Am I making the wrong decision

Jackp93

Jackp93

Suspended / Banned
Messages
85
Name
Jack
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

Firstly apologies if this is in the wrong section.

I‘m very much a beginner with photography, but I know that the types that I favour are wildlife and holiday/street photography. My current set up is a Nikon d750 with a sigma 120-400 for wildlife and Nikon 24 & 50 for holiday. However I’m finding due to the size of the camera and lens I’m really not taking it out much, as such I’m currently looking at compacts and bridge cameras. I can see three options

option 1 - buy £600 compact with good zoom to be an all in one camera

option 2 - buy £300 bridge camera for wildlife & £300 compact for holiday

option 3 - make myself use the d750 more

what are peoples opinions, would it be a big step back in quality if I was to move away from a DSLR? Also can people recommend some cameras around the above price points.

hope that all makes sense as this is my first proper post on the forum.

All the best

Jack
 
Normally I'd have recommended a RX10M4 for you since it has really good AF with a 24-600mm f2.8-4 lens that's sharp across the range.
But it's going to cost you more than £600. Perhaps you can afford it you sell your other gear.

Within your budget you can look at something like FZ2000 or RX100M3

If you want a two bodies setup i.e. one small and one large....
Small compacts around £300:
RX100M3 or RX100M4
LX10 or LX100
G7X or G5X

And for large one.... May be FZ1000 (can't think of many for around £300 tbh) but AF isn't the best tbh if you are wanting to use it for wildlife.

But tbh I'd suggest option 3 to start with before options 1 or 2.

Lastly welcome to the forum :)
 
Last edited:
Options 1&3 combined. I have a compact that gets taken with me when I want to take a few photos but CBA (or it isn't practical) to take a bagful of kit. The compact doesn't cover as many bases as the full kit but is very competent within its limits. A decent compact should be fairly easy to find at a reasonable price.

I also have a couple of bridge cameras that I thought might cover more bases and they do BUT the quality is nowhere close to what the DSLR or mirrorless systems I use can provide and even the compact beats them in terms of image quality.
 
Another vote for Micro four thirds, Olympus EM10 iii is probably within budget and allows for you to build up lenses to do everything you need
 
As others have said there is a few choices , the wife has a Panasonic FZ 1000 Mk2 it’s more than good enough for bursts of b.i.f , and would fit in your price range ..
The other choice I agree with is take a look at changing to the olympus range , initially a bit pricier but lots have and love it once used to its different menu terminology ,plenty of sample photos in the olympus section on here .. my main body a 1-mkiii and 100-400 lens weigh all up 2kg fit a small lens and it’s a dream to carry and use .plus lenses etc are a LOT cheaper and lighter and smaller
I have my sons as new olympus 10 mk4 plus 3 lenses for sale on here for just above your budget
 
Last edited:
Others have already said it but here's another vote for Olympus and micro 4/3.
I shoot professionally with Nikon DSLR & mirrorless but bought an Olympus system just for my personal use.
I love it - half the size and weight of the Nikon gear. I take it everywhere with me.
 
If you can afford it, I'd keep the D750 kit and buy a decent compact, if you can stretch to it the Sony RX100 Mk6 would be a good option as it has 24 - 200mm equiv zoom, the previous versions have a 24-70 equiv zoom.
 
Jackp93 said:
However I’m finding due to the size of the camera and lens I’m really not taking it out much...

what are peoples opinions, would it be a big step back in quality if I was to move away from a DSLR? Also can people recommend some cameras around the above price points.
Click to expand...

I moved away from DSLR's for the same reasons, bulk and weight. I now have a 1" sensor compact, Panasonic MFT and a FF Sony A7.

I don't think a 1" sensor camera can match the IQ you can get from MFT and MFT can't match FF but I suppose this all hangs on the IQ you want and how closely you're going to look and if you're pushing the envelope of what the kit can do. Once you've got a shortlist of kit you could trawl this and other forums and blogs for pictures that interest you and this may help you to gauge the IQ, you may be able to download some raws too.

