrorless cameras sound interesting, hadn't heard much at all about them but going to have a hunt through whats around now!
I was planning on simply using it as a general camera as I've found myself taking a lot more photos lately and I'm getting sick of my super old compact and phone. It's the kind of thing I'd like to be able to carry about without much hassle, so it sounds like DSLRs might not really be the best option.
Going to have a hunt through some of the cameras you mentioned and see what peaks my interest. Thanks again, I'm sure I'll be back here shortly once I get to the lens buying stage
I researched the topic for weeks before I made my purchase. I had my eyes on the fujifilm x-m1 for a long time. Ultimatly I was sold on the Samsung NX300. It fit my budget nicely and has all the options I could ever ask for. can't wait to get a pancake lens for it!
Been reading through the last few pages of this thread. Some very helpful advice.
I'm considering selling my Canon 650D (T4I) and Lenses and going for something like a used Fuji X100 or a Olympus EM5. One reason is for money to help build a new PC. The wide angle lens alone can almost cover the cost of a new camera and I don't use the camera enough to justify having it with multiple lenses. I'm also not a fan of carrying around different lenses (most of the time), I pretty much just use two. Wide angle for landscapes and a prime for portrait / street.
I hike a lot and rock climb so I would prefer something smaller with just one lens to carry but I don't want to sacrifice much in image quality.
Heres what I am looking at so far, any recommendations for other cameras around the same price range would be great.
Fuji X100 (the older model not the new 100s) I seen some pics from the X100 I was impressed with but worried that being only 12MP it may not be the best in landscapes. The screen is also very small. Apart from that from what I read online it seems great. I also enjoy using a fixed lens.
Olympus EM5. This is more expensive, but I had an E-PL1 before the canon and I really liked it. The EM5 reminds me of this but just better everywhere.
Im going to look into the Fuji X20 after seeing it in this thread as well as a few others that were mentioned.
My main uses would be street / night photography and landscapes. Thats basically all I take pics of. Having a decent macro would be a plus. Im 90% committed to selling all my equipment for a smaller camera, I just need to find the right one now and any help + advice on what to get would be great.
Thanks.
The EM5 is a great camera too, I have one along with the EM1. The question there would be which lens? Maybe the 12-35/2.8 or 12-40/2.8 (focuses very close, I think 1:3, I doubles for me as a macro), both are quite good and will give you more range than the X100 while covering your basic requirements. Though both are pretty expensive and not exactly small as well. You could go with the 17/1.8 (faster af) or 20/1.7 (smaller, but slower AF and banding at high iso on the EM5) and have a prime lens very similar to the X100, but unless you're going to get more lenses (there are many good ones for M43rds) there isn't much of a point to that over the X100.
An EM5 with a 17/1.8 or 12/2 for landscapes/street and a 45/1.8 for portraits makes a very strong kit, and this was my basic kit when I first started using M43rds as a secondary kit to my DSLRs, I was so happy with the results from this basic kit that I went into M43 wholesale. Very light, very small, exceptional lenses and the kit will do everything but tracking for sports, extremely narrow depth of feild, and extreme high ISO/low light, 3200 is good, 6400 is usable for web viewing and beyond that is really only emergencies only, but this is basically the same with your Rebel.
Oh also, if you're shooting landscapes or cityscapes at night, you can use really slow shutter speeds hand held with the IBIS in the EM5 (provided you don't need to freeze motion) which means keeping ISO low and negating some of the image quality benifits Fuji X100 sensor has.
If you find your gear too heavy to take out, I definitely recommend swapping. A camera is only as good as the photos you actually take, and cameras left on the shelf can't take photos.
Earthquake : Thanks a lot, your post is a great help.
The EM5 really looks brilliant, like it pretty much does everything I would need. The only thing is the lenses can be quite expensive. The 12-40/2.8 or 17/1.8 would be the lens I would choose I think. But again, its whether I want to spend that much.
At the minute the X100 is about the same as a EM5 Body cost wise. However I have been reading on the slow focus though you mentioned and I think this could annoy me depending on how bad it is and how much the firmware helps it. No IS as well is another down point. I also read it can be awkward to use, but if you get used to it then it can be great and images are very good.
