Compact System V DSLR

J

jimbojambo2000

Suspended / Banned
Messages
134
Edit My Images
No
Probably been asked a million times already. I currently use a Nikon D7100 but I am tempted to go for A mirrorless compact system setup. This would mainly be for landscape photos. Has anyone got any recommendations on whether this is a good idea?

Thanks
 
Craigus said:
Covered ad nauseam. One such recent example:

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/another-should-i-switch-to-fuji-thread.663730/
Click to expand...

It's maybe still worth replying though :D

I initially went mirrorless to save bulk and weight but I then came to value the things that come with morrorless such as the in view focus and exposure aids, being able to place the focus point anywhere and being able to see a greatly magnified view of any part of the picture, seeing the DoF and the whole picture not just most of it and seeing how it will look and the whole WYSIWHG thing.

The OVF v EVF debate is a big thing for some people but after decades with OVF cameras and years with EVF's I now much prefer EVF's and I can only see one bad thing with them which is that the light output ruins eye vision in very low light

Other than that it's all good :D

If you want the most saving in bulk and weight take a look at Micro Four Thirds. If you want the best image quality take a look at the FF Sony A7 range. It's still possible to keep the bulk and weight down with the A7 series if the smaller and lighter lenses suit your use. APS-C wise I'd go for a Sony A6xxx before Fuji but Fuji do have a following.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't go mirrorless in your case, but would get a full frame for landscapes.

Not changing back, but have to say purely for landscapes my 5D MkII slaughtered the Fuji I now use and daresay something like a D700 would too

There again for everything else I am very satisfied, think it depends on what you want from a camera
 
Isn't Fuji and landscape a different issue as I suppose the whole mushy file is it or isn't it an issue is still rumbling on somewhere.
 
woof woof said:
Isn't Fuji and landscape a different issue as I suppose the whole mushy file is it or isn't it an issue is still rumbling on somewhere.
Click to expand...

Who knows, every camera has its faults imagined and real, seem to remember the 5D and a banding issue.

I just preferred the whole look of the large sensor for Landscapes along with a better range of specialist lenses
Nikon for instance have that excellent wide angle zoom and Canon have fast L primes such as the 24mm f/1.4 plus tilt and shift models too
 
woof woof said:
I initially went mirrorless to save bulk and weight but I then came to value the things that come with morrorless such as the in view focus and exposure aids, being able to place the focus point anywhere and being able to see a greatly magnified view of any part of the picture, seeing the DoF and the whole picture not just most of it and seeing how it will look and the whole WYSIWHG thing.
Click to expand...

I've never quite understood this so called benefit. Just take a shot and look at it on the screen and you get all these "aids" and most people will use live view for landscapes anyway.
 
Craigus said:
I've never quite understood this so called benefit. Just take a shot and look at it on the screen and you get all these "aids" and most people will use live view for landscapes anyway.
Click to expand...

But chimping is after you've taken the shot and if it's all gone wrong you need to retake the shot or attempt to fix it in post. A CSC could well up the first time keeper rate even if what you see isn't exactly what you end up with (JPEG preview v raw and histograms and so on.) Also I'm not a fan of live view on the back screen and arms length shooting or tripods but I am a fan of looking at the EVF with the camera to my eye and shooting handheld.

I grew up with film and then spent about 10 years with Canon DSLR's before my first CSC, a Panny GF1. I couldn't get on with back screen shooting with that so switched to G1 with a built in EVF and that camera gave me a taste of what CSC's could offer and indeed it competed well with my 5D. With my 5D I'd often take more than one shot if I thought the subject or lighting was a problem but with a CSC that's much less necessary.

Actually another advantage for CSC is it's quite easy to use manual lenses and get very accurate focus if you have the time to focus manually.
 
tijuana taxi said:
I wouldn't go mirrorless in your case, but would get a full frame for landscapes.

Not changing back, but have to say purely for landscapes my 5D MkII slaughtered the Fuji I now use and daresay something like a D700 would too

There again for everything else I am very satisfied, think it depends on what you want from a camera
Click to expand...

