Considering a return to DSLR... Advice needed

[InsanelyMarc]

If one of your favorite things to shoot is motorsports and you don't have confidence in using a :43: for that and don't want to be disappointed, I'm not sure what the point of the rest of this thread is. Just buy a dslr and go have fun with it.

The point was to bounce ideas and perspectives off people who may have other experiences than my own.

I've gotten quite a bit and also learned/clarified/recalled a lot about my own as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InsanelyMarc]

You can try the e-m1 which is supposed to be better than the other m43 cameras.
It will still not be as good as a dlsr.
If that's you enjoy shooting the most... That makes sense to consider a dlsr.
Maybe in addition to the m43.

yeah, more and more I think that's what may work out best.

 

[jnewell]

I have changed my technique for moving subjects from my Canon days to my G5. I use SAF and shoot short bursts instead of trying to maintain tracking with CAF on my G5. It works ok, not great, but the focus speed is fast enough that it acquires focus quickly. On the Canon I would use continuous AF using the back button to control focus. I will say my G5 is better at this than my E-PM1. My E-PM1 is fairly useless with fast moving objects (at least for me). I don't know how those compare to an E-PL5.

That's what I do with the EM-5, and it works very well. The EM-5 is extremely fast with most lenses, so not having CAF has not been a handicap for me.

 

[Clint]

What do you need? How well do you know your equipment and how good are you at using it? Your choices are all over the place, 4/3s, crop sensor, full frame - What are your needs - not wants?

Did you consider what you will do with the large files for the Sony? Do you have the processing power to handle the RAW files or the patience to work while waiting for your computer? It seemd as though as having a telephoto was pretty important - and then at one point the Sony was for you???

Determining factors - Capabilities, size, weight, associated equipment availability, cost (prioritize them to fit your purpose) - e.g. How important is a viewfinder? If a must you just reduced your camera considerations by quite a bit. Need a larger size - that throws the EM-10 out the door, unless you can adapt. Don't want to spend $3K - just reduced the choices more.


The EM-5 and EM-1 are as good as many DSLRs! If one knows how to use them.

Here are some point, focus and click shots using an EM-5. Both cars were within 100 feet and traveling well in excess of 100mph.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

You can make wise choices now and be determined to get the best out of your equipment - or you can bounce from camera manufacturer to another and back trying to find what works and costing you thousands. Good luck!

 

[InsanelyMarc]

Good points Clint...

I had put some thought into this post when I made it but I've picked up some different perspectives and factors to consider. As I said in the original post, I'm not looking for "the answer" as that will be different for everyone... just perspectives to consider.

 

[OzRay]

How long is a piece of string?

 

[InsanelyMarc]

How long is a piece of string?

 

[OzRay]

...something that you say when someone asks you a question that you cannot answer about how big something is or how much time something will take...

.

 

[InsanelyMarc]

Got it...

 

[OzRay]

Better yet, do this:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[InsanelyMarc]

Wow... that's awesome. I'll run through it later on. Thanks!

 

[HappyFish]

For cars also liked grids work

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=31403

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=53709

He has a lot more to search under his name

 

[bye]

My thoughts on this discussion is to let the OP decide what feels best and works the best for his type of shooting, because no camera is perfect.

I just recently took advantage of a clearance deal and got the E-P5 kit and just got off shooting with it for a few days and I am impressed with the AF performance, namely its continuous AF with tracking and short lag time with IBIS off. @ 9FPS, this is fast enough for me and I've tried it and have gotten many keepers. I especially liked the facial recognition feature -- it's fast also and damn accurate, more so than my Nikons. My E-P5's AF performance is almost identically to the Nikon Df I use, so it's no slouch. I've compared the E-M1 and the E-P5 in the shop and during testing and aside from the PDAF sensors with 43 lenses, I just don't see a big difference between the 2. E-M10's continuous AF frame rate is about 3.5fps, which was the reason why I didn't get it. I also needed the 1/8000sec to freeze high speed moving objects as well as shooting wide open in daylight; only the E-M1 and E-P5 has this.

I set up my E-P5 with a programmed function button whereby when I press it, I will be in C-AF+Tr with short lag time engaged and with IBIS off for fast burst rate and when I release it, I'm back to IBIS on and single point AF. The focus peaking feature is also a plus. The E-P5, like the E-PL series take an accessory viewfinder, the VF-4 has the same resolution as the E-M1 and I just love the clarity. Owning the E=PL1 for 4 years, I never felt my VF-2 would ever break off during transport. But I use a 15 year old Lowepro Off-road bag with it, so it is well protected. I found the E-M10 VF simply lacking the clarity of the VF-4; almost felt like using my VF-2 on my E-PL1. The IQ off the E-P5 is simply amazing, more so than my E-PL1. Having said that, the IQ on the E-PL1 is still unique in some ways that I like it more than my E-P5 in some situations so I'm keeping it as a second body.

Shooting sports require skills and knowing about the sports itself. I work in professional sanctioned events and most pros who shoot high speed events tend to pre-focus on a set distance and give it enough DOF to correct focus errors and then just shoot with manual focus while panning with the subject as it crosses the image field. The advantage of the m43 is that, it provides more DOF than a full frame, so you'll have less chances of getting soft images when the subject matter is not at the correct focus plane.