I think for me it will have to come down to could I live with the fixed lens and can I afford to pay the extra for the EM5 as I have a new PC to think about as well.
The only other option I could maybe try is holding onto the Rebel and getting rid of all my lenses and going for a 24mm pancake lens. I have a 40mm pancake at the moment which is great IQ wise and makes the camera look very small compared to having a zoom lens. However its to long for my everyday needs. I would need the equivalent of 35mm full frame. But again would there be any point keeping the canon if I'm just going to have a fixed pancake lens on it.
I'll keep reading up on it and searching for some good deals locally before deciding what to do. Thanks again for the help though. Anymore advice or recommendations on other cameras would be more than welcome.
Easter: I really loved my E-PL1 as well, was fun to use and really like the different modes it had. For the price of it, it performs really well.
Yeah, going with the EM5 isn't really a value proposition, and the good lenses are relatively expensive. You should look into the EM10 as well, a little smaller, a few extra features (like wifi), but a few downgrades as well (smaller EVF, smaller battery, no weather sealing).
Look into the used market as well, you can probably find the EM5 body for $500, the 17/1.8 for $350, the 45/1.8 for $250-300. Even if you don't feel comfortable getting the body used, I would highly recommend the lenses. You can often find used excellent/like new M43 gear that people barely use and resell for significant discounts. I've purchased most of my lenses that way (I only buy new lenses where there isn't a significant discount to be had or its brand new and not available used.
Having owned a Fuji XE1 and briefly used at X100, my general opinion of these cameras is that they are quirky, and slow to use. Great if your style is slow, deliberate, calculated, etc. Great for landscapes or other subject matter that isn't fleeting. The AF, and general operation on Fuji cameras (I think the XT1 is an exception) tends to be slow. They also have more traditional full manual controls, which is cool in a sense, but can be slower in operation too, depends on how you work.
Overall, something like the EM5 will be significantly more responsive in pretty much every way. If you can try them out in a store before hand I would really recommend it.
Yeah, if you can live with a fixed 35 (and some people can) the X100 is a good choice.
Well, the 40/2.8 EF lens is really the only pancake you'll find for your rebel. You can get a 24mm 2.8, which isn't a large lens by any means but...
http://camerasize.com/compact/#333.287,289.383,ha,t
Though I think the older 24/2.8 non IS is a little smaller (then again no IS, and its slower than the 17/1.8 and the Fuji as well.
Yeah again if you can find them in a shop to try out you definitely should, so much of what makes a good camera is how it feels and works in your hands.
Yeah, I am a fan of buying used lenses to. In my experience there always in great condition and much cheaper. Most likley the body I buy will be used as well.
Just curious, how did you compare the XE-1 to the X100? The XE-1 is something I had looked at to, but its more expensive than the X100. And if I was spending that much I'd probably go for the EM5. Just curious though, how you found the image quality between the X100 and XE-1?
Yeah, been reading a ton of info on the EM5. Really just sound great, it can suit any need and the pics I have seen look brilliant to.
Yeah, I had a look online and there was no other pancakes for it. Also, that website really puts things into perspective. I didn't realize just how much smaller the Oly is compared to the Canon. Especially when you add the kit or wide angle lens etc to it. Will make such a difference carrying it around.
I'm going to start looking around locally now and see what deals are on and get a trip to a store and try them out myself.
Thanks again!
Ok cool, well the price shouldn't be all that bad then.
I did not extensively compare the X100 to the XE-1, I only used the X100 breifly in the store so I can't give an in depth review or anything. From what I know, the image quality from what I understand is about the same with both cameras (similar sensors).
Which is to say, a bit better than the EM5 when you get into very high ISO, most noticeable at ISO 6400 or higher. Though one thing to understand with Fuji's sensors is, they have a special demosiacing thing that has to be done, which means noise reduction is built in, even in raw. So if you compare raw files, the Fuji's might *seem* around two stops better at high ISO, but thats because you're forced to use the built in noise reduction, apply some NR to the EM5 files and they aren't far behind. The proprietary demosiacing also does not work well at all from raw in lightroom, you need to use another raw converter as ACR/lightroom doesn't support Fuji sensors very well. Some people really like the "look" of Fuji files, especially jpeg, so if you don't shoot raw, there's that to consider.
