New mirrorless camera for hiking Considering Panasonic GX7- Sony A6000 - Olympus?

[teigas]

I am looking for a small mirrorless camera to take on mountain hikes in my local area. I have the Nikon D800 and several lenses but since i have a shoulder that not work so well its to bulky to drag around.
Me and my father had the panasonic gx1 but he was unlucky and had an accident with it, so we are looking for something new.
I liked the size of the gx1, but when i processed the image files in raw I felt that i often had to do some noise reduction because there always seemed to be some digital noise even at iso 100 - 200.. But perhaps that was just me comparing it to the D800?

The fact that i felt that on the gx1 from panasonic makes me hesitate on the gx7? Will it be like that to?
I now comparing theese to the Nikon D800 makes it rather unfair for the panasonic.

So does anybody have the Sony A6000, Pansonic GX7 og the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II or could you recommend other cameras in the price range? If you have some of them i would loved if you shared a raw file i could test out.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Teigas,

I'm pretty certain I have seen members with Sony A6000, Pansonic GX7 or the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II, here, let's hope they see this.

I believe Manfred is currently shooting with his GX7 in India as I type, he's posted many threads recently.

Also of course, the sensor in the GX7 will be much newer than the GX1, so noise should be better.

Good luck, Dave

[Shadowman]

What exactly were you shooting at ISO 100 to get noise? I know you can get a mottled look to some sky shots with some sensors, but that can be easily fixed. See if you can find some test shots, of similar scenes where you saw noise; for any camera you are considering.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa...solution.shtml

[Manfred M]

I'm a D800 and GX7 shooter. One of the reasons I went for the GX7 is the reviews were quite good for it especially regarding its low light performance. I looked at the Olympus mFT before choosing the GX7 (I was unimpressed with the Olympus offerings for a variety of reasons, mostly ergonomics and also performance.

It does not come close to matching the D800 performance and the only reason I turn to it is for small size and low weight. I've been shooting with it exclusively for the past month, with the 14-140mm lens and a bit with the 100-300mm lens. Compared to the D800, I would say performance is adequate in good light, but that's as far as I will go. I would suggest this is a common issue with all of the mFT sensor cameras.

Was it the right choice for me at the time; I will have to be 100% clear and say yes, but that's primarily because I owned both lenses and used them with my Panasonic AF100 video camera. If I were starting from scratch, I think I might have looked at one of the Fujifilm cameras like the XT-1, but it is fairly large compared to the GX7.

[teigas]

I'm a D800 and GX7 shooter. One of the reasons I went for the GX7 is the reviews were quite good for it especially regarding its low light performance. I looked at the Olympus mFT before choosing the GX7 (I was unimpressed with the Olympus offerings for a variety of reasons, mostly ergonomics and also performance.

It does not come close to matching the D800 performance and the only reason I turn to it is for small size and low weight. I've been shooting with it exclusively for the past month, with the 14-140mm lens and a bit with the 100-300mm lens. Compared to the D800, I would say performance is adequate in good light, but that's as far as I will go. I would suggest this is a common issue with all of the mFT sensor cameras.

Was it the right choice for me at the time; I will have to be 100% clear and say yes, but that's primarily because I owned both lenses and used them with my Panasonic AF100 video camera. If I were starting from scratch, I think I might have looked at one of the Fujifilm cameras like the XT-1, but it is fairly large compared to the GX7.

Thank you for the reply. I understand that it does not come close to the d800 but if it did, something with pricing would be really off :P If you could buy a camera at that price and it outpreformed the D800.

Do you get noise if you shoot landscape on the raw files? On the gx1 i tought it became a little grainy often.. I tried the Sony A5000 a friend has that one, i saw it a little there also, but not so much as the GX1. Perhaps that has do do with the MFt sensor as you says?

Do you have any pictures you have taken with it? Or a raw file you could share of some landscape or view from a mountain or somthing? I understand if you will not share such..

[Manfred M]

Thank you for the reply. I understand that it does not come close to the d800 but if it did, something with pricing would be really off :P If you could buy a camera at that price and it outpreformed the D800.

Do you get noise if you shoot landscape on the raw files? On the gx1 i tought it became a little grainy often.. I tried the Sony A5000 a friend has that one, i saw it a little there also, but not so much as the GX1. Perhaps that has do do with the MFt sensor as you says?

Do you have any pictures you have taken with it? Or a raw file you could share of some landscape or view from a mountain or somthing? I understand if you will not share such..

