Need help choosing a mirrorless camera

[Shadowman]

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?

But im still open to suggestions!

Mark both sensor and lenses do have direct bearing on final print, the sensor more so for noise, resolution, color interpretation and the lens for sharpness and all of that coupled with you the photographer and your technique.

[Shadowman]

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)

Mark,

Interesting claims by camera manufacturer for acceptable print sizes. For two cameras with same MP (D600 and D5200) both stated to produce good prints up to 20.1" x 11.3", however when reviewing particular lenses the manufacturer typically states A+ rating (SQF) across the range of apertures for print sizes up to 11" x 14". For larger size prints up to 20" x 24", the quality drops significantly and usually only scores high for one or two apertures and usually near wide open.

[Manfred M]

the manufacturer typically states A+ rating (SQF)

SQF?? John after I saw your reference to this I Googled the term and found a few references to the term amongst some older lens reviews (some going back to 2002). I can't ever remember seeing any manufacturer using this in their literature.

It strikes me that this is just another example of some photojournalists trying to take something as complex as lens performance and come up with a single number rating. Am I missing something here?

[Shadowman]

SQF?? John after I saw your reference to this I Googled the term and found a few references to the term amongst some older lens reviews (some going back to 2002). I can't ever remember seeing any manufacturer using this in their literature.

It strikes me that this is just another example of some photojournalists trying to take something as complex as lens performance and come up with a single number rating. Am I missing something here?

Hi Manfred,

I first heard of SQF through Popular Photography magazine. I also found reference to it through Imatest. See link below. The author mentioned the PP use of sQF but stated they didn't have full background on how the magazine uses the system. Also compared is the standard MFT system of evaluation.

I should also state that previous comment regarding SQF charts were from independent reviewers, manufacturers use MFT charts to rate their lenses and do not necessarily correlate that value to a print size.
http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/

[inkista]

What body are you using Kathy?

Panny GX-7, although I used to use a Panny G3. I have a thing for viewfinders so none of the bodies without one appealed to me.

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

It's supplanted my Canons as my main shooting system, which did surprise me. I still use my 50D+400/5.6L for birding and 60/2.8 Macro for macros, and my 5DMkII + 25-105L for "serious" landscape shooting, playing with Magic Lantern, and the 5DMkII+135L and 85/1.8 USM for lit portrait stuff (cheap radio-triggered off-camera flash on the MFT side of the fence is less full-featured). But nearly all my casual shooting and certainly all my social shooting has gone to mft. The main reasons that pushed me this way were getting a bad back and sciatica (less weight to haul), having tiny little girl hands, and a long-standing battle with RSI pain. YMMV.

Any major drawback from the DSLR ?

Yes. Fast-action tracking and overall responsiveness is not like my dSLRs. But I'm not a sports shooter, so no big. EVFs can be tiring for me (although I don't mind LCD shooting for a lot of what I do). I roundly curse my MFT gear every year at Comic-Con as I try to shot in dark presentations with only stage lighting and the damn combo hunts and hunts and hunts. I also don't see any analog to my beloved 400/5.6L's performance/AF speed on the MFT side of the fence, although Olympus has announced the m.Zuiko 300/4--my Panasonic bodies don't do PDAF, so it's unlikely they'll give me the same performance as my Canons. And I don't want an EM-1. And, of course, I'm compromising on low-light performance/dynamic range because a four-thirds sensor is still a smaller sensor vs. my full frame. But when I need full frame, I shoot full frame. I'm a packrat, I didn't replace my Canons altogether, just supplemented it with mft. All my expensive glass is on the Canon side of the fence, though, so that may have something to do with my decision to keep it as a system.

[inkista]

One more thing. Just to support Manfred's statements about print sizes from micro four-thirds, I'd also point your attention to Ctein's TOP offer of 17x22 prints from his 12MP EP-1 files three years ago:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...ll-sensor.html

Ctein is a supergeek (he's a physicist in his other day job) and a master printer. I've seen his gallery-quality prints in person. If he's saying that mft has reached sufficiency for printing up to 20"x24" (and probably 24"x30"), I see no reason to disbelieve him.

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred,

I first heard of SQF through Popular Photography magazine. I also found reference to it through Imatest. See link below. The author mentioned the PP use of sQF but stated they didn't have full background on how the magazine uses the system. Also compared is the standard MFT system of evaluation.

I should also state that previous comment regarding SQF charts were from independent reviewers, manufacturers use MFT charts to rate their lenses and do not necessarily correlate that value to a print size.
http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/

Thanks for the link. I've noticed a couple of errors in the article, but at least I can understand where the concept comes from and really how weak the argument really is. The fact that the methodology never gained widespread acceptance suggests that the underlying premises are clearly flawed. I suspect that the reason Popular Photography jumped on the bandwagon is that having been authored by Kodak, and in the day, that made for instant credibility.

Even the MTF charts, as interesting as they are, are a "worst case" measurement using readings a the largest aperture.

For an article on how to read MFT charts; http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And...i-read-it.html

[Shadowman]

Thanks for the link. I've noticed a couple of errors in the article, but at least I can understand where the concept comes from and really how weak the argument really is. The fact that the methodology never gained widespread acceptance suggests that the underlying premises are clearly flawed. I suspect that the reason Popular Photography jumped on the bandwagon is that having been authored by Kodak, and in the day, that made for instant credibility.