In regards to the Sony A7 cameras. It's a good camera, but I fear that while the body is light weight the lenses that attach to it will not be. The only advantage I see, and as many people who are buying this can confirm, is this is a great body to use with adapted lenses. In fact, if the price of the A7 comes down drastically in the near future, I will not hesitate picking this body only with a Nikon mount converter and slap on my Nikkor wide angle prime on it. I love its focus peaking, the grip and its light body and great sensor is a plus to my m43 outfit when I need more DR and better ISO performance. But I just don't see it as being good value when a Canon 6D with 24-105 f/4 kit is also a good value too with more bang for the buck. It's a more mature system. That's my opinion really. So for me, I would only get the A7 when the price is at more reasonable levels and a mount converter to use my Nikon lenses. I will probably buy it used some day or years later. Unless Sony starts producing more of their FE mount lenses, then i don't see this as a viable system platform compared to Canon or Nikon or the m43 which has more lens selections.

Hope this helps.

 

[mattia]

In regards to the Sony A7 cameras. It's a good camera, but I fear that while the body is light weight the lenses that attach to it will not be. The only advantage I see, and as many people who are buying this can confirm, is this is a great body to use with adapted lenses.

It depends on what you want and expect. I traded my 5DII and 24-105L with zero regrets. For my purposes (landscape, people photos) the A7r is the better camera because it's small enough to carry around. It's not mature, or complete as a system but I still love it.

As far as size and weight, the a7 with 28-70 or 24-70 native Zeiss lens is almost exactly the same size and weight as an E-M1 with a 12-40. The 35/2.8 is tiny and weighs only 120 grams (same weight as the Olympus 17/1.8), and the 55/1.8 is hardly huge (same as any SLR 50 with an adapter) or heavy at 280 grams (same as, say, an Oly 14-150, a canon EF 24/2.8, a Nikon 40/2.8). So while the weight and size advantage isn't there compared to MFT it most certainly is compared to a Canon FF camera, which body only weighs more than the A7 with either native prime. And stunning image quality to boot.

 

[Luckypenguin]

Somewhat off topic but not... If you guys were going to the Galápagos Islands... What would you rather? He he.

You don't need anything special in terms of camera capabilities in the Galapagos, although you may have opportunity to practice some basic birds-in-flight photography. Just take a camera that you know takes nice photos. Visiting the islands is a pretty cool experience but to really enjoy the experience you'll want to enjoy snorkeling because a large part of a Galapagos boat tour happens in the water.

 

[InsanelyMarc]

You don't need anything special in terms of camera capabilities in the Galapagos, although you may have opportunity to practice some basic birds-in-flight photography. Just take a camera that up know takes nice photos. Visiting the islands is a pretty cool experience but to really enjoy the experience you'll want to enjoy snorkeling because a large part of a Galapagos boat tour happens in the water.

Awesome. Hoping to do that in the next year or two.

 

[silver92b]

I have a friend who also got into M43 via a used EM5 from another friend (who got me into M43) and went to FF with a Sony mirrorless camera with a 35mm fixed lens.... The first friend is like the OP, always thinking that he prefers a bigger, heavier (more manly?) camera. I guess to each his or her own, but I "really" like the compactness of the M43 system. For traveling it's ideal. I started with 35mm years ago, had 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 medium format and started later in digital with P&S cameras, a Nikon D60 with a variety of lenses and now I have the EM5, EP5 and GX7. The Nikon takes good pictures but it's not FF and rather dated. It was not as much fun to carry that (rather small) body and lenses around the grand canyon and other places in my road trips. The M43 is much more comfortable

There is no way I would take a bigger, heavier camera/lense(s) specially in a trip. The IQ of M43 can be bettered, no doubt. But at what price? Personally, I would recommend a used/refurb EM5 with the grip and extra battery, and the pro zooms. I have the PL 12-35mm and the PL 35-100mm. If I throw one fast prime (under 20mm) in the bag, I can probably cover nearly every situation and with a very sturdy, weather sealed setup. There you have a slightly larger, more hefty camera with a good EVF and excellent lenses. You give up the pop-up flash, but if you can deal with the slight inconvenience, you can used the compact flash that comes with it for the relatively few occasions where you might need it. If you shoot RAW, you can develop your shots with ease to make up for the light issues in the field.

 

[InsanelyMarc]

I have a friend who also got into M43 via a used EM5 from another friend (who got me into M43) and went to FF with a Sony mirrorless camera with a 35mm fixed lens.... The first friend is like the OP, always thinking that he prefers a bigger, heavier (more manly?) camera. I guess to each his or her own, but I "really" like the compactness of the M43 system. For traveling it's ideal. I started with 35mm years ago, had 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 medium format and started later in digital with P&S cameras, a Nikon D60 with a variety of lenses and now I have the EM5, EP5 and GX7. The Nikon takes good pictures but it's not FF and rather dated. It was not as much fun to carry that (rather small) body and lenses around the grand canyon and other places in my road trips. The M43 is much more comfortable

There is no way I would take a bigger, heavier camera/lense(s) specially in a trip. The IQ of M43 can be bettered, no doubt. But at what price? Personally, I would recommend a used/refurb EM5 with the grip and extra battery, and the pro zooms. I have the PL 12-35mm and the PL 35-100mm. If I throw one fast prime (under 20mm) in the bag, I can probably cover nearly every situation and with a very sturdy, weather sealed setup. There you have a slightly larger, more hefty camera with a good EVF and excellent lenses. You give up the pop-up flash, but if you can deal with the slight inconvenience, you can used the compact flash that comes with it for the relatively few occasions where you might need it. If you shoot RAW, you can develop your shots with ease to make up for the light issues in the field.

