Mirrorless camera?

[kartracer]

I've been using a Sony RX100 in recent years after downsizing and not having time for the hobby. Now interested to get back into it and wondering if a mirrorless camera would make sense. I'm probably being swayed a little by compactness and don't want a clunker or a battleship. Interests include occasional motorsport (mainly F1, superbike), social docu, portraits and general nature/landscapes. Maybe a bit of video. Any thoughts on suitable cameras and lenses in the budget range of 'several hundreds' (rather than thousands)? Would something like a used Fuji X-Tx do the job, or should I stick with a DX and 70-300mm or similar? I'm not too hung up on format or brand (used mainly Nikon before). A quiet shutter is good. Low light performance a bonus. I do tend to keep my equipment for several years.

 

[Stephen L]

All mirrorless systems are good these days, despite what fanboys say. I’ve used Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, and Sony and been happy with the image quality on all (stills only). These days I choose on what suits me for lightness and ergonomics, which can only really be decided upon by personal handling. Note that if you have certain specific subjects, then that’s where personal recommendations come into it.

 

[Box Brownie]

Perhaps also consider, based on your criteria, Olympus mFT

In regard to low light performance the just released Olympus OM-1 (based on reviews, so far) has (much) better high ISO handling that its predecessors

 

[f/1.2]

In terms of image quality there isn't going to be a bad option, they are all very good.

There can be some differences in terms of A.F performance, Sony and the newer Canon full frame options are better than the others at the moment which might help some if you are shooting fast moving subjects like you have mentioned but would be out of your budget.

If you are going the APSC sensor route all of the current Sony range from the A6400 upwards will be better in terms of A.F than Fuji, Nikon etc.

If you find the budget for full frame mirrorless all of the Sony bodies from the A7III upwards will be better in terms of a.f than the Nikon equivalents. The Canon R5 and R6 are also very good in terms of a.f performance. Panasonic full frame doesn't have the best a.f either.

At you budget the A6400 would be worth a look.

To get the some extra reach for Motorsport etc. Olympus and Panasonic m43 would be well worth a look as well although you will lose some a.f performance and image quality as well due to the smaller sensor.

Pretty much everything now has good to very good video quality.

 

[Box Brownie]

In terms of image quality there isn't going to be a bad option, they are all very good.

There can be some differences in terms of A.F performance, Sony and the newer Canon full frame options are better than the others at the moment which might help some if you are shooting fast moving subjects like you have mentioned but would be out of your budget.

If you are going the APSC sensor route all of the current Sony range from the A6400 upwards will be better in terms of A.F than Fuji, Nikon etc.

If you find the budget for full frame mirrorless all of the Sony bodies from the A7III upwards will be better in terms of a.f than the Nikon equivalents. The Canon R5 and R6 are also very good in terms of a.f performance. Panasonic full frame doesn't have the best a.f either.

At you budget the A6400 would be worth a look.

To get the some extra reach for Motorsport etc. Olympus and Panasonic m43 would be well worth a look as well although you will lose some a.f performance and image quality as well due to the smaller sensor.

Pretty much everything now has good to very good video quality.

IMO and experience this part (made bold) is a bit of a sweeping statement.

 

[f/1.2]

IMO and experience this part (made bold) is a bit of a sweeping statement.

Not interested in getting involved in keyboard warrior games with m43 fanboys, but thanks anyway.

 

[Box Brownie]

Not interested in getting involved in keyboard warrior games with m43 fanboys, but thanks anyway.

Not a problem.........though any situation of comparison 'statements' some context IMO is important to lend weight to why someone says it and is why I posted in reply to that specific part of what you said.

 

[fujilover]

I know zero about Olympus or Panasonic but here are my thoughts about the others.

And im talking about mirrorless APS-C or Full Frame.

Canon the best but priced into oblivion now with mirrorless.

Nikon, just did not like the Z6 i had one bit so not much i can say.

Sony good for high res and relatively cheap lenses compared to Canon. Overall best option IMO.

Fuji kinda quirky but i love them and cost is ok. Well made for their price

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Any thoughts on suitable cameras and lenses in the budget range of 'several hundreds' (rather than thousands)?

It's always difficult to recommend equipment because one reason there are so many options is that people's desires and requirments vary so much.

That being the case, no one can tell you about any camera other than the ones they have used. Moreover: one man's dream camera is another woman's nightmare. Therefor, try before you buy is the best rule to apply.

