Best m43 Kit for $600?

[demiro]

I don't get the prime recommendations. He's coming from a P&S and wants a "better" camera/lens w/ wifi. I don't see the need for wifi at this price point but that's what they said. So that leaves a 2nd hand body and a 12-50 or 14-150. IMHO

Do have a baby or very small child that you've tried to shoot, indoors, no flash? It was all about low light for me. As I posted earlier, I wasn't happy until I bought a fast prime. It changes pretty quickly though. Soon enough that little one is running around, and is outdoors a lot in better light. I wonder if we are all considering the same scenario when we make recommendations.

 

[justdirtyfun]

I am relatively new to photography and agree fast glass is least understood but fairly important. I have upgraded my cameras but miss my stolen sigma prime for indoor events.

 

[tkbslc]

But the J4 kit you mentioned also has 2 slow kit lenses with the same f/5.6 aperture on a 1" sensor? So they are even slower, so I'm not seeing how you can say they they are faster. And that's match to camera with a sensor that has about 1.5 -2 spots better ISO than the Nikon 1 system. Add the AF-A that will change between AF-S and AF-C automatically with phase detect AF and you have a better option for a point and shot parent looking for a step up.

This far from the the perfect or only option. But it's also far from the worst.

But at least it is very small to make up for it. And that's why I also suggested an f1.8 prime.

It's all a matter of opinion, so nothing personal here. Sorry I use the term "worst", I can see how that may have come off as aggressive. It's just not what I would pick.

 

[tyrphoto]

It really depends what they're looking for in a camera.

If it was me, I'd probably go for the GM5 with kit lens for $700. Later, when funds become available, slap on a P15/1.7.

Other option would be to go for a EM10 or EM5 Elite with kit lens for $500 although I'd still go with the GM5 as it would make for a small and stealthy street shooter with the P15/1.7. But again, that's just me.

 

[Turbofrog]

I don't get the prime recommendations. He's coming from a P&S and wants a "better" camera/lens w/ wifi. I don't see the need for wifi at this price point but that's what they said. So that leaves a 2nd hand body and a 12-50 or 14-150. IMHO

The trouble is, a DSLR or a mirrorless camera and an f3.5-5.6 lens won't do much better in low light than a smaller sensor camera with a faster lens. You'll need to go nuclear with the ISO, starting where I like to top out (at 1/50s and ISO 3200). A fast prime actually gives you photos that look like they came from an expensive camera. And a lot of people are used to a single focal length from using smartphones these days.

Obviously depends on the top priorities, but if they're for "social" photos and family portraits, I'd start with the fast prime and then pick up a kit zoom (or zooms) to add flexibility on a vacation as funds allowed.

 

[T N Args]

Tell them to add $50 for a total of $650 and get this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119766-REG/nikon_13473_d3300_dslr_camera_with.html

No is not m4/3. But it will do what they want and need with ease. Down the road they should add a flash. But this well last them for many years to come.

You've ^^^ been reading my posts vvv. At least someone is.

Sadly, my standard recommendation under these conditions is a plastic Canikon DSLR twin lens kit. When dollars are this low, absolutely nothing beats them for image quality per dollar spent. Also has a wide focal length range, and a nifty fifty can be picked up used for what , $70? (Although personally I would spend that on a swiveling flash from a generic brand -- he gets to learn a bit about flash, and the picture quality is so much better than a direct flash that it's unbelievable.)

Pick up second hand for fantastic value and easily under budget. The nifty fifty addresses the 'slow lens' concern -- so does the swivel flash.

 

[Turbofrog]

You've ^^^ been reading my posts vvv. At least someone is.



Pick up second hand for fantastic value and easily under budget. The nifty fifty addresses the 'slow lens' concern -- so does the swivel flash.

I do think that on a strict budget a Nikon DSLR with some assortment of kit zooms and a 35mm/1.8 is a good bet. I feel like the Canon option (which only has an inexpensive 50mm) ends up being too long for general shooting (especially indoors, where you'll need it) unless you are only planning on having one person in your pictures.