Having said that the Fuji sensors are a little better in dynamic range and noise, but I think you would need to print pretty large to see the difference in real use. The current gen of M43rds sensors are going to be good enough for almost all use. The fixed 23mm lens on the X100 is probably a little better than the 17/1.8 as well as its matched to that sensor.
The current M43 sensors are essentially as good as Canon's APS-C sensors (little more high iso noise, but better dynamic range), while the Fuji's are more comparable to the Sony/Nikon(which are also sony) APS-C sensors.
I had a couple complaints with the EM5, but the big one was fixed with a firmware update (small AF box points). The ergonomics can be a bit cramped (I like my EM1 better, but its much more expensive too).
No real issues with it that aren't also issues with other mirrorless cameras. Its fast and very accurate to focus, but it can get tricked by busy background elements and miss focus entirely (the small AF points help A LOT). This is true of basically all mirrorless/CDAF cameras, including the X100/XE1/etc though. DSLRs are better in this regard, but they also have PDAF front/back focusing errors which is its own brand of terrible (personally I prefer the occasional shot to be totally out of focus than half my shots to be slightly out of focus due to PDAF errors).
Just wait til you look at the telephotos:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.376,333.310,289.366,333.7,ha,t
Hey,
Just thought I would update you. I went to the local store to try the Oly and Fuji, but it had neither. It was the only store locally, so instead I just searched around for some used EM5's and X100. I was able to find a great price on the limited X100. So I ended up going for it, knowing that if I wasnt happy with it I could sell it on with no loss.
It took a bit of reading and getting used to some of the Fuji settings at the beginning ( I was used to controlling everything from the canon touchscreen), but I have to say I am very happy with it. The fact I can fit it into my pocket has made a massive difference, I can basically take it anywhere with me. I plan to go on holiday soon as well, it will be so much handier carrying the Fuji around.
There are 2 big cons that I would say about the camera, both which I knew before buying and which you told me, but thought I would mention anyway. Night images. The Fuji doesnt handle them well without a tripod or surface to steady the camera. On the handheld shots I tried I got blur in them all. 2nd is Macro, this is hit and miss. Times macro can look excellent on it, but others the camera finds it very hard to focus when close to an object and no matter how hard you try even at distances you would expect it to focus no problem. But again, its hit and miss with that. I dont normally use macro, so its not much of an issue for me. The night photography though I like alot, and I dont always want to have a tripod with me. It beats the point in having a small easy to cary camera.
Apart from those two issues, everything else about the camera is great. I am very impressed with the IQ on it. I am not 100% sure on weather I will keep it or sell it yet. However, using it has made me decide to get rid of the canon. I think I have used this more in the past 2 weeks than I have used the canon all year. The only thing I will miss with the canon is the wide angle lens and also not getting a chance to try some astro images, had kept meaning to get a telescope but never did.
I have yet to take the Fuji hiking with me, so I will see how it gets on with Landscapes. That will pretty much decide weather I keep it or sell it and test the EM5. Overall though, very pleased I purchased it.
Thanks again for your advice.
To be honest, if the Fuji X cameras had IBIS, I would probably be shooting them instead of M43rds. I too see very little point in needing to carry around a tripod with a mirrorless camera. I almost never have one, unless I am doing something specific like HDR panoramas. My EM1 lets me get down to as slow as 1, 1.3 or so seconds handheld with wider lenses.
Thats the 25 at 0.5 seconds, which is what, 5 stops or so? I don't get 100% keepers at speeds this slow, but I dunno, 33-50% or so, so I fire off a 3 shot burst and usually get a good one.
Of course, shooting at shutter speeds this low doesn't help to freeze motion, but for static shots in low light, or when you don't care about subject motion (or purposely want it to show movement, a busy crowd, a waterfall, etc). In those situations it means you don't have to take a tripod, and you actually get much better noise performance as you can use a lower ISO than APS-C or FF cameras (though thats moot if you have an IS lens on the larger format camera too, but there is no IS 50mm equiv prime for most other systems, Sony 35/1.8 OSS is the only one I can think of).