Even the MTF charts, as interesting as they are, are a "worst case" measurement using readings a the largest aperture.

For an article on how to read MFT charts; http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And...i-read-it.html

Manfred,

Thanks for the MFT chart link.

[Mark von Kanel]

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for the feedback, just what i was after! Unless i go sony A6000 my nikon gear is safe.... but if i take a good look at sony's system and decide it offers what i need, nikon are going to lose a 25 year loyal customer. I keep looking at the Sony sys thing. A600 for carry about A77 II for sports nature, cant remember what the high pixel and low light bodies are called but somthing along the lines of A&r /S i think. To tell the truth that gives everything i need and unfortunatly Nikon just dont cover 2 of those areas very well..... No Fast DX and very poor offering in smaller stuff...

so looking like oly 4/3 and nikon for now....

[MisterT]

Hi. I have been through this process on my entry to digital photography a few years back. I had lots of legacy glass so went for the Olympus EPL2 (in body stabilisation means it works for legacy lenses, as long as you enter the focal length) . Thoroughly enjoyed it but eventually found it wanting. I also got a compact Panasonic DMC LX5, with Leica lens, which is bloody amazing and I still use it.
Having taken some formal qualifications I decided to upgrade, I still like the small size of MFT but also wanted to try full frame. So I bought the Olympus OM D EM1 and a Nikon df.
They are both great but as a MFT camera, the OMD is unbelievably great!

[Mark von Kanel]

Thanks Andrew, looking more like the EM5 mk II every day for me.

[BearPrint]

Gee, I wish you had killed that dust spot.

[Ndukes]

For some time I struggled with the dilemma of quality versus 'ideal' handling and weight. Just over a year ago I was using a D800 and a D7100. I liked the full frame D800 in every respect apart from its weight and I found the D7100 with Nikon 18-200mm ideal as a go anywhere camera.
Being one of those kids in the 60's and 70's who spent much time gazing into high street camera shop windows in Dublin at cameras I really needed to but could not own, the Nikon Df looked attractive to me.
So, weighing everything up, I opted to part with my D800 (don't have any use for 36 megapixels) and my D7100 (don't need two DSLR's) along with my APS-C lenses, and purchased my Df.
I recently purchased a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 PZD which resides almost full time on the camera. The performance of this lens is brilliant and the combination's size and weight (roughly 1.3 kg.) is roughly equal that of the D7100 / Nikon 18-200 combination which for me is just right. I retained my modest collection of first rate Nikon full frame lenses. Note the bespoke metal screw type lens hood - I have a pet hatred of plastic petal hoods.

[Rbranjan]

I've been using Nikons (SLR/Compact/DSLRs) for a while as well as Panasonic and Canon compacts through the years. Recently, my neuropathy has moved northwards and this has made it difficult to work with tiny switches, buttons and dials. Been eyeing Fujica and Olympus mirrorless models because of their good reviews and more so their chunky dials and lack of too many tiny buttons plus lower body+lens weight (compared to my current digital and film camera sharing lenses) etc. Haven't yet made the switch because I do have a chunk invested in :-(

Good thing I do not earn a living from doing photography or I would be really up the creek!

[John 2]

Just arrived back from a couple of weeks in Portugal and catching up. Thought this might be of interest but keep in mind that it is just one man's opinion.

http://alikgriffin.com/fuji-x-t1-vs-...pixel-showdown

Mark, include the Fuji XT-1 in your holding test. It's a full DX size sensor not micro 4/3rds, the performance of the X series lenses is acknowledged to be excellent (including zooms) but in particular, compare the EVF brightness and the fact that most functions are controlled from dials on the top of the body and are very much to hand. I can't compare the camera to others that have been recommended here because I have not used them. All I can say is that my D7100 is no longer the camera that I pick up first. One point that I will add that didn't come into the reckoning when I took the plunge is that Fuji run a programme of continuous improvements through firmware updated that are FOC and based on customer feedback. These have not only corrected some minor shortfalls e.g. in auto focus speed which you would expect, but have added facilities like an electronic shutter that is in addition to the standard shutter and an app that lets you control the camera remotely with a smart phone or tablet through it's WiFi connection. Great for wildlife. There are some downsides. I haven't managed to set up back button focussing yet although understand it is possible. Secondly, the stable of available lenses doesn't yet include anything longer than 200mm and won't do until early next year when they are promising a 120-400mm zoom. There is also a 1.4x converter due in about September. Finally, the next generation of Fuji X cameras are imminent and the X-pro 2 will not only have all of the learned improvements to date and an increased pixel count on a DX + size (unique) X-tran sensor but like its predecessor, will have both a full information optical VF in addition to it's EVF. It will be expensive but I'm guessing that the price of the current generation will come down as a result of the introduction of the newer cameras.

[Bootsy]

i made the jump from a canon 7d and a few L lens to a Olympus em1. i normally shot aircraft and alot black and white landscape and still life. i swapped because i just didnt gel with the 7d like i did with my old 40d and found i just wasnt using it. after buying a em5 for holidays and traveling light which i loved. but it just couldnt keep up with tracking aircraft so sold all my kit and brought the em1 with the 12-40 and 40-150 both 2.8 pro lens. apart from using all sorts of old legacy glass and wanting a few olympus primes i'm happy with the quality of the Olympus glass.

[MisterT]

Olympus OM-D EM-1!