Need help choosing a mirrorless camera

[Mark von Kanel]

Thanks Kathy, that is very purty bokeh! Though i very much doubt ill buy a prime for my first lens ill be looking at a zoom of some sort, any experience with those?

[xpatUSA]

I'm eagerly waiting by the mailbox for a brand new Lumix DMC-G1 to supplement my Sigma DSLR house-bricks

[tao2]

Hi Mark,

Ah want the Sony A7 ll. Had a loan for a day from a buddy. Handles beautifully, ergonomically superb, virtually no need for menus. It's heavier than other cameras of its type but that won't bother me, as ah'm still a user of full metal jacket film cameras. Having always been a Minolta/Konica M/Sony user and fan, it's logical for me. It also has, unquestionably, the best sensor out there.

My problem arises when ah would have tae part with a large part of my collection tae fund this purchase - without crying.

Ah'm really torn as none of my cameras ( 13 in total) ranging from DSLR, SLR, rangefinder, a bridge and a couple of compacts, are "shelf queens", they are all used regularly. The savings would come, in that ah have an abundance of lenses tae use on it (with adapters). My inability tae make up my mind is why ah joined this discussion. Although ah've chosen the camera ah want, ah can't let go of the others.

Who's gonna slap me upside the head and tell me tae be rational about this?

But then, there is no substitute for the purr of a Kiev shutter, the almost silent XD7, the clack of my vintage Zenits and the ergonomic excellence of my Minolta 8000i.

Like Mark, ah need help...or mebbe counselling, 'cos ah've just seen a mint Olympus spot for silly money and a Sigma MK1, for £15 !!!!

[inkista]

Thanks Kathy, that is very purty bokeh! Though i very much doubt ill buy a prime for my first lens ill be looking at a zoom of some sort, any experience with those?

Well, I got into MFT for my "cheap, tiny" setup, so I stuck with consumer-grade lenses for the most part and just relied on having better technique than when I got into dSLRs and knowing what the limitations of my gear are . So my zooms are the supercheap "twin-kit" lenses: the Panasonic 14-42 (MkI) and the Panasonic 45-200 OIS. They work a helluva lot better for me than my Canon EF-S 18-55 II (non-IS) or 75-300 III ever did, but that's really not saying much.

I'm still learning my way around the Oly 9-18 ultrawide.

[jcuknz]

Mark ... my single lens for my GH2 is the 14-140 Lumix which I got after buying the kit 14-42 originally with a G3 body.
But my needs could be different from yours I simply wanted a larger sensored 'bridge' camera and I got ILC as a bonus for extension tubes/bellows/bugeye etc. Kathy lists the longer reach which are quite expensive to my way of thinking so I have forgone them
After using a x12 zoomed 430 bridge I found the kit lens rather frustrating at only 84 equiv.
You can probably get an adaptor for your other lens and work manually or in A mode as I usually do with legacy lens. Manually focusing of course which likely you cannot do with modern lens I believe?

[Mark von Kanel]

Well im getting a litle closer......

Fuji is now out of the race

Panny GH4 is still there but at £1000+ is an expensive option for somthing i may not get on with
Oly em5II is still my personal fav the extra money for the em1 doesnt seem worth it as the em5 pretty much is the same thing for less money £700 vs £1000+ body only
Sony a6000 seems a lot of camera for very little money Sony a7II seems a lot of camera for very much more money.....

Things of intrest are.

M43 lens selection price seems unparlled without use of adaptors, good high quality very well priced glass with lots of weather seald options great for sports/nature
4/3 Sensor size has me concerned, i can print up to A2 will the 4/3 sensor be up to this? anybody tried? if so at what iso
Sony lens options dont seem to be great
Sony sensors much better A6000 af /frame rate seem excellent
Sony A6000 as i said seems a lot of camera for not much cash £500 inc kit lens but mainly menu driven.....

Only another 6 weeks untill i get home and can do the hand test! by then Nikon will announce the D400 and it will be all for nothing

[Mark von Kanel]

Well, I got into MFT for my "cheap, tiny" setup, so I stuck with consumer-grade lenses for the most part and just relied on having better technique than when I got into dSLRs and knowing what the limitations of my gear are . So my zooms are the supercheap "twin-kit" lenses: the Panasonic 14-42 (MkI) and the Panasonic 45-200 OIS. They work a helluva lot better for me than my Canon EF-S 18-55 II (non-IS) or 75-300 III ever did, but that's really not saying much.

I'm still learning my way around the Oly 9-18 ultrawide.

What body are you using Kathy?

How much are you using it in comparison with your DSLR?

Any major drawback from the DSLR ?

[Mark von Kanel]

Who's gonna slap me upside the head and tell me tae be rational about this?

Man you got it bad....

SLAP !

Hope that helped

Ahhh the days of my Zenit E.....

[jcuknz]

All being equal I made A3 from my bridge camera so I would think with the bigger sensor A2 is a snitch for MFT .. though it does depend of subject content and how well you got what you wanted in-camera along with ISO used.