This is with the 7-14 at 14mm and 1.3 seconds. Both of these look decent (not perfect) at closer inspection too, I wouldn't make a two foot print from them, but mabye a 12x8.
Recently, I have been using my D5100 primarily for photo-sourcing textures. I only use a 35mm prime lens (I believe 52mm because of the sensor) with a circular polarizer. The problem is that the camera is so large that I don't always have it with me and I end up missing a lot of great opportunities to take material ref/photo textures when I'm out an about.
Currently, I am looking at the RX100 (not sure whether I should go with the I,II, or II) with a magnetic polarizer to replace the D5100. Most photos will be taken in the daylight or shade.
Is there anything that I will miss on the D5100?
Oh and I just want to thank everyone here again (especially Earthquake) for the insight and advice.
For texture reference, I would saying having a camera with you all the time so you actually use it is more important than having the maximum image quality. Unless of course you go out specifically just to take reference shots, then the size doesn't really matter that much.
Thanks for the help!
samsung-nx2000
Seems like a great deal. I've been interested in a nicer camera for awhile, been working with my phone for awhile, but I miss photography and want to take it a bit more seriously without investing TOO much.
Its a nice entry level mirrorless, great image quality, small package, but limited touchscreen based controls. For the price you can't really go wrong though. Should be a good step up from your phone even with the kit lens, though you many want to consider the 20, 30 or 45mm prime lenses for better image quality/low light.
Lately I've begun doing a lot of freelance work, and I will be setting off to travel the world. I love my DSLR setup to death. I have all the glorious lenses I need, some of which are professional-grade (70-200 f/2.8, 105mm f/2.8 macro), longer telephotos, and Ultra-Wide angle primes. I've never seen any other lenses rival this IQ.
However, my previous traveling experience taught me that it's heavy as hell to lug around, especially when you're backpacking for months on end. So I'm looking into a lighter setup.
While mirrorless bodies are awesome now, full-frame sensors, high MP, excellent Dynamic Range, I've found the lens selection to be lacking. The normal to wide-angle range is great, but at the longer end they are really falling short. The only options I've seen are 200mm + 1.4x teleconverter which just ends up being extremely slow at f/6.3.
My question is, has anyone here had good experience with birding or wildlife shooting with mirrorless bodies? What is the autofocus speed like on fast-moving subjects? I can't imagine it being as good as a DSLR's Phase-Detection AF.
Thanks!
Some of the recent bodies, like Oly EM1, Fuji XT1, Samsung NX1 and Sony A6000 do focus tracking rather well, but not on par with a Canon 7D II or anything, but generally as good as your average mid-range dslr.
Now, you can reduce size drastically if you go with a smaller sensor. Again, M43rds offers the best balance of physical size/weight and image quality.
Absolutely tiny 150-600mm equiv with the Olympus 75-300 4.5-6.7 (though quite slow, you will need a lot of light for BIF etc)
Moderately sized 80-300 equiv with Olympus 40-150/2.8, with 1.4x you get 120-420/4 equiv
Very small 70-200 equiv with Panasonic 35-100/2.8.
F2.8 M43rds lenses give a DOF like an F5.6, but this isn't really a concern for long lenses/teles, the DOF will be very thin even at 5.6 equiv in most cases.
Oly is coming out with a 600mm equiv, 300/4 which should be pretty good for birding along with the 1.4x.
An A7 with a 70-200/4, while mirrorless, really gives you very little benefit in size/weight over a 5D or similar, with worse AF. Plus at F4, you only have a 1 stop benefit over M43rds and an F2.8 lens, and zero benifit over APS-C with a 2.8 lens.
Another thing to consider is how you use your gear. If you have a FF camera with a 2.8 lens, but often have to stop it down to F4 or F5.6 when shooting motion to ensure wide enough DOF, you really have very little to lose in terms of image quality by going to a smaller sensor, and a hell of a lot to gain in terms of lugging gear around.
