Interested in Mirrorless replacement for Nikon D800

[Reality4711]

All in the title really.

I noticed a few people posting images with this type of camera as a source and pleased with what I saw.

So. OM, Fuji, Panasonic. What is the feeling on these?

The IQ on my Nikon is the best I have had but it is clunky (noisy) to use some of my glass is not really to my liking (financially limited).

The Olympus OM-D with two kit lenses comes in at about £900 (Amazon); how about thoughts on that for a start.

Regards. Sharkey

 

[kenoh]

This is all my own thoughts and I know nothing so feel free to ignore...

I think Panasonic is changing its camera division.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/panasonic-restructures-camera-division/

I dont think there is any risk of them disappearing as - correct me if I am wrong - they are the strongest contender in the non-pro 4K video space currently.

I moved to mirrorless a few years ago when I traded my Canon setup for a Sony A7. I have never looked back. I am not sure whether my life events influenced this transition as much as the technology did but basically I do not hanker for a DSLR at all. Maybe if I tried a FF DSLR I may be tempted but I am happy with what I have.

I like the OM cameras, especially the Pen-F but then I also have the joy of shooting Leica so I think I am drawn to the retro end of the spectrum. The M43 sensors are going from strength to strength right now and I think they are a compelling offering. I would buy a Pen-F if it werent for me needing to start a third lens system - my wife would kill me.

I think that the build quality is great on the OMs and the lens selections are great when you look across the OM and Panasonic compatible lenses range. There are some stellar performers that come in small packages.

For the pricepoint you mention there for the OM-D, which OM-D do you mean? the EM10, EM10ii, EM-5, EM-5ii, EM1?

the mark ii versions are great cameras certinaly in look and feel. They take great pictures for those of us who are not shooting large print sizes and are OK in the hand if not a tad small and fiddly. The EM-10 in particular has the same best and worse feature - it is compact. Great for portability but the buttons are on the small side.

They have good EVFs if not market leading like the one in the Leica SL but plenty good enough for the man on the street and whilst the SL is better, they are not crap by any stretch of the imagination. Your challenge will be moving from OVF to EVF regardless of the quality of the EVF it is going to be a change to the way you work regardless.

I have seen some images from a friend who uses a Fuji APS-C setup and he lays my pictures to waste on his setup verses me with my FF Sony. I know you have skills beyond me so I have no doubt that the IQ will be plenty good enough to allow you to produce good output.

This guy takes amazing images with his Fuji setup: https://www.flickr.com/photos/macleancomms/

I have A Sony A7Rii and even two years in, I still have the "holy sh*t" moment when I take a nice picture. I still get bowled over at the quality. This is not to say that it is any better than a DSLR but it is certainly no worse.

If you are doing it for reasons of weight and space then remember big lenses are big lenses however you can pack a 150-600MM equivalent from Olympus in less space than a 70-200 from Canon and it is weather sealed. There are a good selection of lenses available and each range has a couple of price points - budget, quality, pro spec. Pro spec being the same price as comparable Canikon L equivalent glassware but understand in todays market there are not many poor lenses anymore so a mid range well priced model will likely be plenty of firepower. Well, based on my skill level, it would be fine for me - if only I could kick this "buy the best" mindset i have ingrained in me. ha ha ha...

I think the only thing that would really make a difference in the general 95% of the population real world shooting is that the M43 doesnt do bokeh the way your Nikon will. If you like to shoot with lots of bokehlicious shots then I would try the mirrorless cameras with m43 sensors before buying as the smaller sensor is not as good as the bigger sensor but then that is where we come back to your skill. If your context allows you to increase the distance from subject to background then it is fine but there is no way to get round the physics of the bigger sensor and the isolation that that gives.

I suppose the best thing I can say (if you rate my thoughts at all) is that as an existing mirrorless shooter, I am looking to replace my take everywhere Sony RX100 as I want a bigger sensor in my carry everywhere camera. For this I am very tempted to go for one of the OM-Ds myself. Only last night I was fondling an EM-5ii in Heathrow sorely tempted to buy one.

