Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Trade heavy Canon kit for what?
- Thread starter Enrico
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Congrats to the M43 converts using Olympus O-MD bodies.
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/anywhereclassroom?icn=topnav&ici=learnsharenav_anywhere-classroom
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/anywhereclassroom?icn=topnav&ici=learnsharenav_anywhere-classroom
I think you've made a wise choice.
I have a very similar setup to you (5DII, 17-40f4, 24-70f2.8, 85f1.8) and I've been 'dabbling' mirrorless for the last 3 years.
- Bought a Panasonic GX1 micro 4/3rds
- Bought a Sony NEX6
- Bought a Ricoh GR (OK, it's not interchangeable, but it's a light large sensor alternative to carrying my Canon)
I also picked up Voigtlander 35 1.4 and 15 4.5 lenses - since I figured I could probably make use of them whichever camera I ended up with.
What I've learned:
- I don't really like micro 4/3rds. Sure, there are some amazing cameras and a great wealth of lenses... but depth of field control is poor unless you get the very most expensive and speedy (big) lenses - and cropped down to 3:2 ratio (which I prefer) you're using a much smaller sensor which gives appreciably lower quality results
- Lens selection is key, if you want a 'right now' solution. Fuji seems to be leagues ahead on this front
- No anti-aliasing filter makes a very real difference to out-of-camera sharpness. My Ricoh really opened my eyes on this - this pushed me towards Sony and Fuji
- It's worth buying a camera with a great interface. My Ricoh is so much better than the NEX6 was - it's the difference between a pleasure and a chore to shoot with
In the end I went for the a7r.
What pushed me in the direction of Sony at the end of the day (even though Fuji was looking best 'on paper') was that:
- I want to use video - and Sony seem much better than Fuji for that
- My go-to focal lengths (35 and 50/55) were covered by excellent lenses. I don't need to care too much about the rest of the lineup (and the super high resolution gives me an option to crop too - makes it less necessary to have good zooms)
- I can get a Metabones adapter for my 17-40 anyway
- Full frame just will always give the best quality and depth of field control
- The a7/a7r UI is much improved over the NEX6
The Sony is shaping up well, and I just got the 55 f1.8 Zeiss which almost justifies the system by itself. So far so good, but I think I could have been just about as satisfied with the Fuji.
1. Nevertheless, currently, there are very few third-party non-Oly / Pana m43 lens.
2. The absolute number of lens for m43 is (still) way below those for Nikon or Canon APS-C mounts, even if you "only" count the most modern lens designed for digital bodies (and not, say, old F-mount manual glass for the Nikon, which are, otherwise, still compatible with even the latest Nikon bodies.)
EDIT: the only really missing lens WRT Fuji X mount is, at least for me, the Sigma 8-16 mm/F4,5-5,6 DC HSM. Sure, there's the Fuji 10-24 lens, but it's two times more expensive and isn't as wide. Nevertheless, 1. the Sigma doesn't have a m43 mount version either. 2. you can easily use it (without introducing cropping) with a passive adapter on X mount cameras.
Nevertheless, the quality ones (for example, the excellent Olympus 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD, which, IQ & brightness-wise, is still not matched by a single native m43 lens - the 12-35 Pana comes close but it's in no way as long) are still very expensive.
1. Most of them can't autofocus / set the aperture. Actually, I only know of the (expensive) Metabones "Smart Adapter" adapters to allow for most automatic functionality and allowing for using the OIS when available. And those are, currently, only available for Canon EF -> Sony E-mount and nothing else, meaning no m43 body support is available. (See http://www.metabones.com/products/search?search=Smart+Adapter )
2. The Fuji X mount also has exactly the same (passive) adapters - that is, you can put any legacy / other lens on it. In addition, as its flange focal distance is 1.55 mm's shorter than that of the m43 mount (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance ), you'll have a much easier time using lenses designed for mounts with even shorter flange distance: C mount, Nikon 1, Canon EF-M, Sony E etc.