[Mark von Kanel]

All being equal I made A3 from my bridge camera so I would think with the bigger sensor A2 is a snitch for MFT .. though it does depend of subject content and how well you got what you wanted in-camera along with ISO used.

Thanks for that, just read some stuff about 4/3 being generally good only up to A3, seemed a bit of a sweeping statment to me given that no iso was stated so thought id ask the guys that actually have the cameras and print their work.... iw ill of course take some shots at the camera store and print them to see what happens....

I keep bouncing between the a600 and em5 ii

[tao2]

Hi Mark,

have a look here. Ah know it's the e-m5 and not the ll version and snapsort is hardly in-depth but it helps focus what the buyer wants. Sony just announced another 4 lenses for their lineup and another 4 tae follow(reputedly) at the end of the year.

The adapter(s) is expensive but there's a whole world of other lenses tae use than Sony's . Good luck in the search.

[Manfred M]

Mark - I print 17" x 22" images from the Panny GX7. They look great.

I've done the same size prints out of an old bridge camera, and again they all turned out fine. In isolation. If I printed three shots taken with the D800, the GX7 and the old bridge camera (I've done this); you can definitely see a difference, even without pixel peeping.

All cameras show weaker performance as you get away from base ISO. With the GX7, I find that anything above ISO 800 you have to be a bit more careful, whereas with the D800 I have no hesitation of shooting ISO 3200.

As for the Panasonic GH4 (and its predecessor the GH3); both were primarily aimed at the amateur video shooters. Panasonic's roots are video cameras and in the higher end pro video stuff; they are Sony's main competitor in that market. Speaking of Sony; it's one company I can never quite figure out; they make very innovative products. On the other hand Nikon uses their sensors in their higher end cameras, yet when you look at the Sony products that use the same sensor; their performance is not as good as Nikon's. I just can't quite wrap my head around that one.

[Shadowman]

Mark - I print 17" x 22" images from the Panny GX7. They look great.

I've done the same size prints out of an old bridge camera, and again they all turned out fine. In isolation. If I printed three shots taken with the D800, the GX7 and the old bridge camera (I've done this); you can definitely see a difference, even without pixel peeping.

All cameras show weaker performance as you get away from base ISO. With the GX7, I find that anything above ISO 800 you have to be a bit more careful, whereas with the D800 I have no hesitation of shooting ISO 3200.

As for the Panasonic GH4 (and its predecessor the GH3); both were primarily aimed at the amateur video shooters. Panasonic's roots are video cameras and in the higher end pro video stuff; they are Sony's main competitor in that market. Speaking of Sony; it's one company I can never quite figure out; they make very innovative products. On the other hand Nikon uses their sensors in their higher end cameras, yet when you look at the Sony products that use the same sensor; their performance is not as good as Nikon's. I just can't quite wrap my head around that one.

Manfred,

It's interesting that you mention print size regarding type of camera when most image size assessment are lens specific. Granted sensor/lens goes hand in hand with P & S and bridge cameras, no other way to separate the components, however most SQFs (subjective quality factor) are based on lens first then camera if mentioned at all. I do realize that SQFs are only one way of evaluating a system.

[Shadowman]

Well, I got into MFT for my "cheap, tiny" setup, so I stuck with consumer-grade lenses for the most part and just relied on having better technique than when I got into dSLRs and knowing what the limitations of my gear are . So my zooms are the supercheap "twin-kit" lenses: the Panasonic 14-42 (MkI) and the Panasonic 45-200 OIS. They work a helluva lot better for me than my Canon EF-S 18-55 II (non-IS) or 75-300 III ever did, but that's really not saying much.

I'm still learning my way around the Oly 9-18 ultrawide.

Very nice capture, the MFT can take some very good quality images.

[jcuknz]

I do not know what you want the camera for but while I see it doesn't have quite the dynamic range of its later brothers the GH2 is a nice camera and I'd hope considerably less than the GH4 or GH3. ?

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

It's interesting that you mention print size regarding type of camera when most image size assessment are lens specific. Granted sensor/lens goes hand in hand with P & S and bridge cameras, no other way to separate the components, however most SQFs (subjective quality factor) are based on lens first then camera if mentioned at all. I do realize that SQFs are only one way of evaluating a system.

I mostly wanted to reassure Mark that he can make decent large prints out of a smaller sensor camera, so I really stuck with that theme. I have also found that once one drops into the 'sweet spot" in aperture settings (the f/8 - f/11 range) most lenses produce pretty decent performance. Pop the camera on a tripod to eliminate camera shake issues and shoot at base ISO, you've leveled the playing field a fair bit.

If you make a large print that you view at a "normal" distance (i.e. you stand far enough away to see the whole image) the difference in resolution of the lenses becomes even more of a non-factor. The larger the print, the further back you stand. The simple rule I use here is to stand roughly the diagonal of the print - for my 17" x 22" test prints, that means I stand about 28" away.

