Looking to get into M43 on the (very)cheap, considering some older models; any thoughts?

[Deleted member 20897]

Coming from a DSLR, I'd look at the EM5(weather sealed) or EM10(not weather sealed). Get a nice prime or 2 used as well like the Oly 25/1.8 or 45/1.8
If zooms are more your thing, look at the Panasonic 12-32 pancake.

 

[catmurphy]

An EPL5 with a VF-3 EVF is not a bad system. My start in the micro 4/3 world. Works fine with adapters for non-native lenses.

 

[Yalborap]

Not disagreeing with you here. The OP is an underemployed 20 something. And his only objection to his gear is that it is old. Yes, there are plenty of things newer bodies do better than the D40, but it is not clear from any of the OP's posts that his photography is being limited by the gear.

And my advice was in part motivated by having been an underemployed 20 something in the past (grad school!) and learning to make do. He has good gear and no money. Is there really any need to spend more? May sound harsh, but ...

Well, not exactly.

Gonna be honest, I've been bouncing this around on my usual hangouts before I found this place, and I was mostly focused on explaining my thoughts on M43 gear, so I didn't lay out the full details of my troubles with my current equipment.

Basically, in short, it's interface. My D70 is the main body I've been using since the photog bug bit me again recently, and its interface is...woefully inadequate. Aside from a 1.8" screen, my viewfinder is muddy and dark and just straight up poor. Confirming composition in the viewfinder is difficult, without even touching the fact that I wear glasses and am nearsighted, so the adjustment lever does me no good. Which means I'm unable to really get my eye on the thing to get a true idea of my edges short of bobbing my head around like a birdie. And then the tiny, tiny screen, an old TFT with poor reflectivity and viewing angles at that, means it's incredibly difficult to check much out after-the-fact beyond popping the histogram to be sure I'm not clipping too bad on exposure. Oh, and it uses compactflash cards, which are a lot more fussy to deal with in every capacity. Even using an SD->CF adapter drastically reduces my write rate and introduces additional complications.

Now, much of this isn't really a problem on my D40...Except on my D40, the humble nifty fifty won't autofocus. And I'm in a tiny viewfinder with no magnification and no real internal focus confirmation, so fine focus, especially on things like faces where the part I want to focus on doesn't have the high-contrast divide against a background is...Difficult at best. Especially with no live view or zoom magnification or any of that to get a better look up close. Now of course, it's worth stating that this is just one lens, right? We'll even ignore questions of using legacy glass without a particularly great viewfinder or any of the modern niceties, and just focus on that one lens. I could just get the one with internal autofocus motors, right? Problem solved, just upgrade the one lens and continue on my merry way.

Or I could if that one lens wasn't $200 out of a used site, and around 1-150 at auction.

Finding this was what led me to looking at getting a modest body upgrade in the first place, looking at the D90 so I could have the D70's internal autofocus motors but with a modern screen and all of that. Except, of course, the D90 basically goes for $200 if it's still in decent condition.

Now, it should be noted that while I have Nikon kit, I don't have a lot. Outside of the two bodies, all I have is an 18-55 kit lens(the older one with no image stabilization), the 55-200mm with Nikon's first-gen image stabilization, and the humble 50mm 1.8, the oldschool style one with aperture ring and no AF motor. So it's very little to have to sell off and replace.

And none of this is touching on the old size-and-weight troubles. The D70 is a bulky camera, if not as bulky as some of the pro SLRs of its vintage. And I'm not a high schooler getting rides from his parents anymore. I'm a 20-something with a bike and a bus pass, since both the folks work and thus the cars are never available to begin with. So I can't toss the gear in the backseat and go off to take my photos, I've gotta haul the crap the old fashioned way.

So basically, what it comes down to is that any path I take for even the most modest of upgrades, will cost me as much or more than I'm considering spending on an older M43 camera. And most of the paths will leave me with some other problem to deal with. And hell, I'll freely admit, this is a quality-of-life upgrade solely. It's not like my cameras don't work...

But, I mean. I live with the folks, my few bills are squared away, and the fridge is full. This is purely discretionary income. The money's gonna inevitably go to something frivolous, whether it's a trip to the movies or a nice dinner or a gorey videogame or a slick camera, you know what I mean?

EDIT: My apologies if I'm coming off as argumentative here, or anything like that. I appreciate everyone's feedback here immensely, I'm just trying to lay out where I'm coming from. I only found this forum after probably close to a week of research, video watching, asking questions in other places, and looking at eBay auctions, so I kind of tried to skip to the end part of this entire process without laying out all my context. That's my fault, and it's made the communication a little more difficult, I'll freely admit.