I would suggest that if you are someone who prints a lot (like me), then this might be an issue. To a large extent the issue is related to the amount of magnification you need to create the same size image as a FF shot. I'm probably one of the few people who finds when it comes to sensor sizes, bigger is better (and the equipment is larger and heavier and a lot more expensive).

I just posted a shot of the Athirappilly Falls taken in almost ideal conditions for this camera:

Athirappilly Falls

If you look at any of the postings I've put up over the past four weeks, they were all done with the GX7 and the 14-140mm lens.

[NorthernFocus]

I'm also a D800(now D810) shooter who needed a lighter kit for hiking/travel. Having experienced the fiasco known as Nikon1(one inch format), I decided to stick with an APS-C sensor in mirrorless body. So I went with the Sony a6000. It's a reasonable compromise in IQ. Subjectively I'd say it's about on par with the D7100(which I also had) and (if you put any weight on them) the DXoMark scores agree with that. It also has some useful features like in-camera HDR (that works handheld), zebra focus indication, a tilt screen LCD, etc. The EVF does not adjust brightness when shooting manual mode so you it's more or less a wysiswyg image you're looking at. If you're mainly interested in shooting landscape while hiking, it's a fine little camera at a ridiculously low price (in the US at least). If you want to invest in better glass there are several Zeiss lenses available for it as well. Paired with a little Sirui carbon fiber tripod(<1kg) it makes for a decent travel kit.

[teigas]

I would suggest that if you are someone who prints a lot (like me), then this might be an issue. To a large extent the issue is related to the amount of magnification you need to create the same size image as a FF shot. I'm probably one of the few people who finds when it comes to sensor sizes, bigger is better (and the equipment is larger and heavier and a lot more expensive).

I just posted a shot of the Athirappilly Falls taken in almost ideal conditions for this camera:

Athirappilly Falls

If you look at any of the postings I've put up over the past four weeks, they were all done with the GX7 and the 14-140mm lens.

Thank you i will check it out, the one of the waterfall looked okey

[teigas]

I'm also a D800(now D810) shooter who needed a lighter kit for hiking/travel. Having experienced the fiasco known as Nikon1(one inch format), I decided to stick with an APS-C sensor in mirrorless body. So I went with the Sony a6000. It's a reasonable compromise in IQ. Subjectively I'd say it's about on par with the D7100(which I also had) and (if you put any weight on them) the DXoMark scores agree with that. It also has some useful features like in-camera HDR (that works handheld), zebra focus indication, a tilt screen LCD, etc. The EVF does not adjust brightness when shooting manual mode so you it's more or less a wysiswyg image you're looking at. If you're mainly interested in shooting landscape while hiking, it's a fine little camera at a ridiculously low price (in the US at least). If you want to invest in better glass there are several Zeiss lenses available for it as well. Paired with a little Sirui carbon fiber tripod(<1kg) it makes for a decent travel kit.

Thanks for the reply Do you have a web page or somthing i could check out some of the pictures you shot with it? Can i bracket raw files, like if i want to shoot one -1 on 0 and one +1 when i press tree times, like the Nikon D800 has a function for? Does it have a built in leveler?

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the reply Do you have a web page or somthing i could check out some of the pictures you shot with it? Can i bracket raw files, like if i want to shoot one -1 on 0 and one +1 when i press tree times, like the Nikon D800 has a function for? Does it have a built in leveler?

You can see some photos in this gallery. Yes you can bracket as well as adjust how many stops you want to span for in-camera HDR. For whichever camera you're interested in I suggest you visit the manufacturer's website and download a copy of the manual.

[xpatUSA]

If you get the GX7 and have a choice of medium zooms, I recommend the early 14-45mm over the later 14-42mm. They both good but the earlier model has better construction (metal mount) and might even be made in Japan? as opposed to the larger country to the NE. I also had the 45-200 which was pretty good. and the Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 true is just outstanding.

I do see that the GX7 has IBIS, so perhaps this post is moot.

[Manfred M]

I do see that the GX7 has IBIS, so perhaps this post is moot.

IBIS only works on lenses that do not have in-lens stabilization and the IBIS is supposedly not all that good, gaining you perhaps one stop extra.

[dje]

Hi teigus

I have a D610 and recently bought an a6000 for travel. This Dropbox link takes you to a raw file from each camera taken of the same scene. Different lenses were used of course so a comparison of sharpness is not terribly useful. It should give an idea of noise though, with both images taken at ISO100.