Nice contradiction
There are Mirrorless cameras with same size sensor and larger sensors than you 35mm format Canon
The Fuji GFX50 may well outperform your canon for landscapes as may the Sony A7Riii
 
Last edited:
I use Olympus M4/3 for all my photos and I am happy with them for my landscapes but if you expect to print A2 or bigger for most of your shots ditch the DSLR and go medium format. All photography choices require some compromise.

Though remember you will only get that good shot from the camera you can be bothered to carry to the location the camera you have at home will be no use.
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
I use Olympus M4/3 for all my photos and I am happy with them for my landscapes but if you expect to print A2 or bigger for most of your shots ditch the DSLR and go medium format. All photography choices require some compromise.

Though remember you will only get good shot from the camera you can be bothered to carry to the location the camera you have at home will be no use.
Click to expand...

This is one massive advantage the smaller systems have. Doesn't always get mentioned. Just getting them to places that you may not bother taking a full frame DSLR. IQ is pretty much good enough on any of these modern systems for almost any usage. Only things that I can think of where bigger sensors still rule the roost is with high iso star/astro photography or when printing huge. Dynamic range of big sensors is nice too but there are plenty of works arounds there.
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
Nice contradiction
There are Mirrorless cameras with same size sensor and larger sensors than you 35mm format Canon
The Fuji GFX50 may well outperform your canon for landscapes as may the Sony R7iii
Click to expand...

Why reply so confrontationally " nice contradiction" how about did you forget about the Sony FF range

Was going to reply in a civil manner, but b*****ks to that and just leave you to it
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Why reply so confrontationally " nice contradiction" how about did you forget about the Sony FF range

Was going to reply in a civil manner, but b*****ks to that and just leave you to it
Click to expand...

Rich
You contradicted yourself and I did mention the Sony 35mm sensor but got the model wrong now corrected
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
This is one massive advantage the smaller systems have. Doesn't always get mentioned Just getting them to places that you may not bother taking a full frame DSLR. IQ is pretty much good enough on any of these modern systems for almost any usage. Only things that I can think of where bigger sensors still rule the roost is with high iso star/astro photography or when printing huge. Dynamic range of big sensors is nice too but there are plenty of works arounds there.
Click to expand...

:agree:
As I said all choices require some compromise
 
gad-westy said:
Just getting them to places that you may not bother taking a full frame DSLR.
Click to expand...

Days out by myself are pretty rare these days so most of my pictures are taken when I'm with someone else and on a lot of these days I probably wouldn't take a DSLR because they're bigger, heavier and more attention grabbing and distracting. I'd much rather have a more compact camera and I use them more.
 
I've gone through just about every option of trying to find the perfect compromise between IQ and size/portability and have finally settled on Olympus M4/3. At normal viewing sizes I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between shots with my FF D750 and Olympus. That's not saying they're not there because they are, but it's not obvious. And even that's not a fair test as the lens I use with my D750 (18-35mm f3.5-4.5G) is uber uber sharp.

The only thing to remember with the smaller sensor formats is that they're not as flexible in PP. It's very easy to introduce noise into the shadows and you can't rescue highlights and shadows as well as FF.
 
woof woof said:
But chimping is after you've taken the shot and if it's all gone wrong you need to retake the shot or attempt to fix it in post. A CSC could well up the first time keeper rate even if what you see isn't exactly what you end up with (JPEG preview v raw and histograms and so on.) Also I'm not a fan of live view on the back screen and arms length shooting or tripods but I am a fan of looking at the EVF with the camera to my eye and shooting handheld.

I grew up with film and then spent about 10 years with Canon DSLR's before my first CSC, a Panny GF1. I couldn't get on with back screen shooting with that so switched to G1 with a built in EVF and that camera gave me a taste of what CSC's could offer and indeed it competed well with my 5D. With my 5D I'd often take more than one shot if I thought the subject or lighting was a problem but with a CSC that's much less necessary.

Actually another advantage for CSC is it's quite easy to use manual lenses and get very accurate focus if you have the time to focus manually.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if you get it right the first time unless it's a subject that is moving, in which case you'd miss it if you weren't set correctly in the first place, EVF or not? It's not expensive film, memory is cheap.