 

[agentlossing]

You realize that your Nikon lenses will all be at double the effective focal length, right? A nifty fifty at effectively 100mm is even less useful than one at ~75mm with the old crop factor. You'd have to be at 18mm just to get a ~35mm equivalent, and wide angle is almost out of the question unless you have expensive ultrawides handy. Lenses designed for larger formats make good augments but poor entire kits with m4/3.

oh and um...

 

[Yalborap]

Yes, I'm quite aware. There's a reason why the semi-longer term part of the plan is to start selling the Nikon stuff if M43 works for me. Move it out once I know the format works in my hand, use the lens money to fund equivalents in M43*, and call it a day.

*Well, I say equivalents. Really what I mean is the kit lens for a walking-around lens, and then a fast prime. Because I've seen the quality on the kit lens from photo tests and stuff, and it produces excellent results to my eye. I barely ever used my telephoto, and most of what I used it for was stuff where I was manually focusing anyways, so some 30 dollar piece of legacy glass and an adapter would be more than enough when it's time to cross that bridge again.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

...I'm coming back into photography after a decently sized gap;
...
Anyways. I'm strongly considering jumping ship from Nikon and landing on something a little more modern, while being more affordable.
...
Which brings me to looking at micro 4/3rds as a serious option!
...
So, that is to say...I can't exactly afford the latest and greatest on the shelf.

GH-1 used ... its the best value for money in the low end. The actual RAW files are not far from the top shelf today and indeed its actually a full stop better than it seems because of the way ISO is reported (usually ISO 200 is more like a real ISO400)

For instance:

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

(see in my view ...: fudging figures (and fooling spec sheet gazers))

and it is a little unique in having a multi format sensor, which does not crop on movie mode as well as giving a few more pixels of actual width

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

(see in my view ...: GH1 vs G1 formats and RAW pixels)
lastly its a nice simple interface with less features than the modern cameras so its easier to learn. I pick up our GH-4 at work and feel confronted by the complexity of making even focusing decisions.

As to a comparison with a more modern camera using RAW (and processing externally):
in my view ...: Generations - GH1 vs E-M5

its clear that most of the improvements are in areas like features and in camera JPG engines

 

[agentlossing]

... there's always credit...

oh and um...

 

[SVQuant]

Well, not exactly.

Gonna be honest, I've been bouncing this around on my usual hangouts before I found this place, and I was mostly focused on explaining my thoughts on M43 gear, so I didn't lay out the full details of my troubles with my current equipment.

Basically, in short, it's interface. My D70 is the main body I've been using since the photog bug bit me again recently, and its interface is...woefully inadequate. Aside from a 1.8" screen, my viewfinder is muddy and dark and just straight up poor. Confirming composition in the viewfinder is difficult, without even touching the fact that I wear glasses and am nearsighted, so the adjustment lever does me no good. Which means I'm unable to really get my eye on the thing to get a true idea of my edges short of bobbing my head around like a birdie. And then the tiny, tiny screen, an old TFT with poor reflectivity and viewing angles at that, means it's incredibly difficult to check much out after-the-fact beyond popping the histogram to be sure I'm not clipping too bad on exposure. Oh, and it uses compactflash cards, which are a lot more fussy to deal with in every capacity. Even using an SD->CF adapter drastically reduces my write rate and introduces additional complications.

Now, much of this isn't really a problem on my D40...Except on my D40, the humble nifty fifty won't autofocus. And I'm in a tiny viewfinder with no magnification and no real internal focus confirmation, so fine focus, especially on things like faces where the part I want to focus on doesn't have the high-contrast divide against a background is...Difficult at best. Especially with no live view or zoom magnification or any of that to get a better look up close. Now of course, it's worth stating that this is just one lens, right? We'll even ignore questions of using legacy glass without a particularly great viewfinder or any of the modern niceties, and just focus on that one lens. I could just get the one with internal autofocus motors, right? Problem solved, just upgrade the one lens and continue on my merry way.

Or I could if that one lens wasn't $200 out of a used site, and around 1-150 at auction.

Finding this was what led me to looking at getting a modest body upgrade in the first place, looking at the D90 so I could have the D70's internal autofocus motors but with a modern screen and all of that. Except, of course, the D90 basically goes for $200 if it's still in decent condition.

Now, it should be noted that while I have Nikon kit, I don't have a lot. Outside of the two bodies, all I have is an 18-55 kit lens(the older one with no image stabilization), the 55-200mm with Nikon's first-gen image stabilization, and the humble 50mm 1.8, the oldschool style one with aperture ring and no AF motor. So it's very little to have to sell off and replace.

And none of this is touching on the old size-and-weight troubles. The D70 is a bulky camera, if not as bulky as some of the pro SLRs of its vintage. And I'm not a high schooler getting rides from his parents anymore. I'm a 20-something with a bike and a bus pass, since both the folks work and thus the cars are never available to begin with. So I can't toss the gear in the backseat and go off to take my photos, I've gotta haul the crap the old fashioned way.