For £600 and looking at the focal lengths you want I'd go for a used Panasonic GX80 or GX9 because I like the RF style cameras with used 12 and 25mm f1.8's and a zoom. I have the 45-150mm f4-5.6. I don't know what the best zoom in this sort of range will be for MFT in budget but the 100-400mm MFT lenses may be overkill in terms of reach, bulk and weight and will very probably blow the budget too, so if you're happy enough with 400mm on FF I'd ignore the 100-400mm lenses.

When going on holiday I like my Sony A7 with 35mm f2.8 and a Panasonic TZ100 which is a 1" sensor compact with a 25-250mm lens and for days out I like the A7 with a prime and a MFT camera with 45-150mm. One good thing in favour of MFT is that the later bodies are lightening fast to focus and this may well be useful for holiday and street stuff. With a fast focusing body and lens combination you don't need to wait for focus confirmation, you just point the camera and press the shutter and before you reach the biting point the camera will have metered and focussed and will take the shot.

Good luck researching and choosing.
 
Last edited:
I have a D750 too, which gets taken out when I fancy doing some 'serious' photography; otherwise it's a Panasonic Lumix G80 that I grab if we are going out for the day. My wife uses an LX100 & loves it.
 
Jackp93 said:
Hi all

Firstly apologies if this is in the wrong section.

I‘m very much a beginner with photography, but I know that the types that I favour are wildlife and holiday/street photography. My current set up is a Nikon d750 with a sigma 120-400 for wildlife and Nikon 24 & 50 for holiday. However I’m finding due to the size of the camera and lens I’m really not taking it out much, as such I’m currently looking at compacts and bridge cameras. I can see three options

option 1 - buy £600 compact with good zoom to be an all in one camera

option 2 - buy £300 bridge camera for wildlife & £300 compact for holiday

option 3 - make myself use the d750 more

what are peoples opinions, would it be a big step back in quality if I was to move away from a DSLR? Also can people recommend some cameras around the above price points.

hope that all makes sense as this is my first proper post on the forum.

All the best

Jack
Click to expand...
I would keep the SLR and its big zoom for wildlife and add something else for other situations. My 'second' camera, which I end up using more than anything else because I always have it, is a Fuji X100T. Each X100 series camera has a fixed prime lens that's equivalent to 35mm, and what Nikon would call a DX sensor, relatively large for the size of the camera. If you need more versatility, there are various mirrorless systems (including Fuji X and some of the others mentioned above) that aren't that much bigger. Personally I wouldn't go with a small sensor compact as a primary camera, though you might find a big zoom range in a small package an attractive option.
 
Thanks everyone for all the fantastic advice, you’ve really helped me. I think I’m probably going to go for the Olympus as this seems to tick most of my boxes. Thanks once again, this looks like a great forum to be on.
 
Jackp93 said:
Thanks everyone for all the fantastic advice, you’ve really helped me. I think I’m probably going to go for the Olympus as this seems to tick most of my boxes. Thanks once again, this looks like a great forum to be on.
Click to expand...

At least have a passing look at Panasonic. I've no idea why a lot of people seem to think MFT = Olympus.

Having had a couple of mini SLR styled MFT cameras I prefer the RF style ones.

Good luck choosing.
 
woof woof said:
At least have a passing look at Panasonic. I've no idea why a lot of people seem to think MFT = Olympus.

Having had a couple of mini SLR styled MFT cameras I prefer the RF style ones.

Good luck choosing.
Click to expand...
He is wanting to shoot birds and as good as Panasonics are AF tracking isn't great with them
 
nandbytes said:
He is wanting to shoot birds and as good as Panasonics are AF tracking isn't great with them
Click to expand...