But then I was tempted to buy a Leica Q too... so I dont know what I want... Good luck!

Hope this helps a little.

 

[TheDrift-]

Hi

I think Kenoh's advice is pretty sound..

Take a took a long hard look at Fuji, I think they are a cracking camera system, but there good glass might not offer to much of a reduction in size/weight as I was looking for.

I had a Pen F, I really liked it, there was some great glass the pana leica 42.5mm was a personal fav and did somewhat offset the lack of bokeh available through the rest of the system.

I also really enjoyed the Pen F Auto Manual focusing, you could set a focus mode which has autofocus, which was than manually overridden as you turn the focus ring on the lens, but also have it so the viewfinder magnified the image x10 and had peaking!!

In practice you could autofocus and then fine tune by manually adjusting the lens with the benefit of 10X mag and peaking! I am not sure of other mirrorless have this option but I really liked it. Ultimately I struggled a bit with the IQ hit so ended up going a different way

Personally I am not a fan of Sony bodies (i just find them fiddly and a little uninspiring to work with) but they make great cameras with lots of features and some great great sensors (maybe some of the best?) and are certainly worth looking at too.

I suppose very broadly speaking Sony or Fuji will give very DSLR like performance at some saving of weight/size
M43 will give a much bigger reduction in size/weight but performance and IQ will take a hit
A third option may well be Leica or film?
[doublepost=1490886113][/doublepost]

...... I want a bigger sensor in my carry everywhere camera. For this I am very tempted to go for one of the OM-Ds myself. Only last night I was fondling an EM-5ii in Heathrow sorely tempted to buy one.

But then I was tempted to buy a Leica Q too... so I dont know what I want... Good luck!

Hope this helps a little.

Have you looked at the Ricoh GR and GRii getting on a bit, but small APSC..the compromise is fixed lens..but yeah not in the same league as a Q!

 

[Fishrrman]

As others have mentioned above, take a good long look at SONY (which you didn't mention in your original post).

 

[kenoh]

Hi

I think Kenoh's advice is pretty sound..

Take a took a long hard look at Fuji, I think they are a cracking camera system, but there good glass might not offer to much of a reduction in size/weight as I was looking for.

I had a Pen F, I really liked it, there was some great glass the pana leica 42.5mm was a personal fav and did somewhat offset the lack of bokeh available through the rest of the system.

I also really enjoyed the Pen F Auto Manual focusing, you could set a focus mode which has autofocus, which was than manually overridden as you turn the focus ring on the lens, but also have it so the viewfinder magnified the image x10 and had peaking!!

In practice you could autofocus and then fine tune by manually adjusting the lens with the benefit of 10X mag and peaking! I am not sure of other mirrorless have this option but I really liked it. Ultimately I struggled a bit with the IQ hit so ended up going a different way

Personally I am not a fan of Sony bodies (i just find them fiddly and a little uninspiring to work with) but they make great cameras with lots of features and some great great sensors (maybe some of the best?) and are certainly worth looking at too.

I suppose very broadly speaking Sony or Fuji will give very DSLR like performance at some saving of weight/size
M43 will give a much bigger reduction in size/weight but performance and IQ will take a hit
A third option may well be Leica or film?
[doublepost=1490886113][/doublepost]

Have you looked at the Ricoh GR and GRii getting on a bit, but small APSC..the compromise is fixed lens..but yeah not in the same league as a Q!

I agree completely. I own a couple of Sonys and I would say that the menu system is nasty and over complicated but once you get your custom buttons set you can pretty much stay out of the menus 90% of the time.

Yes, uninspiring is a good word. I have not sat there at work and thought,"Ooo I wish I could just grab the Sony and go for a wander". I do do that with the Leicas. With the Sony it tends to be "the lights crap, Sony it is then"

They are clinical, soul less image capture machines. I love the detail in the A7Rii but given the choice I would take the M9 everytime. There is just something missing from shooting with the Sony but man the sensor is nice. Oh and battery life sucks the big one...

yeah thought of the Ricoh too but I have it in my head that I want either something retro cool i.e. Pen-F or something full frame... yeah I know, WTH!?! epic fail on selection criteria right? just proves I dont need another camera.