Do the lenses still figure into the image quality; probably, but not as much as most people think. I suspect the level of magnification and colour depth play just as important a part; but that's just my opinion. I shoot pro lenses primarily for their shallow depth of field and low light performance; I know they are not at their optimal performance point, but I can get both shallower depth of field and better low light performance; which are the primary reasons I bought them in the first place. The specs say that they are sharper; but I'd better be shooting with a heavy duty tripod or at a very high shutter speed; that bit of extra sharpness these lenses can deliver can quite easily be wiped out by a touch of camera shake...

[Mark von Kanel]

Manfred, Thanks for your rassurence.

John wouldnt both lens and sensor size have an effect on printing? a sensor producing an image say 1000 pixels by a 1000, wouldnt be able to print as large an image to a similar quality as sensor producing the same image with a similar quality lens at say 5000 pixels x 5000 would it??? or am i totaly misunderstanding somthing here?

NZ John, im a little confused by what your asking / saying. as stated in the OP i want the camera for sports/ nature/ travel which my D800 being big heavy and slow isnt ideal for.... was hoping for the D300 re hash to D400 which would maybe solve most of those issues, but im bored of waiting now....May i ask which "it" you are refering to?

im now bouncing between the oly em 5 II and the sony A6000 As Boab points out on paper the Sony is streets ahead and with its speedy AF frame rate of 11FPS, great dynamic range, larger sensor, it is my logical choise BUT... as manfred states and he hit the nail on the head for me, theres just somthing about Sony that doesnt feel right to me.... also im not keen on the lens range and costs. i can buy the f.28 12-40 and 40 - 150 which gives me 24 - 70 ish and 70 - 300 ish for a LOT Less than the sony equiv. If i was to go down the Sony route id have to consider my whole Nikon set up as well and im not doing that because the D800 is to me an excellant body and all of my pro glass is adorable as well.... (and its not white )

Everything seems a compramise and the touch test will be the deciding factor, but its looking more like the Oly EM5 - 5 II 12 - 40 f 2.8 40 - 150 F2.8 for my travel/sports nature set up.

But im still open to suggestions!

[Shadowman]

I mostly wanted to reassure Mark that he can make decent large prints out of a smaller sensor camera, so I really stuck with that theme. I have also found that once one drops into the 'sweet spot" in aperture settings (the f/8 - f/11 range) most lenses produce pretty decent performance. Pop the camera on a tripod to eliminate camera shake issues and shoot at base ISO, you've leveled the playing field a fair bit.

If you make a large print that you view at a "normal" distance (i.e. you stand far enough away to see the whole image) the difference in resolution of the lenses becomes even more of a non-factor. The larger the print, the further back you stand. The simple rule I use here is to stand roughly the diagonal of the print - for my 17" x 22" test prints, that means I stand about 28" away.

Do the lenses still figure into the image quality; probably, but not as much as most people think. I suspect the level of magnification and colour depth play just as important a part; but that's just my opinion. I shoot pro lenses primarily for their shallow depth of field and low light performance; I know they are not at their optimal performance point, but I can get both shallower depth of field and better low light performance; which are the primary reasons I bought them in the first place. The specs say that they are sharper; but I'd better be shooting with a heavy duty tripod or at a very high shutter speed; that bit of extra sharpness these lenses can deliver can quite easily be wiped out by a touch of camera shake...

So many factors at play here, lens quality, style of the body (compact or DSLR style), how the user holds the camera/tripod use, focus system (phase or contrast) and how each can affect getting the capture/size of the print.

[Mark von Kanel]

So many factors at play here, lens quality, style of the body (compact or DSLR style), how the user holds the camera/tripod use, focus system (phase or contrast) and how each can affect getting the capture/size of the print.

Agreed, but given that ALL other variables are identical apart from the sensor size, the bigger sensor will allow prints of a larger size than that of a smaller sensor to the same quality as persived by eye, Yes? (the same eye of course)

[Manfred M]

Agreed, but given that ALL other variables are identical apart from the sensor size, the bigger sensor will allow prints of a larger size than that of a smaller sensor to the same quality as persived by eye, Yes? (the same eye of course)

Honestly Mark, I suspect this is not the case. The amount of interpolation between a crop frame image (whether it is 1.5x, 1.6x or 2x) and full-frame is fairly limited and while I would expect some degree of softening, I suspect you are going to have to look at some fairly large print sizes before it become really meaningful. I have images up around the house taken with the Panasonic GX7, the Nikon D90 and the Nikon D800 as well as some older ones done with the film Leica R3. I get compliments on the images and no one asks me which camera / lens combination was used.

Would I expect the same quality out of your proposed camera as you get out of your much more expensive full-frame shot with pro glass? I would have to say no. On the other hand, will the casual viewer still love the great image captured by this smaller camera; the answer will still have to be yes. Even though you would be able to notice the difference in quality.