So basically, what it comes down to is that any path I take for even the most modest of upgrades, will cost me as much or more than I'm considering spending on an older M43 camera. And most of the paths will leave me with some other problem to deal with. And hell, I'll freely admit, this is a quality-of-life upgrade solely. It's not like my cameras don't work...

OK. Now that we know where you are coming from, I still don't see the issue.

The D40 + 18-55 is a capable enough combo. The prime you would look to add would be the Nikkor 35/1.8 DX which looks like it is selling for around $150 right now. If you were to sell your D70, you would basically have the money to buy the Nikkor.

As an alternative, you could sell all your Nikon gear (keeping the nifty-50) which will net you around a little over 200 after fees on eBay, You can buy a GH-1 + kit lens for that and add the O17/2.8 for around $100 to get a nice compact, relatively modern kit.

As it stands, your plan to adapt your current lenses to an older m43 body means that you will not really be getting a good sense of m43 and what it can do.

If I were you, I would just be out there shooting with the D40 + 18-55 and saving my $100 towards the future.

 

[Yalborap]

I must reiterate, the adapted lens is going to be for all of, like, a week. It's strictly* to be able to do initial tests, confirm the camera works and fits in my hand and such, before I flip the telephoto to get a kit lens**.

*Well okay it's also to have a fast, sharp-as-hell effectively 100mm portrait lens. As someone that does a lot of portrait work, that has a lot of appeal.

**I mean, assuming I do everything I'm currently planning to.

And I should also state it's not like I'm refusing to touch my current kit, or whatever. I'm taking it out again, getting photos again...And bumping headfirst into all the frustrations I laid out above.

 

[pellicle]

*Well okay it's also to have a fast, sharp-as-hell effectively 100mm portrait lens. As someone that does a lot of portrait work, that has a lot of appeal.
.

that's a function of the lens you pick, not the body ... and 100mm is a little long for portrait in 43rds IMO

The Oly 45f1.8 is a really nice portrait lens IMO (and well priced)

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

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

 

[Yalborap]

that's a function of the lens you pick, not the body ... and 100mm is a little long for portrait in 43rds IMO

Yes, I know that. But, okay, correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points:

-100mm is considered a good length of portraiture on a full-frame sensor or 35mm film.
-M43 has a 2x crop factor, which is to say any full-frame/film lens put on it effectively doubles its focal length*.
-Therefore, my 50mm 1.8, which is 50mm intended for a full-frame sensor, effectively becomes a 100mm portrait lens in terms of field of view*.
-The equivalent lens in native, a 45mm 1.8 from Olympus, runs about $200 on the used market.**

*Which is to say, it doesn't have the background compression effect of an actual 100mm, just the field of view, because that compression is an effect of the actual optics.

**This is one place where I'm admittedly still uncertain. Are native M43 lenses marketed with their effective length(that is to say, that 45mm 1.8 will have a similar field of view to a 45mm on a full frame), or their actual length(that is to say, that 45mm 1.8 will have a similar field of view to a 90mm on a full frame...Or more precisely, to the central 50% of a 45mm on full frame)?

 

[Nathanael]

actual focal length

 

[pellicle]

Yes, I know that. But, okay, correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points:

-100mm is considered a good length of portraiture on a full-frame sensor or 35mm film.
-M43 has a 2x crop factor, which is to say any full-frame/film lens put on it effectively doubles its focal length*.?

yes I suspected you may have meant effective ... but since you use APS you may have simply meant 100mm absolutely.

I made no assumptions

and to me the 45 is a better contrast lens than the EF100 (for example)

 

[6x6]

The fact is, you only have $ 100,- at your dispopsal. That is something which should be emphasized.
Much as I would like to recomend a s/h E-M5, which go for a song, its still too expensive.

For this money, in my country, you would get a scond hand body up to E-P2 or E-Pl2.
For a smidgen more with a kit zoom 14-42.
(idont know anything about Panasonic bodies, but generation-wise they should be the same)

These are still decent cameras. I regularly use my old E-P1 with the 2,8/17mm and for about € 70,- got an
E-PL2 body to carry around in the scooter with an old, obsolete 14-42. (Hate handling of the E-PL2, though)

As for adapted lenses, I am of a mixed mind.
Great results can be had with tweaking contrast and saturation in post process.
But even a cheap adapter will cost you 10-15% of what you have left.
And without an EVF, IMO and with my eyes, focussing wont work at all.

So why not place a post in the buy & sell, like "looking for a body and any lens, have only $ 100,-".
I did something similar when my niece was looking for a first camera and the reaction was astounding.
Lots of people have old stuff in their cupboard and might be inclined to part with it.

 

[Speedliner]

Can you live without a viewfinder? If not scan eBay for an original e-m5. You'll have to be patient.