Honestly though, my top recommendation for an inexpensive system with a +1 fast prime - assuming you're buying new and aren't interesting in hunting for older M4/3 bodies and a bargain on the 20mm/1.7 - is Samsung. Their 30mm/f2 pancake is only a bit more expensive than the Nikon 35mm/1.8 ($250 vs. $200), image quality is equivalent, and the whole kit is tiny.

 

[tkbslc]

I do think that on a strict budget a Nikon DSLR with some assortment of kit zooms and a 35mm/1.8 is a good bet. I feel like the Canon option (which only has an inexpensive 50mm) ends up being too long for general shooting (especially indoors, where you'll need it) unless you are only planning on having one person in your pictures.

Honestly though, my top recommendation for an inexpensive system with a +1 fast prime - assuming you're buying new and aren't interesting in hunting for older M4/3 bodies and a bargain on the 20mm/1.7 - is Samsung. Their 30mm/f2 pancake is only a bit more expensive than the Nikon 35mm/1.8 ($250 vs. $200), image quality is equivalent, and the whole kit is tiny.

While I disagree with the DSLR recommendation, I will add that Canon has added the nice 24mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.8 pancakes recently. Both often available under $200 new. 50mm f1.8 is pretty good if you treat it like an f2.5.

 

[jin]

I disagree with all of his recommendations. One fast prime to take shots of a family? Sure that will work as long as the child cannot walk, but later down the line, he'll probably need a zoom. So many used lenses I buy are off of new fathers who are selling off lenses for a super zoom because their child keeps running around or has sports games or need to take photos of the whole family, and a super zoom is just better for all of those things. Just one fast prime just won't do. If anything, I'd rather follow the other recommendations of the LX100 or the RX100. Those all seem more reasonable. You have the image quality, the compactness and the versatility of a zoom.

If they insist on interchangeable lens system, I'd try to find them a used 14-140 zoom with a widish prime, but given the $600 restriction, this'll be hard to do. Maybe just a standard zoom like the Panasonic 14-45 or 14-42II with a widish prime like the Panasonic 17 or 25 for low light. I just picked up the 14-45 ($100) and I've seen the 17/25 for around $300. That leaves you with a $200 body, which will likely be a G5 if you want a view finder or a PEN if you want IBIS. Maybe even a GF will do. Then you have more leeway on pricing out used lenses. In the end, it's probably easier to get an LX100 or an RX100.

 

[Turbofrog]

I disagree with all of his recommendations. One fast prime to take shots of a family? Sure that will work as long as the child cannot walk, but later down the line, he'll probably need a zoom. So many used lenses I buy are off of new fathers who are selling off lenses for a super zoom because their child keeps running around or has sports games or need to take photos of the whole family, and a super zoom is just better for all of those things. Just one fast prime just won't do. If anything, I'd rather follow the other recommendations of the LX100 or the RX100. Those all seem more reasonable. You have the image quality, the compactness and the versatility of a zoom.

If they insist on interchangeable lens system, I'd try to find them a used 14-140 zoom with a widish prime, but given the $600 restriction, this'll be hard to do. Maybe just a standard zoom like the Panasonic 14-45 or 14-42II with a widish prime like the Panasonic 17 or 25 for low light. I just picked up the 14-45 ($100) and I've seen the 17/25 for around $300. That leaves you with a $200 body, which will likely be a G5 if you want a view finder or a PEN if you want IBIS. Maybe even a GF will do. Then you have more leeway on pricing out used lenses. In the end, it's probably easier to get an LX100 or an RX100.

Presumably in the time in between infancy and when they start playing soccer, you can put away a couple bucks a year and get a zoom or two.

Everything in context, and within budget. If you only want the flexibility of zooms, you give up the ability to take indoor photos. Its a compromise. If you don't have at least one fast prime, I wouldn't bother with an interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

 

[demiro]

Presumably in the time in between infancy and when they start playing soccer, you can put away a couple bucks a year and get a zoom or two.

Everything in context, and within budget. If you only want the flexibility of zooms, you give up the ability to take indoor photos. Its a compromise. If you don't have at least one fast prime, I wouldn't bother with an interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

Exactly right.

 

[PacNWMike]

If you only want the flexibility of zooms, you give up the ability to take indoor photos.

Better inform all the people with phones.