One last thing, its easy to get caught up in pixel peeping and measurbating over different sensor sizes and lab measurements, but at the end of the day the worst photo is the one you don't take. For me, I had thousands invested in absolutely superb (technically) FF DSLR gear, that sat on the shelf most of the time unused. I've since switched to a much smaller system, I enjoy using it significantly more because its a lot easier to carry and I use it a lot more as well as I rarely have to make the "do I really want to take this out with me?" call. The differences between M43rds are easy to see when you're pixel peeping specifically to find them, but in real world use they make very little difference.
i get the sentiment about having too much gear to lug around but for handling personally i like having a chunky body with well placed buttons in my hand. i've tried the compact camera route before and touch screen interfaces with nested menus and flimsy little cameras that are entirely too small for my hands or imbalanced with larger lenses are no fun to shoot with.
are these electronic viewfinders any good at determining if you truly are in focus? i find that tricky with the LCD's on the back of SLRs sometimes and prefer the optical viewfinder.
i recently upgraded from my old Pentax K-7 to a K-3 mainly for the improved autofocus and sensor. no real impressions so far other than it feels like home. comes with an even larger viewfinder, which is a bonus. combined with one of their small to medium size lenses like my smc 40 mm prime i find these cameras a joy to use and no problem to carry out on the road even in bad weather. definitely need no gear bag, two lenses at most, one mounted, the other stuffed into a backpack or men's purse.
There is huge variation in body style with mirrorless cameras, you have the absolutely tiny compact-camera sized Panasonic GM1/GM5, your more standard compact Olympus Pen, low end Sony/Samsung/Fuji etc, but also the mid-range cameras like Olympus EM5/10, Panasonic GX7, Fuji XE2 that actually have very good controls (better or as good as most mid-range DSLRs) and relatively good ergonomics all while being significantly smaller and lighter than DSLRs, all the way up to the higher end bodies like the EM1 (fantastic controls and ergonomics and still much smaller than a DSLR), Fuji XT1, Sony A7, and even DSLR sized/styled bodies like the Panasonic GH4 and Samsung NX1. There is much more choice and variation in mirrorless these days than DSLRs, where most cameras are roughly DSLR sized/shaped.
If you like a chunky DSLR sized body there are lots of options, and generally, when paired with the smaller and lighter mirrorless lenses, your overall system size tends to drop quite a lot, even with the larger mirrorless bodies.
Yes, actually, many can be set up with focus peaking or focus magnification which makes them significantly better for checking focus than an optical viewfinder. The better EVFs in the EM1, XT1, A7, etc really have huge (often bigger than even the best/biggest OVFs) high resolution EVFs with very few drawbacks compared to a OVF. An OVF has less lag than an EVF but even that gap is closing. Most decent/recent EVFS are pretty much better in every way than your average tiny, dark, crappy viewfinder on low-mid range DSLRs. Sure a nice bright full coverage full frame OVF is great to use, especially for tracking motion, but even then its not all roses. EVFs provide accurate exposure and white balance information which makes using them in manual mode much easier, and they provide a much brighter image in low light as well. In addition to accurate exposure and focus aids like focus peaking, some EVFs provide other benefits that are impossible to get with an OVF, for instance Oly's OMD line provides a stabilized view with any lens (even old adapted lenses) when half-pressing the shutter.
Personally, I used to be a die hard OVF user, and I've used a few EVFs which were simply not a replacement for an OVF. They were small, low resolution, laggy, and caused motion sickness. These days, a good EVF is as good and in some ways better than an OVF, and I would struggle to go back to the "hope your exposure is correct" world of OVFs if I had to switch.
Yeah, if you stick with very small primes (Pentax makes a number of nice ones) and don't mind carrying only one or two lenses, you can carry a relatively DSLR small kit. Me, I can carry my EM1, and 3 lenses easily in a very small messenger bag, and I don't have to pick and choose which lenses either, I can take an ultra fast 1.2 portrait lens, a 2.8 tele zoom, a 2.8 standard zoom a 4.0 ultra wide zoom or any number of a wide range of fast primes without thinking too much about size/weight. If I want, I can carry constant aperture zooms that cover the 14-200mm equiv. range all in my tiny bag.
I'm not sure why you would have to? A rear EVF provides pretty much equal usability to an OVF. You would only be reliant on the rear screen on the lower end models.