For these shots, the D610 had a 24-85 lens and the a6000 had a 16-50 kit lens.

So far, I'm quite happy with the a6000 for it's intended purpose. And as Dan says, it's cheap at the moment as there is a new model just released (a6300)

Dave

[xpatUSA]

IBIS only works on lenses that do not have in-lens stabilization

So, I could not just turn off the lens OIS on those Panasonic lenses, or have I misunderstood something?

and the IBIS is supposedly not all that good, gaining you perhaps one stop extra.

I didn't know that, should be of interest to the OP. Is that in a review somewhere?

[Manfred M]

So, I could not just turn off the lens OIS on those Panasonic lenses, or have I misunderstood something?





I didn't know that, should be of interest to the OP. Is that in a review somewhere?

I'm fairly certain the in-camera vs in lens stabilization is mentioned in the camera manual. The IBIS is only triggered if no in-lens OIS is detected, turning of the switch on the lens turns off all stabilization. In lens stabilization is superior as most camera shake involves rotation rather than x-y-z translation.

The mediocre quality of in-camera stabilization is something I read in a review when I was researching the camera a couple of years ago.

[Dave Humphries]

Errr; how does in-lens stabilisation correct (lens axis) rotational movement?

I'd have thought that was the one thing that only in-camera stabilisation (via sensor 'twist') could fix.

I am only considering this on a theoretical basis, I have no detailed knowledge of the various systems in specific brands or models.

Also; aren't there two types of in-camera stabilisation systems; those that move the sensor and those that shift the pixel readout around?

I would imagine that finer corrections are possible with sensor movement type, especially if not limited to 'x'-'y' axes (wouldn't traditional 'z' axis change the focus of the image on sensor?).

If rotational corrections were applied in a readout system, this would surely degrade image quality since it must require millions of pixel calculations - I don't see it being practical to implement at the time of shooting - although it is of course how we do it in PP when levelling horizons.

I may be wrong, at least in part - it is months since I gave this topic any serious thought or research.

[dem]

The mediocre quality of in-camera stabilization is something I read in a review when I was researching the camera a couple of years ago.

I would not write off IBIS as a technology. Recent Olymus cameras deliver up to 5 stops of stabilization and even a full frame Sony gives about 4 stops:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014...lization-work/

EDIT: Sorry Manfred, I misread your post.

[Black Pearl]

I would not write off IBIS as a technology. Recent Olymus cameras deliver up to 5 stops of stabilization and even a full frame Sony gives about 4 stops:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014...lization-work/

I think the important part of Manfred's statement is 'the camera' and not 'all cameras with IBIS'

[Manfred M]

I would not write off IBIS as a technology. Recent Olymus cameras deliver up to 5 stops of stabilization and even a full frame Sony gives about 4 stops:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014...lization-work/

Dem - I was writing about the specific Panasonic implementation of IBIS with the GX7.

[Manfred M]

Errr; how does in-lens stabilisation correct (lens axis) rotational movement?

I'd have thought that was the one thing that only in-camera stabilisation (via sensor 'twist') could fix.

I am only considering this on a theoretical basis, I have no detailed knowledge of the various systems in specific brands or models.

Also; aren't there two types of in-camera stabilisation systems; those that move the sensor and those that shift the pixel readout around?

I would imagine that finer corrections are possible with sensor movement type, especially if not limited to 'x'-'y' axes (wouldn't traditional 'z' axis change the focus of the image on sensor?).

If rotational corrections were applied in a readout system, this would surely degrade image quality since it must require millions of pixel calculations - I don't see it being practical to implement at the time of shooting - although it is of course how we do it in PP when levelling horizons.

I may be wrong, at least in part - it is months since I gave this topic any serious thought or research.

Dave - you can translate any x-y-z (linear coordinate system) translation into a spherical coordinate system, so either implementation should be able to work equally well for any type of camera movement.

The in-lens implementations are mechanically simpler and mechanically more robust to implement (all you are moving is a fairly small piece of glass mounted on two or three gimbals). With IBIS you are moving a sensor with optical stack and data wiring; which requires a far more complex design. Complex systems are more prone to error and failure.

Regardless of which approach is used, both should be able to deliver comparable quality.

We had the in-lens electronics fail on a Sigma 150-500mm lens on a trip (including the IS). We were able to keep on shooting with any of our other lenses. Had we had a camera with IBIS with the same type of failure, it would definitely have affected our ability to shoot.