Quest for a mirrorless for an amateur ugrading from point-and-shoot and iPhone

[mariosprt]

Thanks to CiC's excellent tutorials I now know the difference between an APS-C and MFT sensor (and what it means). It seems the difference in size is not enough to be the deciding factor, or is it?
The MFT was launched by Panasonic and Olympus, so that's why Sony's are APS-C.
MFT lenses should be cheaper too.
I still have o learn about lens compatibility (or lack thereof)

[Manfred M]

Thanks to CiC's excellent tutorials I now know the difference between an APS-C and MFT sensor (and what it means). It seems the difference in size is not enough to be the deciding factor, or is it?

This is a very difficult question to answer, especially when asked by someone who is just getting into serious photography and is not familiar with some of the intricacies of the question you are asking. To a large extent the answer depends on the type of photography you are planning to do and what you are planning to do with the images; display on a computer screen, post on the internet or make large prints. If you are just getting into photography and do not have a significant investment in equipment, it really doesn't matter that much.

As a general rule today, virtually all commercial photographers and many "serious" amateurs use large sensor cameras (full-frame). Medium format is still used in high end commercial photography. Both of these formats are significantly larger than APS-C sized sensors.

In the scheme of things, especially at your current needs, I really don't see any significant advantage or disadvantage to either format over and above the things I identified in my previous post.

The MFT was launched by Panasonic and Olympus, so that's why Sony's are APS-C.

Sony also has a line of APS-C lenses it has developed for the its existing camera line. To go to mFT they would have to develop a whole new line of lenses. The stack (the filters and glass in front of the sensor) of mFT is thicker than other competing designs and mFT lenses are designed with this in mind.

MFT lenses should be cheaper too.

Why would you assume that? These lenses are physically a bit smaller than the equivalent APS-C line, but that is really the only possible reason for a slightly lower cost. The largest cost drivers in manufacturing any lens are the number of components a lens contains and the production run of the lens (a higher production volumes allows more automation to reduce costs).



In your case, I suspect that the "soft" side of things might be the deciding factor. If you have friends with a particular line of cameras that you can borrow equipment from to use, that to me is a significant advantage. I have several friends that are Nikon owners and we do borrow equipment from each other from time to time.

[jcuknz]

Lenses. Not surprisingly, these seem to be little difference in price between lenses for equivalent mFT and lenses for APS-C sized sensors for DSLRs.

I am sure you are correct in this and as one steps up from the bridge camera each one's own reasons ...I probably spent approaching twice for my initial MFT gear than had I been in position to buy similar DSLR.
The reason for my humourous comment is that to get the versatility the DSLR user has to spend considerably more than a bridge camera user would and the frequent thread here and elsewhere is 'what new/extra lens should I get'.
Since I like the bridge concept I had/have just the one lens for my G3 and then my current GH, a x10 zoom. True I also bought a cheap "TV" lens [US$35] and a more expensive bug-eye [around US$250 from memory] but neither has been used on the GH only my E-PL1.
It is altogether a complex subject and I will not ramble on but basically I was looking for what I thought would suit me and price was not a consideration. I suspect the price differences come from production quantities and 'what the market will pay'

[Manfred M]

John - my reason for going mFT is a bit strange as well. I've owned a high end interchangeable lens Panasonic video camera and I owned a couple of Panny lenses; the 14-140mm and the 100-300mm. I did not want to take either of my DSLRs on our two-month backpacking trip to South Asia (size and weight), so I ended up getting the the GX7 and have taken somewhere around 20,000 images with it.

We had a couple of bridge cameras (actually we still have them) before going to the DSLR and while a bridge is okay so general shooting, they fail miserably the moment you want to do something in the least challenging (action, wildlife, night, etc.).

[jcuknz]

Thanks, jcuknz for giving a different prespective on the issue. I was indeed looking at the budget side of the mirrorless universe.

