Another mirrorless / 4/3 thread

[rsutoratosu]

So wife is tired of carrying dslr for long trips and looking for something smaller..

I know these smaller one are not that popular here, so our options are to pick up something in the US before we go on the trip or pick one up in Asia.

Any recommendation on buying something not available in the us?

Already own nikon/canon dslr and bunch of point and shoot from either

 

[zCypher]

A mirrorless 4/3 isn't going to be all that much less bulky for carrying around on long trips if the idea is to be carrying a bunch of camera gear, multiple lenses, etc. If the idea is to have one simple camera that's small, then perhaps consider something like the RX100. What point and shoots do you already have, and what is it about them that doesn't fit the bill? Are you/she specifically looking to be able to swap out the lens?

 

[rsutoratosu]

Just smaller for travel, have nikon d70, d80, canon rebel 3 or one of those xl ti. Canon sd400, sd500, fuji xp10 (slow water proof one), nikon aws120 (just got this last month for water parks)

nikon lense 50 macro, 18-200mm, 70-300mm
canon lense 18-135mm, 10-22mm

My dslr are old, I saw a sony mirrorless take like insane amount of shots per second. Much faster than the old dslr i own. I'm looking to empty out the entire nikon dslr line, all the old p&s and keep the nikon aws120

My wife likes her wide angle 10-22 so I'm to keep her canon. I did see the canon eos m which has an adapter that will take the ef-s lense but i guess the eos m isn't so good it takes a long time to focus. The 2nd issue it I think its discontinued and eos m2 is only available in japan,etc.

I also did a general search, they are actually massively more expensive than most dslr.. haha.. so not sure which route im going

 

[CuriousMike]

A mirrorless 4/3 isn't going to be all that much less bulky for carrying

I can attest. I purchased a Sony Nex 3N as a potential smaller camera for taking on hikes.
While it is smaller, the lens just makes it bulky enough to make it non-trivial to pack.
The pancake lenses that are available for it aren't actually any smaller than the 16-50 lens that comes with it.

It's lighter, it's smaller ( compared to my D7100 ) -- but it isn't tremendously easier to carry.

However, because it was cheap and it is lighter and it has good image quality, I'm using it.
Because it was so cheap, I don't worry (as much) as beating it up as the D7100.

Personally, if "tired of carrying" is the issue, I'd just go straight to the RX100 or the LF1 and be done with it.

 

[zCypher]

Just smaller for travel, have nikon d70, d80, canon rebel 3 or one of those xl ti. Canon sd400, sd500, fuji xp10 (slow water proof one), nikon aws120 (just got this last month for water parks)

nikon lense 50 macro, 18-200mm, 70-300mm
canon lense 18-135mm, 10-22mm

My dslr are old, I saw a sony mirrorless take like insane amount of shots per second. Much faster than the old dslr i own. I'm looking to empty out the entire nikon dslr line, all the old p&s and keep the nikon aws120

My wife likes her wide angle 10-22 so I'm to keep her canon. I did see the canon eos m which has an adapter that will take the ef-s lense but i guess the eos m isn't so good it takes a long time to focus. The 2nd issue it I think its discontinued and eos m2 is only available in japan,etc.

I also did a general search, they are actually massively more expensive than most dslr.. haha.. so not sure which route im going

damn that's a lot of gear haha. the RX100 has a very nice focal range, quality that just about rivals a DSLR in good lighting conditions and much better low light quality than your average point and shoot. It's hard to beat what this camera offers in a package that is somewhat pocketable, I don't think any mirrorless or DSLR can touch it in that respect. The Panasonic GX1 or similar sized mirrorless models are the closest, but if you start adding kickass lenses to it, you're back to the hurdle of having to carry around a bunch of stuff, so we're back to RX100 or similar P&S.

personally, I love my Nikon D5200 and kit lens, and I am going to upgrade to a good wide angle + good zoom, that'll probably the the extent of my equipment for some time. I'm looking to add the RX100 to my collection regardless, because even though I often force myself to bring the DSLR when I'm kind of on the fence about bringing it, there are still tons of times where I would really have loved to have a good camera on me, but just couldn't be carrying around a camera bag. The RX100 is one of the best cameras to fill that gap without sacrificing too much quality i think.