Is he? Ok. It's just that there's nothing about birds in the OP or his other post in this thread and scanning his other 5 posts the only bird shooting mentioned seems to be when perched on twigs or where they land which would hardly tax, well, just about anything made in modern times.

Anyway. On with life.
 
Sorry yes I should have mentioned that it’s mainly birds at the moment which are perching in my garden, I have tried a couple of time to capture them in flight but haven’t even managed to get them in the frame let alone in focus
 
Jackp93 said:
Sorry yes I should have mentioned that it’s mainly birds at the moment which are perching in my garden, I have tried a couple of time to capture them in flight but haven’t even managed to get them in the frame let alone in focus
Click to expand...

One thing which you may be aware of is that 400mm on FF isn't a lot and if going for around this length on MFT (200mm on MFT = 400mm on FF) you may need to be close or even very close to get a bird big in the frame. If you can't be all that close cropping the picture post capture could be an option as long as you are happy with the final picture size. The longer 100-400mm options may blow the budget and 200 or 300mm on MFT may be enough for you if you're ok with cropping.

Maybe start with an idea of the final image you want and work back from that to decide the kit and the settings and I'd keep in mind that MFT is a x2 crop system so I personally would be using the lenses wide open to maybe just a stop or so down as with a lens which is for example f4-5.6 (which is what a longer zoom in this price range could be) you are starting at an equivalent of f11.2 for DoF at the long end.

Good luck choosing.
 
woof woof said:
Is he? Ok. It's just that there's nothing about birds in the OP or his other post in this thread and scanning his other 5 posts the only bird shooting mentioned seems to be when perched on twigs or where they land which would hardly tax, well, just about anything made in modern times.

Anyway. On with life.
Click to expand...
Ok not birds but he mentions wildlife in the OP. My point still stands though.
I assumed he's interested in shooting more than perched birds.
 
nandbytes said:
Ok not birds but he mentions wildlife in the OP. My point still stands though
Click to expand...
As does my point that the OP's requirements as stated so far on this site could very probably be met by just about anything made in recent times.

I have no vested interest here so I really don't care if the OP goes for an Oly or anything else. I'd always advise people to start at the end result and work back from that to decide both the kit required and the settings.
 
Keep the big camera though, they will compliment each other and as you want to do more advanced things you will get more out of both of them.
 
4wd said:
Keep the big camera though, they will compliment each other and as you want to do more advanced things you will get more out of both of them.
Click to expand...

My ideal is a FF camera (in my case a Sony A7) with a nice but compact prime for luxury and quality :D and a MFT camera (in my case Panasonic GX80, GX9 or GM5) with a 45-150mm and maybe a 17mm f1.8 for reach and speed of operation.
 
Thanks everyone for all of the brilliant advice, I’m now the proud owner of a micro four thirds, I was going to buy the M10 but got a really good deal on a epl9 so that’s been with me everywhere for the last two days.
 
Jackp93 said:
Thanks everyone for all of the brilliant advice, I’m now the proud owner of a micro four thirds, I was going to buy the M10 but got a really good deal on a epl9 so that’s been with me everywhere for the last two days.
Click to expand...
Well done! (It wouldn’t do for me as I really only use an EVF, but a great camera none the less)
 
I do like using a evf however I was happy to not have one due to its diminutive size and the price of it.
 
woof woof said:
... MFT is a x2 crop system so I personally would be using the lenses wide open to maybe just a stop or so down as with a lens which is for example f4-5.6 (which is what a longer zoom in this price range could be) you are starting at an equivalent of f11.2 for DoF at the long end.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the crop factor affects apertures?
 
Winslowe said:
Are you saying that the crop factor affects apertures?
Click to expand...
M4/3 is not a crop as such as it uses the full size of the sensor. However, the fov multiplication is 2x compared to a 35mm sensor, aka Full Frame. 35mm lens on m4/3 gives the same field of view as a 70mm lens does on ff. This roughly means that f4 on a m4/3 gives the same depth of field as f8 does on said full-frame. Therefor 2 stops.
 