In any case you get to know what the DOF will look like when you get used to the equipment anyway, I really don't see the advantage here. Don't worry about replying though, it will just go round in circles.
 
Craigus said:
Why does it matter if you get it right the first time unless it's a subject that is moving, in which case you'd miss it if you weren't set correctly in the first place, EVF or not? It's not expensive film, memory is cheap.

In any case you get to know what the DOF will look like when you get used to the equipment anyway, I really don't see the advantage here. Don't worry about replying though, it will just go round in circles.
Click to expand...

Deep sigh (again.)

Worst case scenario with a DSLR is you machine gun all day and sort it all out later. Best case with a CSC is you get the shot first time just about every time (assuming you have the time :D) You pay your money and you make your choice. Personally I'd rather take a few seconds and get the shot I want the first time than take three shots (or more) and spend time on the PC later to sort it all out. I've spent over forty years with this and that camera and on the whole I've never been happier than with CSC's.

These are all things for the OP to think about when making a decision.

And no, you don't know exactly what the DoF or anything else will look like and no amount of experience will get you to the point that you know every combination of focal length, aperture and DoF in every possible light, scenario and camera to subject distance. Kid yourself that you know and you're doing just that. Kidding yourself. You can get to guestimate and maybe you can guestimate pretty well but a CSC pretty much takes the guestimation out of it. For example do you want to nail the shot and get the eye you choose in focus first time at f1.2 with a DSLR? Good luck but you're right, you can always take 50 shots and pick the best later.

I take a lot of pictures of my Mrs and scenery etc and as I'm often with someone else I don't want them to get tooooo bored and I find that just a few seconds with a CSC usually gets me what I want whereas with a DSLR I'd take just as much time with bracketing and / or chimping / deleting / reshooting but probably spend more time on the PC later. Your money, your choice.

I agree with not bothering to reply though to you though as I think you're set in your ways and maybe getting it right first time isn't important to you so I don't really know why I'm wasting your time and mine. Hopefully the OP will gleam something from all this.

Why do these threads always go this way.

OP.
Good luck choosing.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
<snip>

Why do these threads always go this way.

OP.
Good luck choosing.
Click to expand...

I do understand your points, I'm just not convinced that it is that big of an advantage. I'll admit, perhaps this is partly down to the type of photography I do.

At least we can agree on the bit in bold, hence my linking him to the previous thread. The outcome is always the same.
 
woof woof said:
Deep sigh (again.)

Worst case scenario with a DSLR is you machine gun all day and sort it all out later. Best case with a CSC is you get the shot first time just about every time (assuming you have the time :D) You pay your money and you make your choice. Personally I'd rather take a few seconds and get the shot I want the first time than take three shots (or more) and spend time on the PC later to sort it all out. I've spent over forty years with this and that camera and on the whole I've never been happier than with CSC's.

These are all things for the OP to think about when making a decision.

And no, you don't know exactly what the DoF or anything else will look like and no amount of experience will get you to the point that you know every combination of focal length, aperture and DoF in every possible light, scenario and camera to subject distance. Kid yourself that you know and you're doing just that. Kidding yourself. You can get to guestimate and maybe you can guestimate pretty well but a CSC pretty much takes the guestimation out of it. For example do you want to nail the shot and get the eye you choose in focus first time at f1.2 with a DSLR? Good luck but you're right, you can always take 50 shots and pick the best later.

I take a lot of pictures of my Mrs and scenery etc and as I'm often with someone else I don't want them to get tooooo bored and I find that just a few seconds with a CSC usually gets me what I want whereas with a DSLR I'd take just as much time with bracketing and / or chimping / deleting / reshooting but probably spend more time on the PC later. Your money, your choice.

I agree with not bothering to reply though to you though as I think you're set in your ways and maybe getting it right first time isn't important to you so I don't really know why I'm wasting your time and mine. Hopefully the OP will gleam something from all this.

Why do these threads always go this way.