Finally, your reasoning has another major flaw: you don't take into account that, while there are few native X mount lenses, they're generally much better, image quality-wise, than at least half(!) of the m43 lenses. For example, WRT kit zoom lens, both the Fuji 16-50 and 18-55 are significantly better (and the latter also brighter) than the 14-42 Oly / Pana kit lens. It's only the old 14-45 Pana and the new, GM1-only 12-32 Pana that delivers as good IQ as those rather inexpensive Fuji zooms. This means Fuji kit lens aren't throwaway lens - while, on the m43 WRT "cheap" kit zooms (not the 14-140 / 12-35, obviously), I could only stick with the above-mentioned old 14-45 and the new 12-32 Pana.
Actually, in addition to the low-light performance, it was mainly the lens lineup and the shorter flange distance (allowing for using many more C mount zoom lenses than with m43) that made me choose the X system instead of m43 or Sony's E mount.
----------
Yup, if you need as good video as possible, Fuji needs to be avoided. Not even the X-T1 can deliver as good video quality as, say, the A6000.
Last edited:
Gee, glad to to know about so many major flaws in my reasoning.
At the recent Joseph Van OS photo safari to Minnesota for North American Predators shoot, my wife and I were the only persons shooting M43. We were surrounded by 8 other photographers all with top level Nikon and Canon bode and glass.
But the end of the 3 day shoot, we had at least 6 photographers asking us detailed questions about our kits and at least one has emailed us at home for advice on how to go M43. He is an executive at Verizon.
Do what makes sense for you. Each person has to balance cost, weight, size, and IQ for the type of photography they want to do. We are more than happy with the decision we have made.
At the recent Joseph Van OS photo safari to Minnesota for North American Predators shoot, my wife and I were the only persons shooting M43. We were surrounded by 8 other photographers all with top level Nikon and Canon bode and glass.
But the end of the 3 day shoot, we had at least 6 photographers asking us detailed questions about our kits and at least one has emailed us at home for advice on how to go M43. He is an executive at Verizon.
Do what makes sense for you. Each person has to balance cost, weight, size, and IQ for the type of photography they want to do. We are more than happy with the decision we have made.
Attachments
Still, you practically stated "the more lenses, the better". This is why I replied as the majority of Oly's / Pana's non-high-end (and non-12-32) kit lenses being pretty lousy compared to both their own high-end offerings (and the 12-32) and, more importantly, Fuji's kit lens. You won't show me a throwaway Fuji kit lens (unlike with many of Oly's / Pana's), I guarantee...
Oh, don't be so precious about others disagreeing with you!
Hopefully these six people who were previously clueless about mirrorless cameras will do some research before switching to the first example they see...
Absolutely!
Definitely. While the m43 system does definitely have its merits, I've finally gone for the Fuji X system (more specifically, an X-E1 + 18-55 + 50-230 double kit) because I don't need video that much (and if I do, I can just shoot with the iPhone 5 or the Nokia 808), which is the Achilles' heel on all Fuji models. Neither do I need fast AF speed - I'm not a sports or indoor-running-kid shooter - another problem with particularly first-gen Fuji models (incl. the X-A1 and the X-M1) and only fully fixed in the X-T1.
I really contemplated on getting either the GM1 (because of the size and the quality kit lens) or the GX7 (because of the future-proof IBIS and the manual controls) but, IMHO, Pana made a major mistake:
- it's not known how many future long lens will require IBIS, which the GM1 lacks (see for example the recently-announced Tamron 14-150mm F/3.5-5.8 Di III, which does lack OIS). While I could have lived with the restrictions of the GM1 (compared to the GX7, no NFC, no 1080p60, no hotshoe and, obviously, less manual controls), the lack of IBIS was an issue for me with the new announcements and the fact that all excellent m43 primes (particularly the 20 and the 45) are all non-stabilized.
- the only really good, non-high-end (non-$1000+) Pana kit zoom, the 12-32, is only available with the GM1 and not the GX7 and can't be purchased separately either. (There surely is the GX7 kit with the 20mm/f1.7, but I'd prefer the 12-32 as a generic walkaround lens, particularly because it's much wider.) Should there have been a GX7 + 12-32 kit, I surely would have purchased it.