If you don't have at least one fast prime, I wouldn't bother with an interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

This is dogma and I'm not a member of that church. I haven't used one nor felt that I was missing anything since I was shooting film. Even then the only fast prime I had (still have) was a 50/1.2 unless you count f2.

It all boils down to individual preference. When I look around I see 99% using a zoom and this informs my recommendations.

 

[jin]

If you don't have at least one fast prime, I wouldn't bother with an interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

Therefore I agree with lx100 and rx100 people

 

[Turbofrog]

Better inform all the people with phones.

Sorry, read that as "...you give up the ability to take indoor photos [any better than a smartphone camera]." I was sort of going under the implicit assumption that the person asking the questions was hoping for better-than-smartphone image quality, or else why would they be asking about a camera?

This is dogma and I'm not a member of that church. I haven't used one nor felt that I was missing anything since I was shooting film. Even then the only fast prime I had (still have) was a 50/1.2 unless you count f2.

It all boils down to individual preference. When I look around I see 99% using a zoom and this informs my recommendations.

I also see most people using a zoom, and I probably use a zoom for 80% of my photos, too. But I'll use a prime for 80% of my low-light shooting (i.e. any time I have a choice, really). I think it entirely depends on the kind of photography you do. If you shoot outside in good light (I like to use photography as a good excuse to go for walks!) a kit zoom will serve your purposes just fine! But I really wouldn't recommend it for toddler portraits indoors. I don't have a kid, but on the rare occasions that I take photos at a party, I really want to have my 20mm/1.7 with me. 2 stops more light makes a big difference, you must admit!

 

[Savageajc]

Whoa this thread has been very helpful to me! Thanks OP and everyone who has replied so far!

 

[808N8]

Do have a baby or very small child that you've tried to shoot, indoors, no flash? It was all about low light for me.

This! My little one is almost 18-months old, and my PL 25 has easily been my most used lens for baby photos. That being said, that lens isn't in the budget for this circumstance, but I just wanted to echo the importance for fast enough glass. Most recent (or even semi-recent) bodies will probably provide more than adequate capability, but they won't do any good if the glass can't keep up.

Perhaps Olympus 25mm might be a good starting lens, and if wifi and viewfinder are only ideal and not mandatory might be able to find a body to pair it with to make the $600 budget. Then get a zoom for more flexibility later on. Although as others have mentioned an entry level DSLR with kit lens and fast prime can probably be had within the budget now.

 

[DeeJayK]

Do have a baby or very small child that you've tried to shoot, indoors, no flash? It was all about low light for me.

This! My little one is almost 18-months old, and my PL 25 has easily been my most used lens for baby photos. That being said, that lens isn't in the budget for this circumstance, but I just wanted to echo the importance for fast enough glass.

Perhaps Olympus 25mm might be a good starting lens, and if wifi and viewfinder are only ideal and not mandatory might be able to find a body to pair it with to make the $600 budget. Then get a zoom for more flexibility later on. Although as others have mentioned an entry level DSLR with kit lens and fast prime can probably be had within the budget now.

Personally, for capturing infants and toddlers, I find the 25mm focal length (50mm equivalent) to be on the long end, particularly in a one-on-one setting. I found that I often wanted to be within arms length in order to try to catch the child prior to a spill and the 25mm put me outside that zone. I'd strongly consider either the Oly 18/1.8 or Panny 20/1.7 for that reason.

Considering the $600 price point, I'd recommend an E-PL6 with 14-42 lens ($300) along with at P20 ($300) or perhaps a second-hand O17.

 

[tkbslc]

If you are within arms length, you are undoubtedly going to have perspective distortion.

 

[TwoWheels]

This thread probably doesn't need another opinion, but I'll throw mine in anyway. The small m4/3 camera with a prime lens that stays in the diaper bag will always take a better photo than the DSLR that's sitting at home on the shelf. Going places with kids requires hauling a lot of stuff. A camera is just one more big heavy thing. I missed way too many moments when my kids were younger because my Nikon DSLR was sitting at home. What I wouldn't give to get a do-over on those years with my GM1 and pancake prime.

 

[DeeJayK]

If you are within arms length, you are undoubtedly going to have perspective distortion.

While I agree that lenses shorter than around 25mm are to be avoided for adults and older children, I don't think that's a major concern for infants and toddlers.