OP.
Good luck choosing.
Click to expand...
TBH I get this with the DSLR too without bracketing, machine gunning, chimping or anything else. As long as you understand the light meter in your camera then you should get the exposure right the vast majority of the time (y).
 
snerkler said:
TBH I get this with the DSLR too without bracketing, machine gunning, chimping or anything else. As long as you understand the light meter in your camera then you should get the exposure right the vast majority of the time (y).
Click to expand...
I think this could put most arguments to bed !

If you gave someone a dslr or SLR that has only ever shot with a mirrorless and exposure preview I honestly think most wouldn't have a clue . I actually like both . I use an x100f for family snaps and when I'm feeling lazy but use my DSLR for work . In fairness both have their advantages and everyone will have an opinion that suits them . To the OP just get into your local shop and try one or better rent or lend one.
 
Like @snerkler I've gone through camera systems a bit in the last 2 years.

I've now settled on Olympus also as, with good lighting and good lenses there really isn't much difference between FX and M43.

Tried Fuji but couldn't be doing with the foliage and skin problems I experienced.

Enjoy it whatever you decide on.
 
Just to add, this Olympus has put the fun back into photography for me.

Now my back's not so good (especially after lifting my 8" reflector telescope at the weekend on my own!!! - idiot) it's rather refreshing to be able to carry my complete kit in a backpack without needing sherpas.
 
If you can afford it, run 2 (or more!) systems side by side. Most have good bits and not so good so having 2 or more systems will cover more bases with good bits. Just need a team of sherpas to carry it all!!! :P
 
snerkler said:
TBH I get this with the DSLR too without bracketing, machine gunning, chimping or anything else. As long as you understand the light meter in your camera then you should get the exposure right the vast majority of the time (y).
Click to expand...

This is what I was trying to say, but you've put it much better than my attempts.
 
considering there seems to be no mention of size or convenience in the OP the question should be how much do you want to spend to get the results you want ?

my thoughts are if you have already invested in nikon why not buy a full frame nikon camera that lives up to expectations, something like a d810 or similar
it'l cost a bit but so would any other camera / lens combination

nikon make some fantastic cameras if the bulk is of no concern my suggestion would be my choice
 
The OP needs to get to a camera shop and try some different cameras as system handling varies so much.
One thing you do not need to take landscape photos is a reflex mirror the vibration is not necessary. Oh and anyone suggests using mirror up or live view just proves it.
 
alfbranch said:
The OP needs to get to a camera shop and try some different cameras as system handling varies so much.
One thing you do not need to take landscape photos is a reflex mirror the vibration is not necessary. Oh and anyone suggests using mirror up or live view just proves it.
Click to expand...
99% of the time I use live view for landscapes. TBH I've never seen mirror slap on my DSLR so it's not for that reason though, I find it easier using LV with a tripod. I have had shutter shock with mirrorless though, thank god Olympus have put in an anti shock mode (y)
 
Last edited:
I've been through several system changes since becoming severely disabled and have spent the last 8 yrs researching lighter and more ergonomic camera's without suffering to greater a loss in iQ, but without busting the bank so if something lighter and smaller is your aim ......

Firstly you've got Nikon lenses already so if they're FX lenses it might be worth looking at Nikons lightest FX DSLR.. the DF it may have what appears to be a lowly sensor by current standards but its no slouch as its the same sensor fitted in the D4.

Now for going lighter.

The Sony A7/A7R are the lightest FF camera's you can get and though older now still perform well, as well as being able to be picked up for bargain prices (relatively) I have the A7R, it weighs in at well under 500gm with battery and card, its small but not fiddly to handle and its 36mp sensor has astounding resolution, the newer versions of both come in at around the 670gm mark, but have the added bonus of in body image stabilisation and in the case of the A7R2 even more resolution with a 42mp FF sensor.
Ok the shutter on the original A7R is a little clunky, but I've not had an issue with shutter shock and some shops still have new ones in stock often going for under £1000 for the body new!
The lens range is excellent now with many Zeiss lenses in the line up though you do pay a little more than with other manufacturers.

Want smaller? the fuji APSC camera's are pretty good, the lenses are sharp and contrasty as well as reasonably priced, you could look at one of the XT range or the X-Pro range, the downside is some don't like the rendering of the newer mk2/3 sensors, myself included.