Again for the die hard DSLR users, look into:
Olympus EM1
Panasonic GH4 (industry leading internal 4k for you video guys)
Sony A7 series
Samsung NX1
Fuji XT1
Or a little smaller/more affordable:
Olympus EM5/10
Panasonic GX7
Sony A6000
Fuji XE2
Now, if you're happy with your DSLR, I won't argue for you to switch, at the end of the day you should use what is comfortable for you. However, there are clearly some misconceptions here about mirrorless cams.
Oh one last note about focus. Its often assumed that DSLRs are way better when it comes to focusing. Some of the newer, high end models are, but only in specific tasks. Higher end DSLRs designed for sports tend to be better at tracking moving subjects, so if you shoot sports, or wildlife, a DSLR is probably a better fit. Saying that, most good/recent mirrorless cameras focus not only faster, but more accurately than DSLRs. Firstly, the lenses tend to have more modern designs than a lot of DSLR lenses, which enables fast and often near silent focus, and CDAF focusing typically results in more accurate focusing*. With PDAF systems, you have a separate AF sensor that is often not alligned correctly with your lens, so back/front focusing errors are very common on DSLRs, and are hard to correct for. Some high end DSLRs allow you to make micro-adjustments to account for this, but this is generally a poor solution for zooms which make front focus at one end of the range and back focus at the other. CDAF uses the actual image content from the sensor to focus, so it can be much more accurate. Certain mirrorless cameras have hybrid CDAF + PDAF on sensor focusing systems which gives you the best of both worlds, and mirrorless focusing systems have improved at a rapid pace. Within a couple years, they will be as good or better than DSLRs for all tasks.
*CDAF has more of a tendency to pick up on background detail and focus on that instead of your intended subject, which can be a problem, especially with older models with large AF target boxes.
[ame]
Hehe, thats the same thing I said when I got my EM5 a few years back, even the bit about keeping the DSLR around for serious work. My A900 was one of the most comfortable cameras I ever laid my hands on. Then it sat unused for a year and I sold it. So much for serious work I guess. I'll be curious to hear if you feel the same after a year with the A7. Also, I would be curious to hear what sort of work you do that the A7 isn't suitable for.
Don't get me wrong, if I shot weddings or sports professionally I would pick up a 5DIII/D810 and a trio of 2.8 zooms without hesitation, but I don't, so for me it's overkill.
i see. focus peaking i find quite nifty now when trying to achieve shallow depth of field. but if i'm not after that i end up with what looks like flickering/noise all over the view. my new one has that for live view mode. thought it was some error at first.
has anybody used those manual focusing screens a la katzeye for the viewfinder? looking quite good in video demonstrations but not so sure how they affect metering or general viewfinder clarity.
With a lot of mirrorless cameras, you can set one of the FN buttons to toggle peaking or magnification on/off. Some cameras, if you're using native mount AF lenses that talk to the camera, will automatically turn peaking on only when you're in AF mode.
If you don't peaking at all, you can turn it off entirely. On my EM1 I have it turned off as the peaking isn't implemented particularly well (it reduces the framerate), not really an issue as I find the EM1's AF to be insanely fast and accurate in SAF mode which I use 99% of the time. I think Panasonic and Sony have better peaking but haven't really invested it thoroughly.
Yes, I've used them, they make the viewfinder darker and generally obscure it, and they aren't particularly accurate for critical focusing. Same sort of problems peaking has if not worse, and you can't simply turn it off when you don't want it. More of a pain than it's worth IMO, unless you have one installed in a secondary body for specialized (macro?) work.
I'm a total newb at photography. I purchased the SONY RX100 Mk III a few months back and have been loving it. It's a fantastic point and shoot although I am soon looking to splash out on something more high-end and this thread is a goldmine!
yes they seem to obscure a bit with the circular prisma being so close to the center. but as for accuracy - when you used them, did you have the camera correct your lens focus? seems with the aftermarket focus screens often a little calibration is required.
i'm just curious at this point. still in gadget purchasing mode, so to speak. they are really really expensive and the dollar<->euro situation doesn't help. no second body either. compact equipment allowed only.