I looked into Panasonic's current range (on Amazon, so I can also see the price range at the same time) and I have to say that the two models I looked at, FZ72 and FZ200 seem pretty impressive for a budget price tag, 600mm equivalent zoom, 12fps, could user a few more dials though... Are these models you would recommend as an example?
Thanks
Mario

My experience with Panasonic bridge cameras stopped with the FZ50 which was around s/h last time I looked. I bought a second one when Panasonic developed the 100/150 in ways that did not appeal to me and had the FZ200 appeared before I bought MFT I probably would still be a bridge user.
But I know nothing about the FZ72 and the FZ70 seemed a good budget buy but wouldn't appeal to me as it is a 'small' FZ and my 20/30/50 were/are 'big FZs'. From what I have read and seen of FZ200 results it would be my choice as I trust the large FZ range..... all bridge cameras are not equal as I continually find out on reading threads and peoples other brands/models.

Of equal importance to the camera is your editor and early on there was just Paint Shop Pro v.7 and Photoshop v.7 at three/four times the price which I couldn't meet and having started with PSP I have no interest in learning a 'different language'... these top two basically do the same things. Complicated these days by Photoshop cloud at a monthly rental. Others are happy with simpler programmes like Lightroom et al. I'd also mention Paint dot Net which is a free download and quite capable, at least for me used to a 'proper' editor like PSP. [ Note my bias in that comment ]

I enjoyed working with my FZ50 and was dissapointed with the direction subsequent models took so prior to getting MFT I bought a 2/h one as back-up and found it in excellent condition as my more expensive original one

But now I have 'tasted' MFT for a couple of years now I would not consider advising anyone to buy the small sensor bridge cameras unless they have NEED for a long zoom where I have 950mm reach with a telephoto adaptor at about f/3.5 compared with the current long zooms which are f/5.6 or less. As for burst which seems important to you ... I rarely think of using it
And long ago I learnt to look around my camera to track action, watch for people blinking, get angles other than where my head is so the finder going blank during burst is of no consequence to me But a fully articulated LCD is very useful when occasionally I need it. None of this fixed LCD that most/all DSLRs had/have until recently, and live view of course.
I gave away the DSLR viewfinder a decade ago with film cameras [another bias showing ]

[mariosprt]

Well John I guess I showed my ignorance there, suggesting what I thought were mirrorless, but are actually bridge cameras
I learned my lesson, now all cameras I look at, go straight to the dpreview comparison tool, excellent by the way!

As for editors, I'm quite familiar with Photoshop as I've used it for work for years, I'm a Web Application Developer, and used to use Photoshop for cutting up layouts for HTML So I can use my work laptop for photo editing (maybe) or just get Lightroom to use at home if it's cheaper.

Burst mode is just something that might be good for capturing my fast nieces but using with my existing camera, I have to wait about 30 seconds for it to process a burst, so annoying... But don't know if I'll use it much.

[mariosprt]

Thanks, Manfred

If you are just getting into photography and do not have a significant investment in equipment, it really doesn't matter that much.

That's what I thought

In your case, I suspect that the "soft" side of things might be the deciding factor. If you have friends with a particular line of cameras that you can borrow equipment from to use, that to me is a significant advantage. I have several friends that are Nikon owners and we do borrow equipment from each other from time to time.

That's also one of the reasons I'm leaning towards Nikon DSLR, I can borrow lenses to tryout and practice with.

I've been educating myself, and reading/watching reviews on Nikon DSLR's and a few mirrorless (Sony, Panasonic, Fuji), and you start to see a trend, the same comments about the same type of camera being repeated. Like you both said, there are good advantages on both sides.

But, anyway, I'm not jumping the gun, I'm taking the time with this. Don't want to impulse buy something and regret it a month later, like I almost did with the Sony a5000.

Thanks
Mario

[Didace]

3. Other significant disadvantages of mirrorless -... Mirrorless cameras use an autofocus method known as "contrast detect". This is inherently slower than the "phase detect" used in DSLRs.

Sony A5100, A6000 and the A7 series use both contrast and phase detect focusing.