Winslowe said:
Are you saying that the crop factor affects apertures?
Click to expand...

Not for light gathering but for DoF and overall image quality. For example if I was shooting FF I may for a lot of pictures be somewhere in the range from f4 or f5 to f8 with occasional forays to f10 or f11, that'd be pretty usual for me. On MFT for the same DoF I'd be at f2-f4 with occasional forays to f5 or f5.6. That's just for DoF and getting the same sort of look I'd get from FF. However, some MFT lenses are f3.5 or f4-f5.6 so to replicate the look I'd get from FF I need to be using the lenses pretty much from wide open.

I think this also works for image quality too as when you're using these wider apertures there's more chance of keeping the ISO down and the image quality up. So, when applying the crop factor to aperture and ISO I think I get more of a FF look in DoF and general image quality.

That's just how I feel and how I use MFT, with the lenses either wide open or stopped down just a stop or two. You'll be able to do your own image quality checks and work out what's best for you.

Good luck with it. I hope you'll be vert happy both with the kit and the IQ.
 
woof woof said:
Not for light gathering but for DoF and overall image quality. For example if I was shooting FF I may for a lot of pictures be somewhere in the range from f4 or f5 to f8 with occasional forays to f10 or f11, that'd be pretty usual for me. On MFT for the same DoF I'd be at f2-f4 with occasional forays to f5 or f5.6. That's just for DoF and getting the same sort of look I'd get from FF. However, some MFT lenses are f3.5 or f4-f5.6 so to replicate the look I'd get from FF I need to be using the lenses pretty much from wide open.

I think this also works for image quality too as when you're using these wider apertures there's more chance of keeping the ISO down and the image quality up. So, when applying the crop factor to aperture and ISO I think I get more of a FF look in DoF and general image quality.

That's just how I feel and how I use MFT, with the lenses either wide open or stopped down just a stop or two. You'll be able to do your own image quality checks and work out what's best for you.

Good luck with it. I hope you'll be vert happy both with the kit and the IQ.
Click to expand...
By and large m4/3 lenses are designed to have their “sweet spot” at wider apertures than larger formats. I have absolutely no qualms at shooting wide open for quality, though of course I stop down for depth of field reasons.
 
I think the more I’m looking into photography, the more I’m coming to realise it’s not as easy as point and press the button. However I’m very much enjoying the learning curve.
 
Stephen L said:
By and large m4/3 lenses are designed to have their “sweet spot” at wider apertures than larger formats. I have absolutely no qualms at shooting wide open for quality, though of course I stop down for depth of field reasons.
Click to expand...

I remember reading somewhere some time ago that if the best MFT lenses could be scaled up to FF they'd be amongst the best available. That was some time ago and I know that the newer FF mirrorless lenses such as the Sony GM line have really pushed the boundaries in recent times but some of the newer MFT lenses are also outstanding too so maybe that's still true :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steven and Alan - I'm not familiar with micro4/3 and didn't realize the difference was that great.
 
Winslowe said:
Thanks Steven and Alan - I'm not familiar with micro4/3 and didn't realize the difference was that great.
Click to expand...

MFT uses a sensor which is much smaller than FF so can't quite match a FF camera of similar generation tech for dynamic range and wider image quality but sometimes these differences are only visible when pushing the limits of what the kit can do or when looking very closely.

I find that applying the crop factor to ISO and DoF helps MFT get as close as possible to matching the larger formats and shooting at wide open to f5.6 or f6 or so is no biggie, not for me anyway, and may mean that in real world shooting and normal viewing you'll struggle to see the differences except at the extremes of ISO and DoF and pixel peeping.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
MFT uses a sensor which is much smaller than FF so can't quite match a FF camera of similar generation tech for dynamic range and wider image quality but sometimes these differences are only visible when pushing the limits of what the kit can do or when looking very closely.