Before seeing your reply I actually ended up picking up a used OM-D E-M5 to get past my immediate gripes. The price on used OM-D's were good enough to evaluate it. Depending whether or not I like it I can always resell it or sell my E-PL5. the E-M1 and E-M10 are too new so there isn't much of a used market and buying a new camera to try to "figure" things out wouldn't be the best idea.

I'm not doubting the M4/3 platform whatsoever and I don't think I NEED much more. Some good points were made, especially around lens selection, price, versatility, and portability. All which made a lot of sense to me. If I end up keeping the E-M5. I'm likely going to get a telephoto and another prime and that in combination with the 12-50mm should cover a lot of what I like to shoot. At that point, I can figure out if I "need" a DSLR body as well.

 

[cptobvious]

I went from a 6D to the E-PL5 and ultimately to the E-P5. The 6D with the 24-105L makes for a nice 1 body/1 lens kit, maybe with a small 35mm or 50mm prime to go with it. There is a level of sharpness and "3D look" to FF images that m4/3 clearly lacks. The problem I had is I wasn't satisfied with just the 6D/24-105 (and it is a substantial chunk of size/weight to carry, despite being smaller and lighter than my older 5D). I felt like I wasn't exploiting the camera to its potential for its DOF capability. So I added an 85mm and almost got the Sigma 35mm. I also got the 17-40L because it just felt like I needed to do landscapes to justify the FF sharpness at the pixel level. Once you get 3-4 lenses in a bag with the 6D, it becomes a chore to carry. I bought a backpack instead of a shoulder bag which helped, but then it becomes a matter of wearing a backpack everywhere you take pictures. Before the 6D I had a Nikon D5100 with just the Sigma 10-20mm and 17-50mm lenses, and even that became annoying to carry on vacation. After those two cameras, I think DSLRs aren't for me anymore, although I still get tempted every time I pick one up at the store.

I would say I'm 90% satisfied with the setup I have now. The prime lens choices, fast AF, and IBIS are what drew me to Olympus. 10% of the time I'm wishing for FF (shallower DOF, lack of smudging at the pixel level, and lower noise) but I don't print large or shoot professionally, so practically speaking I get as good output with m4/3 (also considering I shoot in more places with m4/3). I may migrate to mirrorless FF in a couple years, depending on what lens choices are out there, but right now it's pretty sparse unless you use MF glass.

 

[bye]

It depends on what you want and expect. I traded my 5DII and 24-105L with zero regrets. For my purposes (landscape, people photos) the A7r is the better camera because it's small enough to carry around. It's not mature, or complete as a system but I still love it.

As far as size and weight, the a7 with 28-70 or 24-70 native Zeiss lens is almost exactly the same size and weight as an E-M1 with a 12-40. The 35/2.8 is tiny and weighs only 120 grams (same weight as the Olympus 17/1.8), and the 55/1.8 is hardly huge (same as any SLR 50 with an adapter) or heavy at 280 grams (same as, say, an Oly 14-150, a canon EF 24/2.8, a Nikon 40/2.8). So while the weight and size advantage isn't there compared to MFT it most certainly is compared to a Canon FF camera, which body only weighs more than the A7 with either native prime. And stunning image quality to boot.

My fear is that Sony is making lens based on weight and form factor rather than on performance. 24-70 and the up and coming 70-200 are f/4 lenses not f/2.8 like we have for our m43. I know 35 f/2.8 and 55 f/1.8 are tiny and hardly huge; but then the Nikkor equivalents are hardly huge either and pretty light weight like your Sonys. BUT, you don't pay a high premium on those 2 lenses. Canon equivalents are also affordable as well. I mean is it really worth that much for a "Zeiss" branded lens? When you start getting in the f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2.8 zoom lenses, they will be huge, as huge as your Canon and Nikon equivalents. You can't escape this fact. The fact that Sony is trying to hide this by making slower zooms and slower primes goes to show that I think they are only interested in making lenses to meet a certain weight and form factor. So as it stands now, most people use the A7 and A7r mainly as an adapted lens for their prime Leicas, Contax Zeiss, Canon FD and Nikon Ais lenses in manual focus. For that, I see a great purpose for the A7/A7r and ofcourse with image quality to boot against our m43 bodies, especially with astrophotography or low light photography and landscape where coupled say with a Samyang wide angle lens can make a very compact system. Then paired with say a fast m43 body like the E-P5, E-M5 or E-M1 to make a killing combo. That's probably I assume why you have yours?