 

[kingduct]

I own the Panasonic G5 and have been very happy with it. The ergonomics are excellent and it has been extremely reliable. The image sensor is slightly worse than the newer 16mp sensor used in all of the later Olympus cameras and in the newer Panasonics, but the difference isn't huge. For a short time I owned an e-PM2 because I thought I'd like the smaller size and the better sensor (as well as the basic image stabilization). I was wrong, I much preferred my G5 and ended up selling the e-PM2. That said, if you can find either of those cameras at a price you can handle, I think it'd be worth the extra money: they have image quality that really is quite close to current models (though lack in many of the amenities that current models have, such as wireless file transfer, in-body image stabilization, etc). They are definitely high bang for the buck models.

Other options I haven't seen mentioned include the GX1 and the G3. Both have a slightly older 16mp sensor. The GX1 is rumored to be a very nice camera, but lacks EVF, while the G3 has the EVF. (I see a used listing on Amazon for a GX1 for $130: Amazon.com: Buying Choices: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 16 MP Micro 4/3 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 3-Inch LCD Touch Screen Body Only (Black) (Discontinued by Manufacturer)).

While I'm encouraging you to get a 16mp model, honestly, I loved my old Olympus e-pl1 and was very impressed by the GF1 when I played with it. You can't really go wrong in the choice you make, though if you want to use legacy lenses, getting an EVF probably will make you slightly happier.

 

[kingduct]

On the Buy and Sell board right now: a G3 including kit lens for $140: For Sale: Panny Lumix G3 Kit | Oly FL-300R flash | Location: USA | Ships: CONUS

The Buy and Sell forum here often has pretty good deals, because people here tend not to overvalue their equipment and also because there are no additional seller fees. Also, you might get friendly users to offer good deals on their old equipment (the G2 you were offered is a good example).

 

[Turbofrog]

I just sold my GX1 locally for $100 CDN, so I'm certain you could find one for $100 USD without too much difficulty.

The sensor does not have the same dynamic range as the E-PM2 or later 16MP sensors, but it is a better body in every other respect. Very well built (just use a screen protector to avoid delamination, only issue I've ever heard / experienced), and pretty good direct controls.

I would not go for the earlier 12MP sensor, if at all possible. It's not so much the resolution as the rest of the sensor performance that tends to lag behind and feel limiting.

A 50/1.8 is a fun and surprisingly versatile adapted lens. On the GX1 the one-touch magnification makes it remarkably easy to focus, even without peaking. In fact, despite focus peaking being one of the reasons I eventually upgraded to a GX7, I feel like I still use magnify more. It is more effective than any other manual focus aid for making sure you nail critical focus, in my opinion - focus peaking is prone to false positives (on any system), as is PDAF-focus confirm on DSLRs (which I would never, ever recommend for use with MF lenses).

 

[tkbslc]

If you are broke, you are broke. I'm not going to tell you to magically find money you don't have. But I will tell you that you don't have enough money to do a system swap. Buying some old POS m4/3 camera and the cheapest kit lenses just puts you where you are now, really. You'll have a whole bunch of little things to complain about vs the new stuff (slow AF, bad high ISO, no VF, etc) and you'll have wasted your money on a camera with no resale value.

Be honest with yourself. Will a dirt cheap m4/3 camera with a kit zoom really get you pictures that you can't take now?

I would keep using what you have (Which can certainly take great images in the ISO 100-800 range) and try to save up about $400-500 and then reconsider your options.

 

[Turbofrog]

If you are broke, you are broke. I'm not going to tell you to magically find money you don't have. But I will tell you that you don't have enough money to do a system swap. Buying some old POS m4/3 camera and the cheapest kit lenses just puts you where you are now, really. You'll have a whole bunch of little things to complain about vs the new stuff (slow AF, bad high ISO, no VF, etc) and you'll have wasted your money on a camera with no resale value.

Be honest with yourself. Will a dirt cheap m4/3 camera with a kit zoom really get you pictures that you can't take now?

I would keep using what you have (Which can certainly take great images in the ISO 100-800 range) and try to save up about $400-500 and then reconsider your options.

From a usability approach, even an old, cheap M4/3 camera is still miles ahead of an old DSLR. The images won't be much different, but the enjoyment of the experience will be way higher. At least if you get in around the same entry-point that I did, with a GX1. That was a very responsive body, with fast AF, a touchscreen, and nice ergonomics. I can't comment on bodies older than that. He specifically mentioned that his issue was not with image quality, or "pictures he can't take" but the user experience with the camera, specifically the terrible OVF and LCD on his camera.

Most of the cameras discussed in this thread really have reached the bottom of their depreciation curve. He could probably sell them in a year and they wouldn't be worth less than they are now. "No resale value" is saying the same thing as "no purchase price." Again, I'm stressing the GX1 example because it's what I'm familiar with, and what I literally just sold 2 weeks ago for $100 CDN.