Even smaller and lighter? Then Olympus are certainly worth looking at, if you want DSLR styling, weatherproofing etc, then either the EM1mk2 or EM5mk2, if you want something jacket pocketable the the Pen F with the 17mm F1.8.
M43 has come a long way and though still not quite up to APSC its still damn good, couple any of the above camera's with lenses from Olympus's pro range and your on a winner.

Finally the smallest and lightest of all the Panasonic LX100, OK its an advance compact, but its got a large m43 sensor, excellent lens and is easily pocketable all for less than most half decent lenses.

What do I use?

Sony A7R + 50mm f1.8 & 85mm F1.8 - People/animal portraits,wildlife, general shooting.
Fuji X-Pro 1 + 35mm F1.4 & 60mm F2.4 Macro - B&W, portraits, wildlife, Macro.
Olympus OM-D EM5 mk2 + 17mm F1.8, 45mm F1.8, 60mm F2.8 Macro, 40-150mm Pro F2.8, 300mm F4 Pro & 1.4X TC - Sky, astro,animal and people portraits, macro, wildlife, birds.
Panasonic LX100 - general shooting, portraits, animal portraits.


Unless shooting the 40-150 & 300mm all combinations of lens and body come in at under 700 gm all up and just as importantly give excellent iQ.

Do I miss DSLR's? not really, going mirrorless did take some adjustment at first, but there where no hitches or glitches, the benefits to me where simple, either embrace the lighter CSC's or stop altogether. When I think back to my old DSLR kit and realise that my old Tamron 70-300mm F5.6 weighed as much as the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro (80-300mm) and Canon/Nikon 70-200mm F2.8's weight nearly double the 40-150 its a no brainer.

To finish, if you had a decent outdoor type jacket you could fit the EM5mk2 in one pocket, a couple of lenses/spare batteries in another and use a lighter tripod, no camera bag or rucksack needed, isn't it a lovely thought to go walking without all the cumbersome gear .
 
Last edited:
My d3300is lighter than the olympus Em1 or the fuji x100f, with its kit lens it makes a nice light walkabout
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
My d3300is lighter than the olympus Em1 or the fuji x100f, with its kit lens it makes a nice light walkabout
Click to expand...

Cough, with battery and kit lens D3300 is 662g, Fuji X100F is 469g with battery (and of course fixed lens) :p

Personally I think its all down to handling, buy whatever fits best in your hands, and that you like the control buttons, etc. Its really hard to actually buy a bad camera these days........
 
Lol but if you put a converter on the x100 ;) 619 grmm total.so not much lighter
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Lol but if you put a converter on the x100 ;)
Click to expand...

o_O Oh dear maths is not with you today!!!

X100F + WCL inc batterries = 462g + 150g = 612g - still less than the Nikon, and using the digital teleconcoverter that combo gives me focal lengths of 19mm to 50mm

Just accept that you've lost the point :D:D:p:p:D:D

(not withstanding that the Fuji is a nicely made metal product (not plastic bodied) and can shoot at F2 at all though focal lengths.......however it does cost 3 times as much :fuji:
 
Mr Perceptive said:
o_O Oh dear maths is not with you today!!!

X100F + WCL inc batterries = 462g + 150g = 612g - still less than the Nikon, and using the digital teleconcoverter that combo gives me focal lengths of 19mm to 50mm

Just accept that you've lost the point :D:D:p:p:D:D

(not withstanding that the Fuji is a nicely made metal product (not plastic bodied) and can shoot at F2 at all though focal lengths.......however it does cost 3 times as much :fuji:
Click to expand...
Lol you said 469 in your original post but i will give you 7 gmms lol
 
Plus lol when i go out shooting with a mate with either his xt2 or x100f he always carries 2 extra batteries so we arent far off now lol actually that makes it 702 lol so he is carrying more weight lol
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Plus lol when i go out shooting with a mate with either his xt2 or x100f he always carries 2 extra batteries so we arent far off now lol actually that makes it 702 lol so he is carrying more weight lol
Click to expand...

Ha Ha, but he's not carrying that chip on his shoulder about though, is he..........:D:D:p:p:D:D ......... must really weigh you down ..........:D:D:p:p:D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top