 

[Syborg1211]

I can attest. I purchased a Sony Nex 3N as a potential smaller camera for taking on hikes.
While it is smaller, the lens just makes it bulky enough to make it non-trivial to pack.
The pancake lenses that are available for it aren't actually any smaller than the 16-50 lens that comes with it.

It's lighter, it's smaller ( compared to my D7100 ) -- but it isn't tremendously easier to carry.

However, because it was cheap and it is lighter and it has good image quality, I'm using it.
Because it was so cheap, I don't worry (as much) as beating it up as the D7100.

Personally, if "tired of carrying" is the issue, I'd just go straight to the RX100 or the LF1 and be done with it.

Mike pretty much summed up the story of mirrorless. While smaller, the mirrorless cameras are just as annoying to carry around because of protruding lenses. My thinking has always been "if it still needs a bag, then I'm going with quality" when asked about mirrorless.

I also concur with the recommendation of the RX100 if you want small package with decent quality. There's that new panasonic LX100 that was just announced with a m4/3 sensor that could be interesting.

But here's my suggestion - evaluate what focal lengths you and your wife use the most. Go through your old pictures, mainly your favorites, and find out where you spend most of your focal length time. The 18-200, 70-300, and 18-135 all are big lenses that cover a lot of focal range. Generally, the disparity between the widest and longest focal lengths determines the size of the lens, and if you aren't spending any time past 50mm, then why aren't you using the original 17-55 kit lens that comes with the camera and is super light and small.

You could even get a prime lens and get better image quality than zooms, wider aperture for shallower depth of field and dark shots, as well as the bonus of being smaller and lighter-weight. Oh, and primes such as the 35mm 1.8g and 50mm 1.8g are cheap for both Nikon and Canon to boot.

 

[Throckmorton]

Sony A6000 is about the size of a MFT but has an APS-C sensor

 

[CuriousMike]

Sony A6000 is about the size of a MFT but has an APS-C sensor

Right - I went with the Sony NEX 3N because (it was cheap) has an APS-C sized sensor compared to any of the MFT offerings.

The A6000 has reviewed killer - I have two friends who like them.

But I stand by my comments regarding "portability" - just because they're smaller doesn't make them small.

 

[Throckmorton]

Here's another option, the LX100. It has a MFT sensor http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pa...tm_medium=sidebar-block-Homepage&ref=features

 

[guachi]

m4/3 cameras and lenses are definitely smaller and lighter than a DSLR, despite what others have said. This is especially true if you get the cameras that don't have a grip or viewfinder.

The difference is more noticeable the larger the lenses get, too (for an equivalent field of view)

Here is a link with 3 micro 4/3 cameras and two Canon DSLRs. The pictures are form above with lenses attached.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#570.397,472.335,482.34,333.377,449.26,449.310,525.35,ha,t

From left to right we have a Panasonic GM5 with a tiny 12-32mm lens on it. That's equivalent to a .85-2.67x zoom lens. It's very very small.
Next is a Panasonic GX7. Very hight quality and moderate size. It has a collapsible 14-42mm lens on it (1-3x)
Third is an Olympus E-M1. It' a fantastic camera. It's shown fitted with a Panasonic 14-140mm lens. You can swap Panasonic and Olympus lenses freely. It's the standard versatile zoom from Panasonic (1-10x)
Fourth is a Canon T4i. It's their basic DSLR. It's shown mounted with the kit 18-55mm lens. (1-3x zoom). As you can see, the package is much, much larger than the GX7 that has the identical field of view range and it's even larger than the Olympus mounted with a lens with much longer reach!
Lastly is a Canon T5i mounted with the standard versatile zoom of 18-200mm.

Total volume of the cameras, in cubic cm, is roughly:
GM5: 212
GX7: 473
EM1: 769
T4i: 1047
T5i: 1047

Weight, in grams:
GM5: 211
GX7: 402
EM1: 497
T4i: 575
T5i: 575

Approximate depth with shown lens attached, in mm:
GM5: 60.1
GX7: 81.4
EM1: 147.1
T4i: 154
T5i: 241.3

Weight with lens attached, in grams:
GM5: 281
GX7: 497
EM1: 957 (the lens is quite heavy. one of the heaviest in the system. The second version is much lighter)
T4i: 780
T5i: 1170

Mirrorless gives you more options for camera styles as you don't need the mirror box of a DSLR, with some cameras being very small. That GM5 is 1/5 the weight of the DSLRs shown. The sensor is smaller, so the lenses can be smaller. But, thankfully, the sensor isn't so much smaller it seriously affects the imaging quality. In addition, the flange distance is less so lenses can be shorter.

Toss a superzoom (100-300mm) with the standard kit zoom (14-42mm) with micro 4/3 and you're looking at a $600 lens that is about 530 cubic cm and 520 grams.

Toss an equivalent Canon superzoom, which would be 130-385mm (and doesn't exist so I chose the 100-400mm instead) and you're looking at a $1700 lens that's 1233 cubic cm and weighs 1380g.

The comment in the first response that "A mirrorless 4/3 isn't going to be all that much less bulky for carrying around on long trips if the idea is to be carrying a bunch of camera gear, multiple lenses, etc" isn't borne out when you actually look at the cameras.

Oh, heck. Just for fun I added two more cameras to the link. On the far right (camera 6) is a T5i with the 100-400 attached and a Panasonic GH4 (which is the largest m4/3 camera, I believe) - camera 7 and the very last one shown - with the 100-300 attached (the largest m4/3 by volume, I believe).

Here is the link again:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#570.397,472.335,482.34,333.377,449.26,449.310,525.35,ha,t

 

[blastingcap]

Mike pretty much summed up the story of mirrorless. While smaller, the mirrorless cameras are just as annoying to carry around because of protruding lenses. My thinking has always been "if it still needs a bag, then I'm going with quality" when asked about mirrorless.

I also concur with the recommendation of the RX100 if you want small package with decent quality. There's that new panasonic LX100 that was just announced with a m4/3 sensor that could be interesting.

But here's my suggestion - evaluate what focal lengths you and your wife use the most. Go through your old pictures, mainly your favorites, and find out where you spend most of your focal length time. The 18-200, 70-300, and 18-135 all are big lenses that cover a lot of focal range. Generally, the disparity between the widest and longest focal lengths determines the size of the lens, and if you aren't spending any time past 50mm, then why aren't you using the original 17-55 kit lens that comes with the camera and is super light and small.

You could even get a prime lens and get better image quality than zooms, wider aperture for shallower depth of field and dark shots, as well as the bonus of being smaller and lighter-weight. Oh, and primes such as the 35mm 1.8g and 50mm 1.8g are cheap for both Nikon and Canon to boot.

I'm going to chime in saying the same thing other people said--if you want something pocketable, get an RX100.

Not the LX100, have you seen the thickness of that thing?!

Just get the RX100 I/II/III (III for the EVF and zoom range with built in ND, II for the hotshoe, I if you don't need any of that).

The Canon G7X might be an adequate substitute for an RX100 as well, but the problem is that it has no hotshoe AND no EVF, so it's basically a regular old RX100 mark I with possibly slightly better lens and more useful zoom range to some people. Plus it costs a lot... you might as well get a used RX100 for under $400.

Now, if you don't mind having to have a bag, then I'd recommend something like a sony NEX-3N as being very high bang for the buck. The a6000 is the machine-gun you probably heard, it goes 11 frames per second and has DSLR-speed autofocus tracking, not just initial acquisition but actual tracking. Most mirrorless only get that initial acquisition part... very few can track. But you pay a steep premium for the mirrorless cameras that can track like DSLR... the a6000 is the cheapest at $800, then the EM-1, XT1, GH4, and Nikon V3.

I have a LOT of experience with mirrorless cameras and frankly once you go beyond "pocketable" size, they all need bags, so the size advantage of Nikon 1 or Micro Four Thirds isn't much. The only exception is the really long focal length lenses--those are indeed smaller. But smaller sensor size means you can't crank the ISO as high. If you don't often shoot longer than 200mm full-frame equivalent, I would get an APS-C mirrorless camera such as the NEX-3N. Once again, this is all dependent on you being ok with a bag. If you want pocketable, just get the RX100 or possibly the GX7 depending on price. The LX100 is MUCH thicker and in my opinion is no longer comfortably pocketable.

 

[jaedaliu]

I've got a thread in here about picking a nicer-than P&S camera. The Panasonic GX7 is much smaller and easier to carry around my neck than the Nikon 5200 was.

It's true, I still have to carry a camera bag if I'm bringing a couple lenses with me, but the bag is about 1/3 the size of the one I used before. It'll be winter again soon, so i can stuff the GX7 into my coat pocket when I've got the pancake lens attached.

As for the quality trade-off, I don't notice. I look at the pictures on my computer, don't crop a ton, and don't print. There is a tradeoff with bokeh, though. It's not as easy to get even with the 20mm f/1.7 lens.

 

[zCypher]

I'm not saying mirrorless don't have their place, or their advantages, they certainly do. I bought a Panasonic GX1 as a gift for someone who travels frequently but would definitely not make use of a DSLR. What I am saying is if you truly want something pocketable that you'll not neglect to bring with you for not wanting to bring a bag, something like the RX100 is great.

Some mirrorless cameras with pancake lens are pocketable for some people. However even the GX1 I gifted, they still don't always bring it with them, so it hasn't quite hit that level of portability where you'll be sure to have it with you like a cell phone, or for a lot of people a very pocketable point and shoot.

Then there is the focal range, are those pocketable mirrorless cameras offering the focal range of the RX100? I still say something like the RX100 (doesn't have to be it specifically but something with similar size and specs) is one of the best solutions for that type of usage. So it again comes down to "tired of carrying" part.

couple of questions for OP:

- is the ability to swap out lenses a deal-breaker?
- what's the approximate budget?
- would you consider any used or refurbs?

 

[Throckmorton]

The OP didn't say pocketable, he said his wife wants a smaller camera

There is no pocketable that's anywhere close to an SLR. The Sony RX100 isn't an SLR substitute, it's a compact camera with a tiny sensor. No, it's not really 1"

 

[rsutoratosu]

let me ask her what she wants, i think she just want something smaller, with wide angle ability (probably optional), I think most of the pic will be portrait of kids so I dont think I need a large lens.

It is a lot of gears but they span like 10 years of life.. i dont even remember how old some of these stuff are, thats why we decided to clear out all the old stuff and just keep 1-2 decent camera.

 

[tdawg]

Take a look at the Fuji X-T1. Awesome feel and everybody praises the image quality from this and the other x-series Fuji cameras. APS-C sensors, small bodies and smaller lenses, plus all the manual dials one could wish for.

Also, the Olympus OM-D series MFT cameras feel great. Tiny cameras too for m4/3rds. I don't think they're as nice as the Fuji, but if you're considering MFT, it's worth a look.

 

[Belegost]

I would look at what investment you already have in Canon glass. The Rebel SL1 (100D) is not much larger than a 4/3 body, but would be usable with all your EF/EF-S mount lenses. I recently tested out the 40mm pancake on it (getting ready for the 24mm pancake release in a month), and it even fits in my (admittedly large) pockets.

So if you have nice Canon lenses, it may be worth finding a store nearby with one you can hold, see if that fits the desire for smaller.

 

[iGas]

Perhaps an EOS M with a pancake lens, or something similar.

 

[Belegost]

Perhaps an EOS M with a pancake lens, or something similar.

They have an EF -> EF-M converter that would allow for keeping existing EF lenses to use on the EOS M. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Adapter-...QWM83FR26KHC1H

 

[blastingcap]

Take a look at the Fuji X-T1. Awesome feel and everybody praises the image quality from this and the other x-series Fuji cameras. APS-C sensors, small bodies and smaller lenses, plus all the manual dials one could wish for.

Also, the Olympus OM-D series MFT cameras feel great. Tiny cameras too for m4/3rds. I don't think they're as nice as the Fuji, but if you're considering MFT, it's worth a look.

Fuji is super overhyped and WAY too expensive for what they deliver. Fuji exaggerates their ISO by as much as a full stop (so their ISO 800 might be everyone else's ISO 400 for example). The colors and JPEGs are nice, but you can do pretty much as well with a Bayer CFA anyway, and you don't lose as much resolution from the non-optional noise reduction. I don't see the point of getting Fuji when you can get more affordable Samsung, Sony, or other APS-C. Even Micro Four Thirds isn't that much worse than APS-C and has some good lenses too.

The EOS-M has slow shot to shot time, due to long blackouts after taking shots. Plus you need STM lens to have faster autofocus. Not a big deal to some people though.

To the guy saying no APS-C is pocketable, that's not necessarily true, look at the Ricoh GR for instance, some would say that is pocketable. Fixed focal length though.

 

[tdawg]

Fuji is super overhyped and WAY too expensive for what they deliver. Fuji exaggerates their ISO by as much as a full stop (so their ISO 800 might be everyone else's ISO 400 for example). The colors and JPEGs are nice, but you can do pretty much as well with a Bayer CFA anyway, and you don't lose as much resolution from the non-optional noise reduction. I don't see the point of getting Fuji when you can get more affordable Samsung, Sony, or other APS-C. Even Micro Four Thirds isn't that much worse than APS-C and has some good lenses too.

I'm not going by hype, but rather firsthand accounts. Everybody I talk to raves about the image quality; I don't consider it hype.

That said, people buying cameras should be doing their own testing rather than relying on forum posts, dxo charts, etc; nothing replaces hands-on experience.

 

[rsutoratosu]

ok so this is the camera her friend has and she loves , the sony nex-c3, I finally got the model. I google and this is a 2010 model, so if I just get whatever follows the nex-c3 that's recent, I should be good.. and her friend has a small lens so nothing telephoto, etc.. ill do some more research, still got 2 month before leaving

 

[CuriousMike]

Depending on cost considerations, you could look at the NEX 5r/5t, or the A6000 or the A5100.

I have the 3N which is a somewhat sideways step from the C3 - while the camera takes nice photos, the LCD is practically unuseable in daylight.

 

[blastingcap]

I'm not going by hype, but rather firsthand accounts. Everybody I talk to raves about the image quality; I don't consider it hype.

That said, people buying cameras should be doing their own testing rather than relying on forum posts, dxo charts, etc; nothing replaces hands-on experience.

Yes, but make sure to compare two cameras side by side rather than in isolation. And set to same shutter speed to avoid Fuji ISO cheating. All the "raving" I hear about Fuji is about shots in isolation (not side by side) and without correcting for exaggerated ISO, and mostly by people who already spent a lot of money on Fuji, so there's the possibility of ownership bias.

Also Bayer is better for video, for those who take videos. Maybe that's why at least one of Fuji's recent cameras gave up on X-Trans and went back to Bayer.

X-Trans isn't bad and might even be slightly better than Bayer in some cases, but I don't think it justifies the $premium, plus I do take videos. If Fuji didn't charge a premium I'd consider it more of a rival to Samsung/Sony/Canon/etc. Canon is supposedly coming out with a "serious" EOS-M "very soon." That ought to be interesting, considering that their EF-M lenses are as good as Fuji's but at a lower price.

 

[tdawg]

Yes, but make sure to compare two cameras side by side rather than in isolation. And set to same shutter speed to avoid Fuji ISO cheating. All the "raving" I hear about Fuji is about shots in isolation (not side by side) and without correcting for exaggerated ISO, and mostly by people who already spent a lot of money on Fuji, so there's the possibility of ownership bias.

All of my photos are taken in isolation, so what does it matter with side-by-side comparisons if the users are exceedingly pleased with the images their chosen camera produces? For those that appreciate these retro cameras as well as having dials and physical controls to manipulate camera settings instead of menus, the Fuji seems to me to be a good option.

As cameras have gone digital, a large community has cropped up to pixel peep and get hung up on tech specs at minute levels. But a number of users enjoy using cameras that have a kind of nostalgic style--for me that's the Olympus OM-D series, since I learned on my dad's OM-1. I'm just saying that people will pay more for style or different functionality, just like they do with cars.

That said, the Sony a6000 at around $600 body only seems like a sweet deal and also is reported to produce excellent images; if I ever give up my full frame and go mirrorless APS-C, the Sony will get a serious look.