For compactness, I like the Micro Four Thirds system and prefer the Panasonic range to the Olympus, having used several models from both. Some of the cameras from both ranges have both electro-mechanical and pure electronic shutters, which you can switch between at will and the latter being silent in use.

Not interested in getting involved in keyboard warrior games with m43 fanboys, but thanks anyway.

Perhaps that can be avoided by using phrases such as "in my opinion" before making statements that others might dispute?

 

[woof woof]

Not a problem.........though any situation of comparison 'statements' some context IMO is important to lend weight to why someone says it and is why I posted in reply to that specific part of what you said.

Some context. I have Panasonic 16 and 20mp cameras, GM5, GX80 and GX9 and a first generation Sony A7. Lookong at these cameras and the resuts they give mft is behind the A7 in dynamic range and high ISO perfornance but having said that imo if you don't go to the highest ISO's and don't shoot in situations needing the highest dr the mft kit gives good iq for whole pictures but I can still see the difference when pixel peeping. Don't pixel peep and in many instances mft will be good enough for many people.

 

[Box Brownie]

Some context. I have Panasonic 16 and 20mp cameras, GM5, GX80 and GX9 and a first generation Sony A7. Lookong at these cameras and the resuts they give mft is behind the A7 in dynamic range and high ISO perfornance but having said that imo if you don't go to the highest ISO's and don't shoot in situations needing the highest dr the mft kit gives good iq for whole pictures but I can still see the difference when pixel peeping. Don't pixel peep and in many instances mft will be good enough for many people.

Okey dokey and apologies @kartracer if this has gone off at a tangent.............but you can see what your OP can start

My context
I switched from Canon FF (the 5D3) to Olympus mFT primarily to save weight and bring some joy back into my photography. BUT I only went that route because the PP & NR in DxO PL was outstanding in the way the higher ISO noise was handled.

I have pre-ordered the OM-1 and my primary reason for doing that, based on reviews & example images, was that the AF has been given a much awaited improvement and the high ISO handling with the new Sony BSI sensor is (in my opinion ) a bit of game changer! Only time will tell just how good/beneficial the improvements in the OM-1 really are........

PS in regard to image quality and pixel peeping ~ in some ways the perception of the IQ is down to what output are we talking about. When it comes to prints, perhaps not as much as some would claim between FF and mFT

FWIW here is Mike Lane's overview when it comes to prints

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sp8UwFnYz0&t=0s

 

[Phil V]

Not a problem.........though any situation of comparison 'statements' some context IMO is important to lend weight to why someone says it and is why I posted in reply to that specific part of what you said.

There’s was acres of context both before and after the part you singled out though.
In fact the only way you could suggest there was no context is to only point out that one sentence. It’s a bit odd.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

PS in regard to image quality and pixel peeping ~ in some ways the perception of the IQ is down to what output are we talking about. When it comes to prints, perhaps not as much as some would claim between FF and mFT

Agreed.

I rather think that there is little benefit to be gained from discussing image quality in the pseudo technical manner used by some people. For most purposes, image quality comes down to "does this image show me what I want to see"?

Beyond that it's just keyboard warriors trying to score points and they are best ignored.

 

[Box Brownie]

There’s was acres of context both before and after the part you singled out though.
In fact the only way you could suggest there was no context is to only point out that one sentence. It’s a bit odd.

I am sorry if I missed and/or do not recall previous such discussions about the highlighted section I wished to 'ask about'.

If this thread is being read by new or even non TP members in isolation IMO it is not great to leave uncontextualised statements 'hanging'.

 

[f/1.2]

It's always difficult to recommend equipment because one reason there are so many options is that people's desires and requirments vary so much.

That being the case, no one can tell you about any camera other than the ones they have used. Moreover: one man's dream camera is another woman's nightmare. Therefor, try before you buy is the best rule to apply.

For compactness, I like the Micro Four Thirds system and prefer the Panasonic range to the Olympus, having used several models from both. Some of the cameras from both ranges have both electro-mechanical and pure electronic shutters, which you can switch between at will and the latter being silent in use.


Perhaps that can be avoided by using phrases such as "in my opinion" before making statements that others might dispute?

There is nothing to dispute, let’s be honest m43 is a joke format. Quarter sensors suck pretty bad.

That’s why it’s pretty much a dead format.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There is nothing to dispute, let’s bem43 is a joke format. Quarter sensors suck pretty bad.