I find that applying the crop factor to ISO and DoF helps MFT get as close as possible to matching the larger formats and shooting at wide open to f5.6 or f6 or so is no biggie, not for me anyway, and may mean that in real world shooting and normal viewing you'll struggle to see the differences except at the extremes of ISO and DoF and pixel peeping.
Click to expand...
Also, processing technology has come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years, especially if you’re shooting raw. I discovered DxO PureRaw last year, and now run all my files through it before letting them near Lightroom. The detail it can pull from lenses and sensors have to be seen to be believed. Also works pretty well on Sony files, although I’ve put Nikon raw files through it and seen no difference.

And remember, what we as photographers notice in images are normally invisible to our audience.
 
Stephen L said:
Also, processing technology has come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years, especially if you’re shooting raw. I discovered DxO PureRaw last year, and now run all my files through it before letting them near Lightroom. The detail it can pull from lenses and sensors have to be seen to be believed. Also works pretty well on Sony files, although I’ve put Nikon raw files through it and seen no difference.

And remember, what we as photographers notice in images are normally invisible to our audience.
Click to expand...
If I have to fuss it up on a computer to get a decent image I'll pass on Micro4/3.
 
Winslowe said:
If I have to fuss it up on a computer to get a decent image I'll pass on Micro4/3.
Click to expand...
I think you’re reading too much in what I said. They produce excellent images out of the camera, but I like to see just how far I can stretch them. However, if you don’t want to use a computer you can just buy a point-and-shoot, or a phone camera.
 
Winslowe said:
If I have to fuss it up on a computer to get a decent image I'll pass on Micro4/3.
Click to expand...

No, I think you've completely missed the point. You just need to do it on a computer if you want to get the best results and tailor your pictures to your taste. That's all. It's no different if you're shooting with a compact, MFT, APS-C, FF or MF. The theory is that if you shoot raw and process the pictures on your pc you can get better results and tailor the pictures to your tastes easier as it is widely thought that your PC and the software on it are more powerful and more effective and "better" at processing than the in camera JPEG or in camera raw processor. As newer software comes out you can go back to pictures you took years ago, reprocess them with the new software and get better results. I've seen this myself.

Processing pictures on your pc just means you've got more control over the end result and aren't relying on a committee at Sony, Canon or whoever but you are of course free to take JPEG's and rely on that committee at the camera manufacturers.

This isn't a new thing. In the days of film you relied on some blokes at Kodak and the chemist you took your negatives to to process your picture and if you did them at home you had more control but still relied on some blokes at Kodak and some blokes at various chemical companies, with some input from yourself.

These days you rely on some blokes at Sony, Canon or whoever if you're shooting JPEG's or if you shoot raw and process them on your pc you rely on some blokes at Sony, Canon or whoever and some blokes at Adobe with some input from yourself. Do it in all in camera and you're relying on some blokes at Sony or Canon or wherever with little input from you.
 
Stephen L said:
I think you’re reading too much in what I said. They produce excellent images out of the camera, but I like to see just how far I can stretch them. However, if you don’t want to use a computer you can just buy a point-and-shoot, or a phone camera.
Click to expand...

Yup. Buy a compact or the latest medium format jobbie or use a phone, shoot JPEG and leave to a committee at Samsung, Apple, Canon, Fuji or Hasselblad to decide how your pictures look :D
 
LOL. I knew I should have have stuck some emoticons on my comment! Even my old 5.1MP Kodak Easy Share P850 is more than capable of producing excellent 8 1/2 x 11 prints straight out of the camera. No digital image I've seen on a monitor can beat a 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 Velvia 50 chrome on a light box under a 20X loupe, though.
 
Last edited:
Winslowe said:
No digital image I've seen on a monitor can beat a 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 Velvia 50 chrome on a light box under a 20X loupe, though.
Click to expand...
I think that would depend a great deal on the size of the image file and the qualities of the monitor. The images here are limited to 500KB, which makes the comparison rather biased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top