I think you make good points on the Fuji the lenses are very good but you arent making the saving in weight the way you would with an M43. Also as OP is coming from a D800 it is tough as there will be a noticeable gap in the IQ. If they were coming off a D5x00 or D3x00 then it wouldnt be an issue so much but that D800 has the crispy Sony sensor in it doesnt it?

 

[Mark0]

I moved from Canon's 5D series to the Fuji X-T2 and I've never looked back. There's plenty of info out there. I love the Fuji look, ergonomics, controls and handling. The lenses are some of the best in the business. That is something Fuji are truly great at making.

They do use Sony sensors, which I think are some of the best I've used - but Fuji have a different Colour Filter Array (X Trans) which has it's own quirks as you'd expect from something proprietary. They also customise the sensors a bit as well.

I also like how they deliver new firmware that is based on user feedback. It almost creates a completely new camera in some ways. I've actually just finished installing a new firmware on my X-T2 that had 27 new features / improvements for the camera. Another 10 new features are due in a month or so. An already solid, well performing camera has just become even better.

Anyway, long story short - I'm glad I switched.

 

[MacRy]

I'll sing Fuji's praises as well. I loved my XE1 and it was great with third party lenses. They handle really well, are compact and the OOC jpegs are generally pretty awesome.

 

[Apple fanboy]

All in the title really.

I noticed a few people posting images with this type of camera as a source and pleased with what I saw.

So. OM, Fuji, Panasonic. What is the feeling on these?

The IQ on my Nikon is the best I have had but it is clunky (noisy) to use some of my glass is not really to my liking (financially limited).

The Olympus OM-D with two kit lenses comes in at about £900 (Amazon); how about thoughts on that for a start.

Regards. Sharkey

Having a mirrorless lighter body would make very little difference to the weight in my camera bag. Most of the weight is in the glass.
The only way to reduce that is shooting with a smaller sensor and shorter glass (i.e. Cropped sensor means a shorter focal length gives you the same reach).
But a smaller sensor is not going to give you the same IQ whatever the brand.

I here good things about Fuji, but you have to decide what works for you.
[doublepost=1490908870][/doublepost]

I agree completely. I own a couple of Sonys and I would say that the menu system is nasty and over complicated but once you get your custom buttons set you can pretty much stay out of the menus 90% of the time.

Yes, uninspiring is a good word. I have not sat there at work and thought,"Ooo I wish I could just grab the Sony and go for a wander". I do do that with the Leicas. With the Sony it tends to be "the lights crap, Sony it is then"

They are clinical, soul less image capture machines. I love the detail in the A7Rii but given the choice I would take the M9 everytime. There is just something missing from shooting with the Sony but man the sensor is nice. Oh and battery life sucks the big one...

yeah thought of the Ricoh too but I have it in my head that I want either something retro cool i.e. Pen-F or something full frame... yeah I know, WTH!?! epic fail on selection criteria right? just proves I dont need another camera.

I think you make good points on the Fuji the lenses are very good but you arent making the saving in weight the way you would with an M43. Also as OP is coming from a D800 it is tough as there will be a noticeable gap in the IQ. If they were coming off a D5x00 or D3x00 then it wouldnt be an issue so much but that D800 has the crispy Sony sensor in it doesnt it?

Is there a camera brand you've not owned?

You've tried the rest, now try the best!

[doublepost=1490908965][/doublepost]

 

[davidjearly]

Take a look at the Sony A6500 (APS-C) or the A7RII if you can increase your budget. I adore my A7RII and totally abandoned Nikon/Fuji for it. I really enjoy shooting with it, and don't find the menus as terrible as made out (I don't like any camera menus).

 

[Attonine]

Difficult to advise without knowing what kind of photography you do, what (35mm) focal length you use the most.

 

[Reality4711]

This is all my own thoughts and I know nothing so feel free to ignore...

I think Panasonic is changing its camera division.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/panasonic-restructures-camera-division/

I dont think there is any risk of them disappearing as - correct me if I am wrong - they are the strongest contender in the non-pro 4K video space currently.

I moved to mirrorless a few years ago when I traded my Canon setup for a Sony A7. I have never looked back. I am not sure whether my life events influenced this transition as much as the technology did but basically I do not hanker for a DSLR at all. Maybe if I tried a FF DSLR I may be tempted but I am happy with what I have.

I like the OM cameras, especially the Pen-F but then I also have the joy of shooting Leica so I think I am drawn to the retro end of the spectrum. The M43 sensors are going from strength to strength right now and I think they are a compelling offering. I would buy a Pen-F if it werent for me needing to start a third lens system - my wife would kill me.

I think that the build quality is great on the OMs and the lens selections are great when you look across the OM and Panasonic compatible lenses range. There are some stellar performers that come in small packages.

For the pricepoint you mention there for the OM-D, which OM-D do you mean? the EM10, EM10ii, EM-5, EM-5ii, EM1?

the mark ii versions are great cameras certinaly in look and feel. They take great pictures for those of us who are not shooting large print sizes and are OK in the hand if not a tad small and fiddly. The EM-10 in particular has the same best and worse feature - it is compact. Great for portability but the buttons are on the small side.

They have good EVFs if not market leading like the one in the Leica SL but plenty good enough for the man on the street and whilst the SL is better, they are not crap by any stretch of the imagination. Your challenge will be moving from OVF to EVF regardless of the quality of the EVF it is going to be a change to the way you work regardless.

I have seen some images from a friend who uses a Fuji APS-C setup and he lays my pictures to waste on his setup verses me with my FF Sony. I know you have skills beyond me so I have no doubt that the IQ will be plenty good enough to allow you to produce good output.

This guy takes amazing images with his Fuji setup: https://www.flickr.com/photos/macleancomms/

I have A Sony A7Rii and even two years in, I still have the "holy sh*t" moment when I take a nice picture. I still get bowled over at the quality. This is not to say that it is any better than a DSLR but it is certainly no worse.

If you are doing it for reasons of weight and space then remember big lenses are big lenses however you can pack a 150-600MM equivalent from Olympus in less space than a 70-200 from Canon and it is weather sealed. There are a good selection of lenses available and each range has a couple of price points - budget, quality, pro spec. Pro spec being the same price as comparable Canikon L equivalent glassware but understand in todays market there are not many poor lenses anymore so a mid range well priced model will likely be plenty of firepower. Well, based on my skill level, it would be fine for me - if only I could kick this "buy the best" mindset i have ingrained in me. ha ha ha...

I think the only thing that would really make a difference in the general 95% of the population real world shooting is that the M43 doesnt do bokeh the way your Nikon will. If you like to shoot with lots of bokehlicious shots then I would try the mirrorless cameras with m43 sensors before buying as the smaller sensor is not as good as the bigger sensor but then that is where we come back to your skill. If your context allows you to increase the distance from subject to background then it is fine but there is no way to get round the physics of the bigger sensor and the isolation that that gives.

I suppose the best thing I can say (if you rate my thoughts at all) is that as an existing mirrorless shooter, I am looking to replace my take everywhere Sony RX100 as I want a bigger sensor in my carry everywhere camera. For this I am very tempted to go for one of the OM-Ds myself. Only last night I was fondling an EM-5ii in Heathrow sorely tempted to buy one.

But then I was tempted to buy a Leica Q too... so I dont know what I want... Good luck!

Hope this helps a little.

OM-D E M10 at £654 on UK Amazon.
[doublepost=1490920367][/doublepost]

Difficult to advise without knowing what kind of photography you do, what (35mm) focal length you use the most.

Really do not have a "kind of photography".

Whatever lens is on the camera when I put it to my eye will dictate the resultant image. I tend to create through the VF..

Most interested in humour & affect; what strikes me worth the effort and thought necessary to create.

Not much help. Sorry.

I suppose from as wide as possible (non fish eye) to 200+mm in 35mm and if you have a bit of macro all the better. Like I said not much help.

I suppose a 'big' drop in IQ would grate on me but a lot more fps, a v.fast focus with a near silent actuation would possibly balance that out

Hope that does help.

Regards. Sharkey

 

[HBOC]

i picked up the Sony A7r over a new A7II. The files from the A7r are PHENOMENAL, especially with great glass. And the ability to attach pretty much ANY lens EVER made onto it is pretty amazing.

 

[kenoh]

Having a mirrorless lighter body would make very little difference to the weight in my camera bag. Most of the weight is in the glass.
The only way to reduce that is shooting with a smaller sensor and shorter glass (i.e. Cropped sensor means a shorter focal length gives you the same reach).
But a smaller sensor is not going to give you the same IQ whatever the brand.

I here good things about Fuji, but you have to decide what works for you.
[doublepost=1490908870][/doublepost]
Is there a camera brand you've not owned?

You've tried the rest, now try the best!

View attachment 694227
[doublepost=1490908965][/doublepost]

Lol.... I like to keep a rounded viewpoint.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Lol.... I like to keep a rounded viewpoint.

And an empty bank balance!

 

[kenoh]

And an empty bank balance!

No comment....
[doublepost=1490945155][/doublepost]

OM-D E M10 at £654 on UK Amazon.
[doublepost=1490920367][/doublepost]

Really do not have a "kind of photography".

Whatever lens is on the camera when I put it to my eye will dictate the resultant image. I tend to create through the VF..

Most interested in humour & affect; what strikes me worth the effort and thought necessary to create.

Not much help. Sorry.

I suppose from as wide as possible (non fish eye) to 200+mm in 35mm and if you have a bit of macro all the better. Like I said not much help.

I suppose a 'big' drop in IQ would grate on me but a lot more fps, a v.fast focus with a near silent actuation would possibly balance that out

Hope that does help.

Regards. Sharkey

I know this is stating the obvious so I apologise but... I cannot recommend enough going and holding the EM-10. They made it like a slightly shrunken EM-5. I suspect that you being a D800 user you may find the controls a tad cramped. oh and to avoid breaking it, remember if you are going to use the mode dial, there is a button in the middle of it that locks it. remember to unlock it (click in/click out) before turning the mode dial I nearly ripped it apart trying to force it...

 

[Larry-K]

All in the title really.

I noticed a few people posting images with this type of camera as a source and pleased with what I saw.

So. OM, Fuji, Panasonic. What is the feeling on these?

The IQ on my Nikon is the best I have had but it is clunky (noisy) to use some of my glass is not really to my liking (financially limited).

The Olympus OM-D with two kit lenses comes in at about £900 (Amazon); how about thoughts on that for a start.

Regards. Sharkey

Hey Sharkey, I have a D800, great camera. If you insist on D800 Res, then I'd say Sony is your only real choice unless you're willing to put up with APS-C sensors.

I was strictly a full-frame Nikon Film guy back in the day (that was after shooting large format for a decade), went to Canon for full-frame digital, but when Nikon jumped into full-frame I went back to Nikon (I did have a D2 before that, and I still use it now and then). So, then I had two fairly extensive and very heavy full-frame systems.

I started to realize my back was not happy about hauling all this stuff around, and I had been asking since the birth of digital: "why do I need a mirror and a prism?" this was blasphemy back then.

Enter Olympus, I tried the original OM-5D-EM1 (hell, I don't even remember the correct name, but I was impressed, it had very good image quality, in body stabilization, lots of features. So I got one and started adding lenses that were a lot more conducive to carrying.

The good thing about Olympus's bodies is that the image quality is roughly the same, so if you get a 10, it's really about the same as a 5, and just a tad off the EM-1 Mk II (you might get a good deal on a Mk 1, those are sweet).

A year or two later, Olympus started bringing out their "Pro" lenses. I'd already bought several of the best quality Micro 4/3 lenses available, but Olympus took these things seriously. The 40-150, geez, it delivers, so does the 300 f4.

This is not to say they don't have some great non "Pro" designation lenses (I love the 45 & 75 mm f1.8s), and you have a choice of some excellent Panasonic Micro 4/3 lenses as well (although mine are all sitting in a drawer, having been replaced by their Olympus counterparts).

I just added 2 more today in fact (the 12-100 f4 and 25 f1.2 [you want Bokeh?]), think I own every one but the fisheye, yeah, I'll get that too, probably as a stocking stuffer for Christmas or something like that (I'll be the one paying for it I'm afraid, not Santa).

Now, I'm not saying that Micro 4/3rds doesn't have limitations, but these days, good lenses isn't one of them, and while they're not cheap, they're cheaper than their full-frame counterparts. 5+stops of image stabilization with the body lens combinations, quality build, tack sharp, these are lenses you can love, and I do.

The upside is, you can carry a lot of great glass without killing yourself (lookup sciatica), and get great pictures with these ever improving and evolving bodies.

Give 'em a look, 16-20MP may not seem like much today, but unless you're cropping severely, do you need more? And if you're cropping severely, why? I shot a lot of commercial quality images with my Old D3 and 1-D MkII and they barely had that many pixels. I have a 36" Epson printer for output, and I get by just fine.

Now, I'm going to go beg Olympus for some tilt shift lenses, that's what's usually attached to my D800, and 5DMk III (not really a Canon guy, but I've got the glass).

As for the kit lenses, I'd probably forgo them for one "Pro" Zuiko, but everyone has to start a system somehow. Since you said you didn't have a "kind of photography", I think you'll find the variety available is impressive, and you can go in any direction you want to. If someone basically throws in the kit lenses for free, don't pass them up.

Good luck on whatever you choose, sounds like you already know the camera is rarely the limiting factor in photography, and that's the most important thing.

 

[Reality4711]

Hey Sharkey, I have a D800, great camera. If you insist on D800 Res, then I'd say Sony is your only real choice unless you're willing to put up with APS-C sensors.

I was strictly a full-frame Nikon Film guy back in the day (that was after shooting large format for a decade), went to Canon for full-frame digital, but when Nikon jumped into full-frame I went back to Nikon (I did have a D2 before that, and I still use it now and then). So, then I had two fairly extensive and very heavy full-frame systems.

I started to realize my back was not happy about hauling all this stuff around, and I had been asking since the birth of digital: "why do I need a mirror and a prism?" this was blasphemy back then.

Enter Olympus, I tried the original OM-5D-EM1 (hell, I don't even remember the correct name, but I was impressed, it had very good image quality, in body stabilization, lots of features. So I got one and started adding lenses that were a lot more conducive to carrying.

The good thing about Olympus's bodies is that the image quality is roughly the same, so if you get a 10, it's really about the same as a 5, and just a tad off the EM-1 Mk II (you might get a good deal on a Mk 1, those are sweet).

A year or two later, Olympus started bringing out their "Pro" lenses. I'd already bought several of the best quality Micro 4/3 lenses available, but Olympus took these things seriously. The 40-150, geez, it delivers, so does the 300 f4.

This is not to say they don't have some great non "Pro" designation lenses (I love the 45 & 75 mm f1.8s), and you have a choice of some excellent Panasonic Micro 4/3 lenses as well (although mine are all sitting in a drawer, having been replaced by their Olympus counterparts).

I just added 2 more today in fact (the 12-100 f4 and 25 f1.2 [you want Bokeh?]), think I own every one but the fisheye, yeah, I'll get that too, probably as a stocking stuffer for Christmas or something like that (I'll be the one paying for it I'm afraid, not Santa).

Now, I'm not saying that Micro 4/3rds doesn't have limitations, but these days, good lenses isn't one of them, and while they're not cheap, they're cheaper than their full-frame counterparts. 5+stops of image stabilization with the body lens combinations, quality build, tack sharp, these are lenses you can love, and I do.

The upside is, you can carry a lot of great glass without killing yourself (lookup sciatica), and get great pictures with these ever improving and evolving bodies.

Give 'em a look, 16-20MP may not seem like much today, but unless you're cropping severely, do you need more? And if you're cropping severely, why? I shot a lot of commercial quality images with my Old D3 and 1-D MkII and they barely had that many pixels. I have a 36" Epson printer for output, and I get by just fine.

Now, I'm going to go beg Olympus for some tilt shift lenses, that's what's usually attached to my D800, and 5DMk III (not really a Canon guy, but I've got the glass).

As for the kit lenses, I'd probably forgo them for one "Pro" Zuiko, but everyone has to start a system somehow. Since you said you didn't have a "kind of photography", I think you'll find the variety available is impressive, and you can go in any direction you want to. If someone basically throws in the kit lenses for free, don't pass them up.

Good luck on whatever you choose, sounds like you already know the camera is rarely the limiting factor in photography, and that's the most important thing.

Thank you for the looooong response. Your effort is appreciated. Most of my kit went as business assets when I packed in working (health). The early end meant no more kit than the basics although I have managed to move around the market a bit. The financial advisor/dictator has expressed doubts about my move to mirrorless citing image quality and regretful choices in the past so it may be adaption will be the order of the day rather than all-out change.

I have spent a few hours rummaging in cupboards and draws to see what can be done to address my problems and may have come up with a new route to go down. I will report later.

Many thanks to everyone that have been kind enough to express opinions, I do not want you to feel it was not worth it; we all need guidance every know and then and yours has been invaluable.

Regards. Sharkey

 

[Larry-K]

Thank you for the looooong response. Your effort is appreciated. Most of my kit went as business assets when I packed in working (health). The early end meant no more kit than the basics although I have managed to move around the market a bit. The financial advisor/dictator has expressed doubts about my move to mirrorless citing image quality and regretful choices in the past so it may be adaption will be the order of the day rather than all-out change.

I have spent a few hours rummaging in cupboards and draws to see what can be done to address my problems and may have come up with a new route to go down. I will report later.

Many thanks to everyone that have been kind enough to express opinions, I do not want you to feel it was not worth it; we all need guidance every know and then and yours has been invaluable.

Regards. Sharkey

Hey Sharkey, I just got back from a day of shooting with my E-M1 MkII, and I have to tell you, it's one of the best overall cameras I've ever used. There's a reason most of my Full Frame Nikons and Canons are sitting idle.

I was never an Olympus Fan, but these new cameras have really proven themselves.

I would not hesitate to take this camera into the field for commercial work.

Good luck on your new solution, but If the means ever arise...

 

[Chancha]

I have handled a few large(r) resolution cameras in the past few years, I like using D800 as I got a large selection of native f-mout lenses to use. In terms of sensor pixel density, the only other sub-FF camera including all DSLR that are close are Alpha 7R (same SONY sensor actually). The sheer number of pixels in 35mm you need every pitch density as you can get, which is rarely offered by anything in APSC. I have also used the Leica M240, which fares well in some lighting situation but is in general not as good a performer as A7R, nor is its control ergonomic enough. You can only get higher DR and density if you tread into medium formats, such as PENTAX 645 series or others even pricier options. I think in a way, the D800 series is medium format IQ creeping into Nikon FF, while the SONY Alpha series is Leica range finder features creeping into pro-consumer price range.

 

[Reality4711]

Just a thought If I spend £1000 on a Sony will I be able to use my f-mount Nikon lenses and if so which or what Sony mirrorless would I be able to get?
Maybe £1250.

Regards Sharkey

 

[kenoh]

Just a thought If I spend £1000 on a Sony will I be able to use my f-mount Nikon lenses and if so which or what Sony mirrorless would I be able to get?
Maybe £1250.

Regards Sharkey

Well now, you have some to the right place...

For £1,000 - £1,250 you have lots of options:

A6000 can be had for about £450 now. It is older but still a good camera.
A6300 can be had within this budget
A7 MKI can be had for about £700-800 full frame.
Might be able to squeeze in a A7MKii which introduces the in body image stabilisation which is lovely to have when shooting legacy glass.

I think the A6500 is above this price point, the A7S/R MK I/IIs are out of this number but the figure you are considering gives you options galore!

I have shot a couple of Nikon F Mount lenses on a £10 adapter off of eBay. You can go more expensive if you like but for cheap entry, you would not regret getting a cheap lens until you find your chi with them.