That’s why it’s pretty much a dead format.

I think you're trying to be funny.

Pity you failed.

 

[Cobra]

There is nothing to dispute, let’s be honest m43 is a joke format. Quarter sensors suck pretty bad.

I'm sure that was an attempt at humour and not intended to be inflammatory ?

 

[tijuana taxi]

I'm sure that was an attempt at humour ?

Don't give up your day job then would be my advice.
You are to humour what Johnson is to honesty or Putin to diplomacy

 

[Cobra]

Don't give up your day job then would be my advice.

I'll take it under advisement after he replies ..

 

[Cobra]

You are to humour what Johnson is to honesty or Putin to diplomacy

shaky ground ...

 

[woof woof]

Agreed.

I rather think that there is little benefit to be gained from discussing image quality in the pseudo technical manner used by some people. For most purposes, image quality comes down to "does this image show me what I want to see"?

Beyond that it's just keyboard warriors trying to score points and they are best ignored.

Well no, it isn't just a case of ignoring keyboard warriors it's a case of being honest about the ability and limitations of the kit, your own personal needs and expectations and also what you're shooting and in what conditions.

I'd always advise people to start at the final output and work back from that to decide both the kit and the settings but there's no point in ignoring differences between the kit as if you're not aware of them you aint going to know what you might need.

 

[woof woof]

There is nothing to dispute, let’s be honest m43 is a joke format. Quarter sensors suck pretty bad.

That’s why it’s pretty much a dead format.

Not really

For single exposure shooting if you keep beween f1.x and f5.6/f8 and avoid pixel peeping you'll get nice full picture image quality that'll look nice on screen or printed to A4 or A3 after processing in all but the worst lighting and from a package that can be significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper than an equivalent ff set up.

Mft may eventually die a death but in the tech would it's not always "the best" tech that wins out.

 

[Stephen L]

I’m format-agnostic. It’s not just sensor tech which is improving but also processing software. In my experience products such as PureRaw have enhanced smaller sensor output dramatically. It was this product which convinced me to return to m4/3 from 35mm format. And any system does not depend just on the camera body but on well-designed lenses to complement it.

 

[Phil V]

I am sorry if I missed and/or do not recall previous such discussions about the highlighted section I wished to 'ask about'.

If this thread is being read by new or even non TP members in isolation IMO it is not great to leave uncontextualised statements 'hanging'.

There was context. For reasons best known to yourself, you’re choosing to ignore it.

For the avoidance of doubt. It’s a simple fact of physics that the greater the light capturing medium, the greater the potential for image quality. A modern m43 sensor might be better than an older sensor that’s 4x the size, but unless there’s a step change in sensor tech, sensors of the same generation will fall into the laws of physics.

And further when discussing AF abilities, it’s an actual measurable fact that the latest Canon and Sony AF systems are comfortably better than all the opposition. That doesn’t mean that m43 isn’t suitable for (let’s be serious here) the vast majority of photographers.

But they are still facts that remain facts no matter how much you’d prefer them not to be.

 

[kartracer]

Thanks, everyone. The Sony could be a contender if I can figure out what lenses I'd need. I'm OK with quirky (Fuji) too.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

One odd thing I've noticed about Sony kit over the years: since they adopted Lithium batteries they appear to have somehow made it difficult for third party suppliers to build fully operational alternatives.

I've no idea why this is happening but I've observed it with various different pieces of kit.

 

[Faldrax]

One odd thing I've noticed about Sony kit over the years: since they adopted Lithium batteries they appear to have somehow made it difficult for third party suppliers to build fully operational alternatives.

I've no idea why this is happening but I've observed it with various different pieces of kit.

On the plus side, their A-Mount cameras all used the same battery over the 10 year period they released then (A100 in 2006 to A99ii in 2016), and in E-Mount there are only 2 different batteries used - so when you upgrade, you can keep your extra batteries for the new camera.

 

[RedRobin]

On the plus side, their A-Mount cameras all used the same battery over the 10 year period they released then (A100 in 2006 to A99ii in 2016), and in E-Mount there are only 2 different batteries used - so when you upgrade, you can keep your extra batteries for the new camera.

.... But the fact that batteries need to fuel the requirements of more advanced feature rich cameras (and lens motors etc) means that by not developing more advanced batteries to match the tail would then be allowed to wag the dog.