FInally, I didn't want to purchase any Oly OM / EM cameras because of the kit lens, which, for the most part, is the IQ-wise trashy, throwaway 12-50. The E-PM2 surely has the significantly better 14-42 as a kit lens but it's still not as good (IQ, versatility at the short end, compactness) a lens as the 12-32.
I really wish much more Pana (and Oly!) m43 cameras had the 12-32 as a(n optional) kit lens.
Did you also consider the Sony A7r? Especially if coming from another system with different lenses.
I sold my Canon 5DII, 24-105L and 100L macro because of the weight. Lovely bit of kit, lovely IQ, but I was never taking it anywhere because of the weight. What's the point of that?
Tried a NEX 7 but wasn't happy then bought a Fuji X-E1 and I've been really pleased with it ever since. I have the 18-55, 35mm prime and 55-200 lenses for it, all of excellent quality and the IQ is great. Also added the X100 with its fixed 23mm lens and that's a lovely camera.
Fuji has a good line up of lenses for their mirrorless cameras. They've published their roadmap for new lenses and so far they're pretty much sticking to the times promised.
Sorry it's a bit one-sided but I don't have experience with any of the others and thought you might find it interesting.
Tried a NEX 7 but wasn't happy then bought a Fuji X-E1 and I've been really pleased with it ever since. I have the 18-55, 35mm prime and 55-200 lenses for it, all of excellent quality and the IQ is great. Also added the X100 with its fixed 23mm lens and that's a lovely camera.
Fuji has a good line up of lenses for their mirrorless cameras. They've published their roadmap for new lenses and so far they're pretty much sticking to the times promised.
Sorry it's a bit one-sided but I don't have experience with any of the others and thought you might find it interesting.
Nope - it's
- the body (no lens) is three times more expensive than the X-E1 double kit (with the 18-55; that is, not even the cheapish 16-50) and
- Sony's FF lens lineup leaves a lot to be desired; for example, their 24-70 zoom, the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS delivers much worse corner performance than one would expect from a $1200 lens (see http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1654/cat/83 ). That is, you pretty much have to use primes with it, which are (as of now) pretty scarce and in no way covering WA (albeit, WRT the 55mm /1.8 and the 35mm /2.8, are excellent). This is diametrically opposed to Fuji's lens lineup, where even the kit lens are of excellent quality. Or, for that matter, many cheap(ish) kit lens from alternatives: the 12-32 from Pana (m43), the 18-140 from Nikon etc.
- the low-light performance of the two bodies (A7r and any X-Trans-based APS-C Fuji) are not only comparable, but even show a lead for the Fuji through the entire range. (It's only the 12 Mpixel A7S that is about 1.5-2 stops better than the Fujis.)
- I don't really need video or fast AF.
Between the Fuji XT-1 and Sony A7, I'd personally go for the Fuji. The Fuji bodies are a charm to work with and they have a decent selection of fast and sharp lenses. I think this is where Sony drops the ball, they have a good sensor in the full frame bodies but the lenses available for it are kind of slow to have smaller lenses. So you end up loosing some of the advantages of full frame by having these slower albeit very sharp lenses.
Mind you, for landscape, the A7r looks like a winner, you'll get much more detail in the shots and you don't typically care about fast lenses for landscape. I guess it really comes down to what you needs for image resolution is or how big you plan on printing the images. Sadly, Sony doesn't have a native wide angle zoom out yet. So you'll either have to make due with large SLR zooms or Leica primes which seem to have trouble with colour casts on the Sony.
M43 might be ok for landscape. You don't really care about most of its short comings for landscape other than resolution (DoF, low light, crop factor with old lenses...).
Mind you, for landscape, the A7r looks like a winner, you'll get much more detail in the shots and you don't typically care about fast lenses for landscape. I guess it really comes down to what you needs for image resolution is or how big you plan on printing the images. Sadly, Sony doesn't have a native wide angle zoom out yet. So you'll either have to make due with large SLR zooms or Leica primes which seem to have trouble with colour casts on the Sony.
M43 might be ok for landscape. You don't really care about most of its short comings for landscape other than resolution (DoF, low light, crop factor with old lenses...).
Sony a7r with 55mm f1.8
I agree with the two above posters regarding the Fujis - at the moment a much fuller (and very nice) system.
When you do find a lens for the Sony, the sensor really delivers though. Some great bokeh on this Zeiss.
I agree with the two above posters regarding the Fujis - at the moment a much fuller (and very nice) system.
When you do find a lens for the Sony, the sensor really delivers though. Some great bokeh on this Zeiss.
Attachments
My 2c's
Personally I'd look at at Olympus and Fuji for one reason. Firmware updates for both the bodies and lenses.
Every camera has issues at launch. From what I understand, Sony and others solution to this is to release a new version of the camera which means new investment.
I can't talk in depth about Oly, I believe it's the same, but Fuji listen to user feedback and wherever possible tweak the firmware to sort or better the user experience. And they don't stop. We are still getting updates for the X100!
It seriously prolongs the experience and the life of the body. My X-E1 still receives updates for the latest lenses etc and this will soon be updated by 3 generations!
The X-E1 firmware update history - http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/x/xe1/
Personally I'd look at at Olympus and Fuji for one reason. Firmware updates for both the bodies and lenses.
Every camera has issues at launch. From what I understand, Sony and others solution to this is to release a new version of the camera which means new investment.
I can't talk in depth about Oly, I believe it's the same, but Fuji listen to user feedback and wherever possible tweak the firmware to sort or better the user experience. And they don't stop. We are still getting updates for the X100!
It seriously prolongs the experience and the life of the body. My X-E1 still receives updates for the latest lenses etc and this will soon be updated by 3 generations!
The X-E1 firmware update history - http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/x/xe1/
How is Leica doing with the T series?
I see that they have the 2 lenses that I would need (travel zoom+23, albeit slower than Fuji's), plus they will release a couple more by the end of the year. Liking the touch screen and the micro USB charge.
I see that they have the 2 lenses that I would need (travel zoom+23, albeit slower than Fuji's), plus they will release a couple more by the end of the year. Liking the touch screen and the micro USB charge.
If you want to stay with a DSLR system, seriously consider Pentax. The camera bodies are smaller and lighter than Canikon counterparts, and when paired with one of the Limited series lenses (small, high quality, all-metal pancake primes) they are a joy to use. Very fun to shoot with and the quality never disappoints. Plus Pentax bodies have in-body stabilization, and you can use legacy Pentax/k-mount glass from the 1970s if you wish and it will still meter for you.
Here's a link to their lens lineup if you're interested: http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses
If you want to go mirrorless, probably consider Sony or Fuji (or Leica if you can really afford it...)
Here's a link to their lens lineup if you're interested: http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses
If you want to go mirrorless, probably consider Sony or Fuji (or Leica if you can really afford it...)
Last edited:
It seems to be very well constructed, like a Mac!
From what I understand it does not have PDAF so it should be slower than the Fuji X-T1.
Fujis can't be charged over micro USB unfortunately.
Wow just bumped across Sony RX1 specs page....full frame sensor and 35mm f2 in such a tiny package? That looks tempting!
Also have a look at the Fuji X100s which also has a 35 mm equivalent f/2 fixed lens. It's a gem of a camera (I have one), I rarely use my dslr anymore. The viewfinder is spectacular and unique in the industry (well, apart from its bigger brother, the X-Pro 1, of course).Wow just bumped across Sony RX1 specs page....full frame sensor and 35mm f2 in such a tiny package? That looks tempting!
Yes that is a nice option as well, but the full frame sensor and 24MPixels, would give a boost in terms of DR, bokeh and crop abilities. AF is slow on both from what I'm reading.
I think you're underestimating the significance of the difference in camera concepts: the X100s is a really, really lovely camera to use. It's rangefinder-like, dead-simple to use and the hybrid viewfinder is just amazing. I really fell in love with the camera. I've had a large-sensor point & shoot camera before (the Sigma DP1), and I just don't like framing pictures with the big lcd or electronic viewfinders.