[Manfred M]

Sony A5100, A6000 and the A7 series use both contrast and phase detect focusing.

If we are quibbling, then every recent DSLR I am aware of has both contrast detect (when shooting with the mirror up in Live View mode) and phase detect in the "classic" mode where one shoots with the optical viewfinder. I haven't used any of the listed Sony cameras, so have no personal experience with them.

[jcuknz]

In practical terms the difference between CD and PD is negligible and a laboratory difference from what I can see with relatively modern cameras ... I also read that somebody had done a test which had CD faster than PD, in Europe somewhere, Denmark I think [A Canon DSLR ]. With cameras I have owned I experienced no difference ... but the story gets repeated and repeated and repeated

edit ... there is also the fact that if the lens is focused close to the new distance it will find focus quicker. As with manual use.

[mariosprt]

Since we're on the subject of Autofocus.

One of the differences between various models of cameras from the same manufacturer, seems to be the quantity of Focus Points. But in another thread, several people stated that a large number of Focus Points may not help in quicker/more accurate focusing, in fact, it may be faster to use only center focus. This mean a single Focus Point, right? I was wondering what the general opinion is...

Thanks
Mario

[Manfred M]

In practical terms the difference between CD and PD is negligible and a laboratory difference from what I can see with relatively modern cameras ... I also read that somebody had done a test which had CD faster than PD, in Europe somewhere, Denmark I think [A Canon DSLR ]. With cameras I have owned I experienced no difference ... but the story gets repeated and repeated and repeated

edit ... there is also the fact that if the lens is focused close to the new distance it will find focus quicker. As with manual use.

This is not my experience, but then I can't really say that my experience all inclusive as is doing all of my mirrorless of shooting with a NEX-7 and a Panasonic GX-7. My Panasonic video cameras also use contrast detect and the autofocus is extremely slow (I only use autofocus to establish focus with video, but then switch to manual focus for the shot).

My experience suggests that phase detect is faster by a fraction of a second and while this may not seem like much of a difference for stationary objects, it makes a real difference when the subject is moving, especially when the plane of movement is perpendicular to the sensor plane. I did head to head tests with these cameras against the D800, and all I can say is the difference in success rate was quite significant.

So to clarify; the type of photography one is planning to do with the camera is important. I am definitely not the only person to have this experience.

[Manfred M]

Since we're on the subject of Autofocus.

One of the differences between various models of cameras from the same manufacturer, seems to be the quantity of Focus Points. But in another thread, several people stated that a large number of Focus Points may not help in quicker/more accurate focusing, in fact, it may be faster to use only center focus. This mean a single Focus Point, right? I was wondering what the general opinion is...

Thanks
Mario

Mario - there is no single right answer here and different focus modes seem to be better than others, depending on the type of photography. Camera settings also play a part.

I shoot single point most of the time, but then I am primary shooting landscapes and relatively stationary people. Same comment applies to wildlife photography (with long lenses), so long as the wildlife remains relatively still. With people I generally shot a focus and recompose technique, using back button focusing. I will focus on the person's eye closest to the camera, lock in my focus and exposure and then re-frame the shot. I use continuous autofocus mode when I shot this way.

In more complex settings, especially when the subject is moving towards or away from me, I will switch over to one of the matrix modes. I can't say I've found one works better than the others and I suspect this is due to the high number of variables one is dealing with.

For very complex shots; panoramas, night shots, etc. I will switch to manual focus. The autofocus mechanism is not that reliable in low light situations. I use the camera's rear screen and magnify the area I am shooting to do this. In complex studio shots, I will go a step further and will tether my camera to my laptop and use the large laptop screen to confirm focus.

[John 2]

I've had my say before about the Fuji X range - and been roundly shot at. Suffice it to say that after a number of free firmware upgrades, I experience none of the disadvantages described above and there are advantages not yet mentioned like being able to view the effect of exposure compensation directly in the viewfinder. In addition, the X Tran sensor has been praised endlessly by reviewers for its near full frame and noise performance. I'm not pushing Fuji because other manufacturers are definitely in the chase and so in terms of the original Q, the old maxim applies - go and handle a few cameras in your local retailer and chose the one you are most comfortable with.

When it comes to mirrorless Vs DSLR, I also have a Nikon D7100 that is now almost redundant except for using it with a 150-600mm lens for wildlife. Fuji will not have a comparable offering until next year and although I have an appropriate adapter to use this lens with the Fuji, manual focus at these focal lengths is a bit awkward. But there is a further question that is worth adding to the debate. Where is the development money going to go in the future and if you are about to invest in a system therefore, where is your future proofing most likely to be?

[mariosprt]

Been reading and watching reviews of the Sony A6000 and some Fuji X-T10 X-E2 and I must say that unfortunately I may have to spend more than what I had planned Xmas is just around the corner, maybe I'll wait until then.
But these machine sure seem to have an edge to them, and the Fuji win in the control department, great dials... Not sure about the vintage looks.

John2, care to give your opinion on the Fuji?

There is so much to take in account, things like extra lenses, 3rd party are just as good and cheaper, or not really? Your opinions, please.

Thanks
Mario

[jcuknz]

YES! so many questions I doubt if you will be able to make a good choice from your position. I don't think I ever had and I have bought dozens of cameras over the years. Really you need more experience and to stop asking questions of people who probably have quite different interests in photography.
So I suggest you upgrade to a good bridge camera, secondhand so you do not spent much at this stage ... a Panasonic FZ50 would be my choice, add a two dioptre CU lens .... and take lots of photos and determine which subjects you want to spend time with and on which subjects the camera let you down and why. No camera is good at everything and from experience one can choose the least unsatisfactory camera for your needs.

The FZ50 and 2D was my combo for years starting with the FZ20 then FZ30 finally the FZ50 as each came out and the replacement is a GH2 with the x10 zoom ... unsatisfactory in some respects but it did answer my desire for a larger sensor 'bridge type' camera without the weight of equivalent DSLR combo.

[jcuknz]

I do not know if I double clicked the 'submit reply' button in error but for the third time CiC has fouled up and posted one copy of my message and then told me to wait to post a duplicate ... and I am not the only one experiencing this problem ... Both Dan and I yesterday

[jcuknz]

I assume Manfred is refering to Phase Detection not being very good in low light because I found it very hard with Contrast Detection to stop focus rapidly clicking into place when I trialed at 11pm one night outside in the street Mind you I was working with my zoom at 140mm which might account for that? Only place it did [wouldn't focus] was underneath a car parked under the street light and I couldn't see anything there either

[Manfred M]

I assume Manfred is refering to Phase Detection not being very good in low light because I found it very hard with Contrast Detection to stop focus rapidly clicking into place when I trialed at 11pm one night outside in the street Mind you I was working with my zoom at 140mm which might account for that? Only place it did [wouldn't focus] was underneath a car parked under the street light and I couldn't see anything there either

John - the issue I have is with the speed the camera focuses on a moving subject. A few tenths of a second delay on a stationary target is fine, but when the subject is moving toward the camera or away from the camera, that is a touch more challanging. In theory the continuous focus mode should be locking and tracking, but it seems to be rather hit or miss.

I did a test earlier this year where I was shooting equivalent focal length settings and apertures on moving targets with both the D800 and the GX-7. I missed a few shots with the D800, but the results from the GX-7 were downright miserable with somewhere around 1 in 10 motion shots turning out due to focus miss.

[Manfred M]

I do not know if I double clicked the 'submit reply' button in error but for the third time CiC has fouled up and posted one copy of my message and then told me to wait to post a duplicate ... and I am not the only one experiencing this problem ... Both Dan and I yesterday

This problem has been with us since the site crash a few days ago. It was reported at the time (as well as that the Lightbox function was not working). I don't know when either issue will be fixed.