If someone really wants what a new camera has to offer they should accept that the same batteries they have used for years may not work. Besides, new cameras, even secondhand cameras, are usually supplied with batteries. What's the problem?

And as for third-party batteries, do you put any cheaper brand of tyres on a high performance car rather than those which have been thoroughly tested and recommended? Surely not. I would never load any third-party battery into a camera - It's potentially a false economy.

 

[Phil V]

And as for third-party batteries, do you put any cheaper brand of tyres on a high performance car rather than those which have been thoroughly tested and recommended? Surely not. I would never load any third-party battery into a camera - It's potentially a false economy.

Whilst it’s absolutely true that if you replace the tyres on your car with only the ones recommended by the manufacturer you will almost certainly get the level of performance expected.

It’s also known fact that there are often better alternatives. Though that depends on the car*

If I can trust Sigma to build me a lens that outperforms the Canon equivalent, surely it’s not unreasonable to expect a battery manufacturer to build me a battery that outperforms the original Canon which let’s be honest, has outsourced manufacturing to the lowest bidder?

*If you’re driving a Ferrari the recommended tyres might be the best available, but I wouldn’t equate a mass produced camera with a Ferrari they’re more like a Ford Focus, and just about everything it’s possible to swap could be improved.

 

[Faldrax]

.... But the fact that batteries need to fuel the requirements of more advanced feature rich cameras (and lens motors etc) means that by not developing more advanced batteries to match the tail would then be allowed to wag the dog.

If someone really wants what a new camera has to offer they should accept that the same batteries they have used for years may not work. Besides, new cameras, even secondhand cameras, are usually supplied with batteries. What's the problem?

And as for third-party batteries, do you put any cheaper brand of tyres on a high performance car rather than those which have been thoroughly tested and recommended? Surely not. I would never load any third-party battery into a camera - It's potentially a false economy.

At the same time as new features are being introduced, electronics are getting smaller and more efficient - keeping the same battery helps reduce costs both for manufacturers and consumers.

Where Sony changed batteries it was for a step change in their cameras - the introduction of the small, mirrorless, e-mount APS-C cameras (Nex 3 and 5 in 2010) warranted a smaller, lighter battery to go with the smaller bodies.

They kept this through the e-mount range, even after producing FF models, until it was clear that the power requirements were sufficiently higher that a larger battery was needed (they should have introduced the larger battery earlier in the FF range).

The advantage of keeping the same batteries is that you can keep and share spares - so you get a couple of spares for your first camera, then upgrade (selling the camera with 1 battery, buying a replacement camera with 1 battery) and still have 2 spares.

As you say, the 'best' option is to use the manufacturers batteries in your camera - there is a price premium when buying these, and not having to replace the batteries avoids repeatedly paying that premium.

 

[RedRobin]

Whilst it’s absolutely true that if you replace the tyres on your car with only the ones recommended by the manufacturer you will almost certainly get the level of performance expected.

It’s also known fact that there are often better alternatives. Though that depends on the car*

.... I agree and my introduction of a car equivalent when discussing camera batteries wasn't the best equivalent I could have chosen - As you have demonstrated.

If I can trust Sigma to build me a lens that outperforms the Canon equivalent, surely it’s not unreasonable to expect a battery manufacturer to build me a battery that outperforms the original Canon which let’s be honest, has outsourced manufacturing to the lowest bidder?

.... Except that I don't trust Sigma to offer lenses which outperform Canon equivalents. This is not based on my personal direct experience but on reports by photographers I personally know very well and have been on photographic wildlife missions with. They have sold on their Sigma lenses because they preferred the Canons. That's not to say that Sigma are rubbish - They are good, but.

Returning to the subject of camera batteries, has there ever been a battery produced by a third-party which outperforms* and is also, very importantly, more reliable than the camera brand battery? - I stand to be corrected but don't think so. * This includes performance in extremes of temperature.

Outsourcing battery manufacturer to the lowest bidder is not a sensible way forward because that battery also has to perform and not let down the camera brand.

I agree with what Jonathan @Faldrax has just posted in Reply #30.

 

[Nod]

IIRC, Nikon batteries are made by Sony anyway. My first DSLR was a D70 and there was a recall on the original batteries and they were definitely Sony in origin (according to the e-mail passing on the blame!!!)

