Looking for opinions on selecting a camera

[Ces1um]

So I'm thinking about buying my first good quality digital camera for my own use. I've been shooting film for 7 years now and before that I either used my phone or a little canon elph point and shoot that my wife and I shared. I've never had a decent DSLR or mirrorless camera. I don't know a lot about all the different tech (although I've been trying to educate myself through youtube). I also have a budget of about $1,200 cdn for the body only. I'm hoping I could get some opinions from the community at large on what's good. I do have a camera in mind though but not sure if my reasoning is sound. Hoping people wouldn't mind sharing their opinions.

So how I use my camera is:

Stills photo only. I have no need for video in any capacity.
I mostly shoot nature and travel photos. My camera comes out with me on long hikes. Smaller and lightweight is a benefit for me. I'm hoping to avoid large bodies and large lenses.
My favorite lens that I own is a 100mm macro lens. It's close focusing distance is only a few inches but also works well for images at infinity. I use it 60% of the time. Usually the widest I shoot is 55mm unless I'm away travelling where I'd use a 35mm focal length.
I usually only go out during the day with my camera. While I take a few photos in the house at night, it's less often (usually birthdays, Christmas morning).
I only rarely use flash. Mostly because of how I shoot along with my lack of knowledge currently on how to properly use a flash.
I need to be able to buy an adapter so I have the option to use some of my Voigtlander M mount lenses on occasion, but I plan on buying a native lens or two.
This time around I'm hoping to stay away from prime lenses. I'd prefer to use lenses that allow me to zoom from a wider focal length to one more telephoto. Hopefully one that could cover from 35mm to maybe as much as 135mm ish.
The largest I've ever printed anything is 8" x 12". I can't see me wanting to print larger.

Given my cost and size restrictions I've been looking into the micro 4/3 systems. I've seen lots of videos saying this sensor size is dead now. That it has poorer low light capabilities and tops out at 16mp. Given my usage pattern above I would think that these restrictions won't really come into play for me. Their unpopularity results in a good camera at an excellent price.

I've been debating buying an Olympus OM-D E-M5 which fits the budget. It's small and lightweight. 16mp will produce a decent 8x10/12. It also sells a lens that covers 14-150mm which for it's focal range is physically quite small. ( I think that means the full frame equivalent is 28-300). What are people's opinions on my choice? Am I missing a camera that's better that will fit my needs? Where I'm quite inexperienced with digital cameras and the technology I'm sure there may be better options out there that I've simply missed. I appreciate everyone's feedback and hope to use your opinions to help make my selection. Thanks for your input.

 

[Paul Howell]

In terms of mirror less I would give some thought to a Sony 6500 or a used A 900. Other option pentax k1 used. The pentax and Sony have wide range of lens available.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

x2 is the crop factor of mft. This will render M lenses to usless, IMO.
MFT is great platform to get not very expensive, but native lenses.
Get one with in body stabilization and enjoy your 100 macro. For macro, the longer the better, IMO.
Just don't expect your images to be sharp at 100% size, a.k.a. full crop. This is what mft can't often do.
And don't expect good battery capacity with any mirrorless.

Alternative with compact size is Sony A7 II. Full size sensor, small cameras, known to works well with M and almost any manual focus lens. Images will have better quality, especially for macro.

Do not hesitate to Google each camera you have interest in. Dpreview has standard review for many cameras and they have standard studio test where you could see how camera resolves on 1:1 image size.
With FF camera you will see fine details, with mft you will often fund details to be pixelated.

 

[4season]

As long as you're aware of M43's 2x crop factor, I think your choice will work just fine. Have only briefly sampled the EM5 but own the current Pen-F. Compared to film, it's low-light abilities will blow you away! The camera bodies are not particularly small or lightweight given the sensor size, so the real weight and size savings comes from the smaller lenses.

Main difference versus bigger sensors is that in order to achieve the same angle of view that you're currently getting with a 35mm lens on a film camera, you'll be using a 17mm lens on the Olympus and will tend to get deeper depth of field as a result. But the 17/2.8 Olympus is wonderfully small. And the still-small 20/1.7 Panasonic is a good all-around performer.

I like M43 for macro work too: There are instances where I want a bit more DOF than I can readily get with my 90mm macro lens on a FF camera, so I switch to M43 and use a 50/2.8 Canon FD @ f/5.6 or so and this works really well. Mine's one of the later FD optics, so it focuses down to 1:1. For subjects which don't move, I can also use the sensor-shift feature in my Pen-F which yields 80 mp raw files.

 

[Ces1um]

will tend to get deeper depth of field as a result....
I can also use the sensor-shift feature in my Pen-F which yields 80 mp raw files.

The depth of field issue with m43 keeps cropping up in a lot of videos I've been watching. I know the crop factor of two which is applied to focal length also needs to be applied to aperture size. So basically a full frame lens with a f2 aperture would result in an f4 aperture on a m43 camera. Do m43 cameras not have fast lenses? I would think one could still purchase large aperture lenses fo rm43 if they really needed profound bokeh. Maybe I'm missing something here?

The sensor shift feature- is that the same thing that Pentax calls pixel shift? It takes four photos moving the sensor one pixel over or down so RGB and luminance gets photographed and combined per pixel? I don't really plan on printing anything all that large to need 80mp but I suppose maybe having more room to crop a photo in post might be useful.

So it doesn't seem like m43 is getting a lot of love. I'm hearing that I should look into Sony's cameras. I'll take a peak at them after typing this. Another question- what do people think of fuji's "x" series? Apparently fuji has made their own m mount adapter which would work very well with my m mount lenses. The bodies are more expensive that what I was hoping for, but having an instant library of lenses that I could work with is appealing. I was hoping to get away from primes though (I never carry more than one lens when I'm out for a walk so I really was hoping to switch to a zoom). I believe they are full frame cameras as well.

 

[removed account4]

LeicA Q (116 ) its all you will ever need..
( until you need something else )
[ fixed lens beautiful, large pixel dimension worth every 1¢ ]

 

[Chan Tran]

While I don't use the M4/3 but I think the DOF or the M4/3 is an advantage rather than drawback.

 

[MattKing]

Last year my wife bought a micro 4/3 for our use - an Olympus OM-D EM-10 Mk II, with the standard 14-42mm kit lens.
It was the previous year's model and it cost us about $550.00 CDN plus tax - really well priced.
It is extremely capable. I have very satisfactory 12"x16" colour prints from it - jpeg straight out of the camera, canvas size adjusted to print straight on to bordered 12"x18" prints on RA-4 paper at Costco - $5.99 CDN plus tax.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens is apparently spectacular, but would take you above your price target.
The Olympus and Panasonic macro lens choices offer some lower price options.
It also behaves well with my OM lenses with an adapter, although with the crop factor, that works better for effectively longer lenses.
The menus are quite complex, but that seems to be the case with almost everything digital.

 

[faberryman]

The sensor shift feature- is that the same thing that Pentax calls pixel shift? It takes four photos moving the sensor one pixel over or down so RGB and luminance gets photographed and combined per pixel?

As a practical matter, has anyone actually used this feature other than for a test shot to see if it works?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So I'm thinking about buying my first good quality digital camera for my own use. I've been shooting film for 7 years now and before that I either used my phone or a little canon elph point and shoot that my wife and I shared. I've never had a decent DSLR or mirrorless camera. I don't know a lot about all the different tech (although I've been trying to educate myself through youtube). I also have a budget of about $1,200 cdn for the body only. I'm hoping I could get some opinions from the community at large on what's good. I do have a camera in mind though but not sure if my reasoning is sound. Hoping people wouldn't mind sharing their opinions.

So how I use my camera is:

Stills photo only. I have no need for video in any capacity.
I mostly shoot nature and travel photos. My camera comes out with me on long hikes. Smaller and lightweight is a benefit for me. I'm hoping to avoid large bodies and large lenses.
My favorite lens that I own is a 100mm macro lens. It's close focusing distance is only a few inches but also works well for images at infinity. I use it 60% of the time. Usually the widest I shoot is 55mm unless I'm away travelling where I'd use a 35mm focal length.
I usually only go out during the day with my camera. While I take a few photos in the house at night, it's less often (usually birthdays, Christmas morning).
I only rarely use flash. Mostly because of how I shoot along with my lack of knowledge currently on how to properly use a flash.
I need to be able to buy an adapter so I have the option to use some of my Voigtlander M mount lenses on occasion, but I plan on buying a native lens or two.
This time around I'm hoping to stay away from prime lenses. I'd prefer to use lenses that allow me to zoom from a wider focal length to one more telephoto. Hopefully one that could cover from 35mm to maybe as much as 135mm ish.
The largest I've ever printed anything is 8" x 12". I can't see me wanting to print larger.

Given my cost and size restrictions I've been looking into the micro 4/3 systems. I've seen lots of videos saying this sensor size is dead now. That it has poorer low light capabilities and tops out at 16mp. Given my usage pattern above I would think that these restrictions won't really come into play for me. Their unpopularity results in a good camera at an excellent price.

I've been debating buying an Olympus OM-D E-M5 which fits the budget. It's small and lightweight. 16mp will produce a decent 8x10/12. It also sells a lens that covers 14-150mm which for it's focal range is physically quite small. ( I think that means the full frame equivalent is 28-300). What are people's opinions on my choice? Am I missing a camera that's better that will fit my needs? Where I'm quite inexperienced with digital cameras and the technology I'm sure there may be better options out there that I've simply missed. I appreciate everyone's feedback and hope to use your opinions to help make my selection. Thanks for your input.

in your case, I think you don't need to spend much more than $100 on a decent digital P&S from either Nikon or Canon or any of the other name-brand products. Their zoom range weight and image quality will fit your needs perfectly and you are not out a lot of $$$.I spend $100 on a Nikon Coolpix and it's all I carry on trips it's 16Mpx quality has surprised me often. if you email at rwlambrec@gmail.com, I'll send you a comparison between it and a Nikon D800 on the same subject.

 

[4season]

I would think one could still purchase large aperture lenses fo rm43 if they really needed profound bokeh. Maybe I'm missing something here?

I probably made it sound like a bigger deal than it actually is, but yes you can certainly purchase fast M43 glass if you need super-shallow DOF.

So it doesn't seem like m43 is getting a lot of love. I'm hearing that I should look into Sony's cameras.

I own Sony APS-C and FF cameras too. IMO, the A6000 and A7 Mk I are some of the biggest bargains out there. But whether you'd be happier with one of those versus the EM5 is something only you can decide. I wouldn't be overly concerned with what the gear bloggers think - as a class, they tend to be fickle, writing a thoughtful essay on why their current brand is most sensible for them, then switching to another brand a week later.

 

[tedr1]

For decades I used film cameras. Now I am a great believer in "point and shoot" compact zoom digital cameras. I like not having to change lenses, and I like having a small pocketable camera. There are some compact zoom cameras out there with very good fast lenses and very good image quality that don't cost a lot of money, well within your budget. I am familiar with the Canon models and two come to mind, if you wish to have a viewfinder the G1X mk3 is a possibility, if you are happy working off the LCD screen (which I am) then the G7X mk2 is a possibility, both are current models in the US$500 - $1000 range complete with battery charger and battery (budget for a second battery and never leave home without it!).
I find two review sites helpful www.dpreview.com (these folk sometimes seem to show a pro-SONY anti-Canon bias) and www.imaging-resource.com, when studying choices I am a frequent visitor to both sites.

 

[Ces1um]

in your case, I think you don't need to spend much more than $100 on a decent digital P&S from either Nikon or Canon or any of the other name-brand products. Their zoom range weight and image quality will fit your needs perfectly and you are not out a lot of $$$.I spend $100 on a Nikon Coolpix and it's all I carry on trips it's 16Mpx quality has surprised me often. if you email at rwlambrec@gmail.com, I'll send you a comparison between it and a Nikon D800 on the same subject.

I've never given a P&S any real thought before this moment. I've gotten used to manual film SLR's, pinhole cameras and rangefinders. I'll send off an email in a moment- I'd love to see the comparison.

 

[Ces1um]

I wouldn't be overly concerned with what the gear bloggers think - as a class, they tend to be fickle, writing a thoughtful essay on why their current brand is most sensible for them, then switching to another brand a week later.

I've noticed that as well. I prefer to hear the reviews from people who obviously don't make their living off of youtube likes/subscribes. They seem to be closer to a voice of reason- which is why I started giving m43's some thought.

 

[Ces1um]

Last year my wife bought a micro 4/3 for our use - an Olympus OM-D EM-10 Mk II, with the standard 14-42mm kit lens.
It was the previous year's model and it cost us about $550.00 CDN plus tax - really well priced.
It is extremely capable. I have very satisfactory 12"x16" colour prints from it - jpeg straight out of the camera, canvas size adjusted to print straight on to bordered 12"x18" prints on RA-4 paper at Costco - $5.99 CDN plus tax.
The 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens is apparently spectacular, but would take you above your price target.
.

I was looking at the em-5 specifically because I had heard the menus were difficult to navigate on the em-10 and getting to the iso was supposedly a real chore. That being said, do you really find it that much of an inconvenience? I just re-read henry's and Olympus's websites and it turns out they are selling the om-5 with the 14-150mm lens for $1200 combined! I thought that was the price for the camera only and I was willing to spend 1200 on the body only. I'm much happier to pay less though. I'm not sure I really need anything beyond about 80mm on the m4/3 system so maybe I'll see if there are deals on any other lenses/body combos.

I am understanding this correctly though, aren't I? The 14-150mm lens they sell for this camera is really a 28-300mm lens because of the crop factor of the m4/3 system, correct? Or are they stating the 14-150 is the actual focal length for this particular camera (as I don't think this lens would mount on a full frame system)?

 

[Ces1um]

For decades I used film cameras. Now I am a great believer in "point and shoot" compact zoom digital cameras. I like not having to change lenses, and I like having a small pocketable camera. There are some compact zoom cameras out there with very good fast lenses and very good image quality that don't cost a lot of money, well within your budget. I am familiar with the Canon models and two come to mind, if you wish to have a viewfinder the G1X mk3 is a possibility, if you are happy working off the LCD screen (which I am) then the G7X mk2 is a possibility, both are current models in the US$500 - $1000 range complete with battery charger and battery (budget for a second battery and never leave home without it!).
I find two review sites helpful www.dpreview.com (these folk sometimes seem to show a pro-SONY anti-Canon bias) and www.imaging-resource.com, when studying choices I am a frequent visitor to both sites.

I'll research the point and shoot's next! You aren't the first person on this thread to suggest one based on my needs. One of the reasons I was looking at the Olympus om series is they have a couple of lenses which cover a wide range of focal length. The 14-150 would likely be the only lens I'd buy- but it does make this little camera quite a bit larger.

 

[Ces1um]

While I don't use the M4/3 but I think the DOF or the M4/3 is an advantage rather than drawback.

Longer DOF certainly can be an advantage. I'm not of the camp where bokeh is the only reason to have a camera. That being said, there are times that I do like to blur the background. Mostly for portraits but I don't shoot portraits very often.

 

[MattKing]

I was looking at the em-5 specifically because I had heard the menus were difficult to navigate on the em-10 and getting to the iso was supposedly a real chore. That being said, do you really find it that much of an inconvenience? I just re-read henry's and Olympus's websites and it turns out they are selling the om-5 with the 14-150mm lens for $1200 combined! I thought that was the price for the camera only and I was willing to spend 1200 on the body only. I'm much happier to pay less though. I'm not sure I really need anything beyond about 80mm on the m4/3 system so maybe I'll see if there are deals on any other lenses/body combos.

I am understanding this correctly though, aren't I? The 14-150mm lens they sell for this camera is really a 28-300mm lens because of the crop factor of the m4/3 system, correct? Or are they stating the 14-150 is the actual focal length for this particular camera (as I don't think this lens would mount on a full frame system)?

The ISO is best accessed through the touch screen - at least in my Mark II version. As I understand it, the menus have been re-configured and are a bit simpler on the current Mark III version.
I think that in the micro 4/3 world, you are more likely to see the actual focal length listed, not the 35mm equivalent. That 14-150mm lens is just that - 14-150mm - and is similar to a 28-300mm lens in the the 35mm world, but the difference in aspect ratio means equivalences aren't exactly equivalent.
I would reserve my money for some of the shorter lenses. The standard 40-150mm is really cheap, the 14-42mm options are really tiny, and the 12-40mm f/2.8 is impressive.
If you would like an out of camera, unedited full size jpeg of a handheld shot from my version, PM me your email.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Given my cost and size restrictions I've been looking into the micro 4/3 systems. I've seen lots of videos saying this sensor size is dead now. That it has poorer low light capabilities and tops out at 16mp. Given my usage pattern above I would think that these restrictions won't really come into play for me. Their unpopularity results in a good camera at an excellent price. . . .

I agree, except for the poor low light capability. I shoot a lot of indoors sports with a Nikon D5100 at ISO 3200 or 6400 with results that are good enough for most people. At the higher ISO the kit lenses at f/5.6 permit reasonable shutter speeds in many small school gyms. Prints up to 10x14 still look good. The Nikon mount permits the use of most old film Nikon lenses without the automatic functions. Reliability on a previous D3100 was perfect, and I gave it to a friend after 40,000 shutter actuations.

 

[MattKing]

The low light capabilities of the micro 4/3 sensors may not be as exceptional as with the larger sensors, but they aren't necessarily poor.
I rarely shoot "street", but while sitting in a local Starbucks on Granville Street on New Years Eve morning, I looked to my right and "More Expresso Needed was the result:

ISO 6400 and a jpeg almost unchanged right out of the camera, before resizing for here.

 

[mshchem]

Stills photo only. I have no need for video in any capacity.

Used Nikon D3 in excellent condition can be had for under 900 usd . Thing of beauty. I found one a couple years ago for under 800, fabulous camera. I now have a D5 but I can't let go of the D3. Truly a groundbreaking camera. No video junk, drives like every Nikon pro camera made since 1959. Find one with less than 50-60,000 clicks on the shutter. Mine only had 8,000. Aftermarket battery packs are cheap now and they work fine. Built like a tank. 12 MP is plenty. MHO

 

[tedr1]

These days many point-and-shoots deliver outstanding picture quality combined with the high convenience factors they always had. Most that are worth consideration produce two image files for every exposure, the familiar JPG which is ready to use, and in addition the RAW image file from which the JPG was derived by in-camera processing, and which permits numerous editing variations using the camera maker's software, with no loss in quality. (As you may be aware JPGs can be edited however the choices are much more restricted and also the degree of adjustment must be restrained if image quality is not to suffer.) I find RAW editing is fun.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you want small then it is hard to beat the Sonys. Get a full frame sensor if you are most concerned about quality. Image area is the number one factor for quality. Just plain physics. If you are really concerned about size then the APS-C sensors hit the sweet spot since you can use smaller lenses. They cost less too. It is really as simple as that.

Micro 4/3rds cameras don't really have a future. Think hard about buying one since the lenses will be abandoned. Any money you spend on lenses will be wasted when you go to buy another camera in a few years.

 

[Ces1um]

If you want small then it is hard to beat the Sonys. Get a full frame sensor if you are most concerned about quality. Image area is the number one factor for quality. Just plain physics. If you are really concerned about size then the APS-C sensors hit the sweet spot since you can use smaller lenses. They cost less too. It is really as simple as that.

Micro 4/3rds cameras don't really have a future. Think hard about buying one since the lenses will be abandoned. Any money you spend on lenses will be wasted when you go to buy another camera in a few years.

I've heard that argument and it is hard to deny for certain. You definitely have a point. I'm hoping to not be one of those people that upgrades every few years though. Ideally I'd like to buy one wide range lens (like the 14-150) and a macro and that should cover me until the camera stops working. That being said, I've certainly been a slave to gear acquisition syndrome in the past so maybe I'm just being naïve.

 

[jack straw]

I would honestly rent or borrow a mirrorless camera before buying one. I’d want to be really sure I was comfortable with an electronic viewfinder first (or a Fuji hybrid viewfinder, which I found too gimmicky). I’m also unsure how much I would enjoy using a lens adapter, vs native lenses. I wouldn’t discount an aps-c Nikon SLR—you would gain access to half a century of Nikon MF and AF lenses for reasonable prices. You can also get nice modern zooms without spending thousands on the fast 2.8 zooms. I bought and sold a few digital cameras one-two years ago, and wound up with a new D750 (full frame “prosumer” model that is now discounted) and a new nikkor 50mm 1.8G, and have been very happy since. It’s a little bigger, but not heavy, and it’s ergonomics and big optical viewfinder are excellent. The full frame cameras only get *huge* when you start adding the high end zoom or tele lenses. If you have one small to medium prime or zoom lens, it’s perfect (in my world) to walk around with.