I think it is when you get into the G lenses that Nikon stop being an option as they have the electronic apertures (I think not a nikon guy).

Hope this helps!

Remember the Nikon Fs can go on the M43 as well with an adapter but I think the APS-C or FF options in the Sony and Fuji range will be a better fit for you (IMHO).

 

[Apple fanboy]

By the time you add Nikon glass and an adapter, are you saving much weight?

 

[kenoh]

By the time you add Nikon glass and an adapter, are you saving much weight?

Nope.... not as much as mirrorless shooters like me would like you to believe

Well, on paper no... but in real world, there is a world of difference in weight between a bare D800 and an A7. More so between a A6000 and D800... but with compromises we have already covered here. Also as you put longer heavier glass on the front the camera becomes nose heavy. This doesnt bother me but it gets on some people's wicks...

 

[Apple fanboy]

Nope....

Well, on paper no... but in real world, there is a world of difference in weight between a bare D800 and an A7. More so between a A6000 and D800... but with compromises we have already covered here.

And that's the thing for me. The body (albeit I use a much lighter body than a D800), is much lighter than nearly all my lenses.
One day when Nikon bring out a decent f-mount mirrorless maybe I'll take a look.

 

[Saturnine]

Hello.

I'm a professional photographer and I recently decided to switch away from my trusty Canon 6D due, in part, to its age, size, weight and terrible autofocus system. I did love having a full-frame cam era and the Canon lens line-up is matched only by Nikon.

I shoot primarily urban landscapes and music, gigs and bands - both studio and environmental portraits. I tend to spend a lot of time scouting locations, waiting for the right lighting and setting up shots rather than 'shooting from the hip.'

I briefly owned an Olympus EM5-II and almost upgraded to the brilliant EM1-II. The Olympus cameras and IBIS are brilliant. Good looking camera too, and you have the option of using them with any micro four-thirds lens. The main problems I had were the overall image quality and low-light performance. While it's almost unnoticable for most purposes, image quality on a M43 camera just isn't going to be as good as an APS-C. It's also true to say that APS-C quality isn't going to be as good as full frame.

With all that in mind, I decided to make a list of all the features and attributes I wanted in a camera system. To cut a long story short, I opted to go with Fuji and bought the amazing X-T2. The Fuji lens line-up is growing all the time and the quality is incredible. The overall image quality and ISO performance is as good as my 6D (that's how much technology moves on in five years) despite the difference in sensor-size. The camera design is great, as it having physical dials for ISO, shutter speeds, aperture control and exposure compensation. It also has the thumbstick for focus point selection (and AF is excellent.) On the downside, off-camera flash is a bit of a pain. I don't use TTL anyway, but HSS would be nice. The camera supports it but getting it to work with any third-party strobes or speedlights is a royal pain. Having said that, it's just a matter of waiting for lighting manufacturers to support Fuji's system (which many have pledged to do.)

I also considered Sony but I think the only camera that would have fit the bill is the A7R II, which was out of my budget. The A7 II is great but getting a bit long in the tooth. The A6500 would have been another contender and has advantages over the Fuji, such as IBIS and a touch screen. I probably would have gone with the A6500 but it only has one card slot (a massive risk when shooting commercially) and the Sony lens line-up is very, very expensive with their pro lenses really designed to pair with their full-frame cameras rather than APS-C. Nobody could be criticised, however, for choosing the A6500 over the X-T2.

So it was Fuji for me. I'm still collecting lenses and hope to eventually get:

10-24mm f/4.0
16-55mm f/2.8
50-140mm f/2.8
35mm f/1.4
23mm f/1.4

They would cover me across the range. At the moment I've only got the 10-24mm, the 35mm and the kit 18-55mm f/2.8-4.

I appreciate these may be beyond your budget, but keep an eye on eBay or find a few more quid as I think you'll always be making compromises otherwise. Finally, stay away from lens adapters unless you absolutely have to. Some of them (e.g. Metabones) are brilliant at what they do, but you will ALWAYS be better off using native lenses.