 

[Faldrax]

Just to add to my comments on Sony cameras / batteries, not all is rosy in that department, as Sony have also implemented a 'feature' whereby the newer cameras (and especially with VG's attached) will report a problem is an 'incompatible' battery (IE Not Sony original) is detected, and block operation.
I've not got one of the new models, so my knowledge of this is via what I've read, but it seems that some 3rd party batteries will work OK, but others it's a bit of a lottery (sometimes they work, sometimes they don't).

 

[Phil V]

.... I agree and my introduction of a car equivalent when discussing camera batteries wasn't the best equivalent I could have chosen - As you have demonstrated.

.... Except that I don't trust Sigma to offer lenses which outperform Canon equivalents. This is not based on my personal direct experience but on reports by photographers I personally know very well and have been on photographic wildlife missions with. They have sold on their Sigma lenses because they preferred the Canons. That's not to say that Sigma are rubbish - They are good, but.

Returning to the subject of camera batteries, has there ever been a battery produced by a third-party which outperforms* and is also, very importantly, more reliable than the camera brand battery? - I stand to be corrected but don't think so. * This includes performance in extremes of temperature.

Outsourcing battery manufacturer to the lowest bidder is not a sensible way forward because that battery also has to perform and not let down the camera brand.

I agree with what Jonathan @Faldrax has just posted in Reply #30.

In my early Canon days, all of the 3rd party batteries I could buy outperformed the BP 511’s from Canon.

My favourite 2 lenses are the Canon 135f2 and the Sigma Art 35 1.4. I do believe though that the Canon 35 1.4 is just as good (at twice the price).

However Canon are possibly unique in making such a dogs dinner of their 50mm selection.
Until the 1.8 STM, the 1.8’s were only ‘good enough’ because they were cheap, the 1.4 was literally a worse lens than the 1.8 but happens to be 2/3 a stop faster, and the L’s rendered ‘beautiful’ images whilst being not particularly sharp. Again I believe the latest RF has sorted that. But we had >30 years without a ‘stellar’ std lens.

Meanwhile the Sigma 50mm Art is better than all of the genuine Canon EF versions (notwithstanding it’s not as fast as the L)

That’s without research and off the top of my head, I’m sure there are other examples.

And in the garage I’ve an old car that’s a bit of a Frankenstein’s monster, but every non original part is an upgrade to the parts that came out of the factory. From the Rostyle steering wheel, through to the custom made exhaust.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Returning to the subject of camera batteries, has there ever been a battery produced by a third-party which outperforms* and is also, very importantly, more reliable than the camera brand battery? - I stand to be corrected but don't think so. * This includes performance in extremes of temperature.

I'd say matching performance at a fraction of the price is enough reason to buy off-brand batteries.

 

[n1kcy]

I switched from full frame Canon with a plethora of L lenses to Fuji XT4 a year ago and haven’t looked back. The weight savings are massive as is the cost difference between Fuji glass and Canon mirrorless lenses. These days i am just an hobbyist so only shoot in good conditions and the fuji image quality is outstanding. I doubt it would compare with my Canon gear on a drab dull day shooting action or wildlife but they are not the conditions I shot in.
I also love the built in focus stacking and Preshots feature (same as Olympus ProShots, you can capture the images that happened moments prior to you pressing the shutter).

 

[RedRobin]

I'd say matching performance at a fraction of the price is enough reason to buy off-brand batteries.

.... And I'd say that being unreliable and not always recharging is enough reason not to buy off-brand batteries - Something which has happened to two of my friends (shooting Canon) while I have been with them.

Even if for example, Canon/Nikon batteries are manufactured by Sony which is a very reliable brand, it is much safer than buying cheap Chinese copies.

I have peace of mind buying camera brand batteries, especially when travelling. But each to their own

 

[Ed Sutton]

.... And I'd say that being unreliable and not always recharging is enough reason not to buy off-brand batteries - Something which has happened to two of my friends (shooting Canon) while I have been with them.

There may lie the problem.

 

[RedRobin]

There may lie the problem.

.... So you are thinking that third-party batteries don't play nicely with Canon bodies but might play nicely with other brands?

The Canon batteries for the 1DX-2 were superb and very long lasting and in all temperatures too. But they were/are very expensive.

 

[Ed Sutton]

.... So you are thinking that third-party batteries don't play nicely with Canon bodies but might play nicely with other brands?

Note to self: Forget attempting levity on TP. :banghead: