Beginner Mirrorless Clueless - Which one to go for?

chouglez

chouglez

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,817
Edit My Images
No
With more wisdom (along with getting older) comes a point where you wish to lug around a lot lighter camera gear and hence thinking of making the shift from DSL to Mirrorless and feel like a rabbit in front of a spotlight with so many options available. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
 
I like to start at the end result and work back from there as that helps to decide the gear and the settings. Do I want to print and if so how big? Will most of my pictures be viewed electronically? Will I be cropping? Viewing closely? What quality will I accept? etc...

I have FF and MFT mirrorless. I think that MFT is a good blend of quality and size/weight, especially the RF style cameras, but you may want APS-C or FF so in your place I'd have a think about how and what I shoot and what system will be acceptable. All that may be sensible but you may just want FF, and why not. Or maybe you just want the best quality/value at your price point?

Maybe you could have a think about which format size you'd be happy with. I think that would be a good start and would help pin down the options.
 
chouglez said:
With more wisdom (along with getting older) comes a point where you wish to lug around a lot lighter camera gear and hence thinking of making the shift from DSL to Mirrorless and feel like a rabbit in front of a spotlight with so many options available. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Since your signature states yo love Canon and have 'a whole lotsa Canon Lens' the obvious and cheapest route would be the new Eos R. There is a thread running on this and the results the new users are achieving are mighty impressive; maybe worth a post on there as well to ask the new users what they think?

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-eos-r-series-cameras.687080/
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Since your signature states yo love Canon and have 'a whole lotsa Canon Lens' the obvious and cheapest route would be the new Eos R
Click to expand...
Or even...
since you own Canon APSC cameras why not a Canon M50, or if you have the budget the M5, its a superb little camera, a lot smaller then what the OP already has (unlike the R which is bigger)

I like woof woofs approach to problem solving, in a blank slate kind of way, but in a more simple world, an M50 is the closest solution to ‘no hassle’ available to the OP.
Though there’s a very cheap M5 in the classifieds (unwanted prize)
 
Given the statement "...wish to lug around a lot lighter camera gear...", can I assume you don't want to carry on with the Canon lenses? Micro 4/3 probably has more options for small/light bodies and lenses than any other system, and provides extremely good results these days.
 
If weight is the real reason for the switch then I would say Micro4/3(Olympus/Panasonic) would probably be the lightest option. Canon/Fuji APSC would be the next option, with you already having Canon glass the M5/M50 would be the obvious option.
 
chouglez said:
With more wisdom (along with getting older) comes a point where you wish to lug around a lot lighter camera gear and hence thinking of making the shift from DSL to Mirrorless and feel like a rabbit in front of a spotlight with so many options available. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

FF mirrorless isn't going to save you a massive amount of weight. You would also likely need to look at different lenses, for example slower speed lenses that can be smaller/lighter. You could do that now, so I guess you are looking to save even more weight? Micro 4/3 could be well worth a look at. To be honest not knowing what you like to shoot means it's difficult to recommend as capabilities vary.
 
Yep, IF you really want to think of lightening the load including lenses and you really want to dip your toe in the water on a budget then I would go Olympus EM5 mark one with a 12-50 lens to start. You should be able to pick up the em5 for circa £150 (a lot of camera for the price) and a second hand 12-50 will set you back about £90-100.

So you can have a very good intro for circa £250 for a weather sealed setup with a lens thats well regarded for near macro too.

Some interesting views on the em5 of long term users here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4142440 and this https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/03/05/a-blast-from-the-past-ii-revisiting-the-olympus-om-d-e-m5/

Then a recent review of the 12-50 here http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/le...-m43-olympuspanas/olympus-12-50mm-f35-63.html
 
PS, I started into mirrorless with a mark one em10 with 14-42 kit lens just to see if I liked it over my old canon gear too.I then bought the 12-50 mentioned and sold the 14-40 and didn't regret it at all, Few years later I love it and now have the mark one EM1, 12-40pro, 7-14 pro and 40-150 pro with TC.
 
Phil V said:
I like woof woofs approach to problem solving, in a blank slate kind of way, but in a more simple world, an M50 is the closest solution to ‘no hassle’ available to the OP.
Though there’s a very cheap M5 in the classifieds (unwanted prize)
Click to expand...

Thanks but there's a problem with my philosophy.

I know that MFT is very probably good enough but I get all warm and fuzzy looking at FF files when I'm processing them and even though no one (family and friends, normal people not geeks like us) who sees my pictures will see the differences or care what camera or lens I used it matters to me.

The smaller APS-C and especially MFT systems do however IMO offer the most savings in bulk and weight unless the OP can restrict himself to a FF mirrorless and compact primes only.
 
Last edited:
chouglez said:
With more wisdom (along with getting older) comes a point where you wish to lug around a lot lighter camera gear and hence thinking of making the shift from DSL to Mirrorless and feel like a rabbit in front of a spotlight with so many options available. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

If weight is your primary reason for moving, just take care to look at the lens options on the system you choose. I moved to Fuji a while back from Canon FF, and while initially the primes I went for were a lot smaller and lighter, once I added a couple of Zooms, while lighter than their Canon equivalents, certainly were not feather weight!

It's not that mirrorless is that much lighter - it's that those mirrorless systems that use APS-C or 4/3 sensors only, have smaller high quality lenses than say the DSLR equivalents which tend to save their 'best' lenses for Full Frame (with the necessary increase in size / weight).
 
I push for the M50 - happy owner here with a few Canon lens. Not sure exactly what, but there are advantages to the M50 vs the M5 I think in the AF/Drive rate. I'm sure someone will advise!
 
woof woof said:
Thanks but there's a problem with my philosophy.

I know that MFT is very probably good enough but I get all warm and fuzzy looking at FF files when I'm processing them and even though no one (family and friends, normal people not geeks like us) who sees my pictures will see the differences or care what camera or lens I used it matters to me.

The smaller APS-C and especially MFT systems do however IMO offer the most savings in bulk and weight unless the OP can restrict himself to a FF mirrorless and compact primes only.
Click to expand...
My mate has a small Olympus collection. And if I was starting from scratch purely as a hobby, I’d seriously consider that route, but as the OP already has a start on the Canon APSC route, the simplest transition is the M5 or M50 depending on budget.

Edit: scratch that, I’ve just looked at the OP’s lens collection, and the saving he’d make from the smaller body is insignificant shooting any APSC mirrorless. If he wants genuine weight saving he should look at M4/3.
 
Last edited:
I’ve recently made the switch from Canon full frame to Fuji. My logic was that the full frame options weren’t that much smaller or lighter. Likewise using my Canon L lenses on an EOS M just gave a smaller body, with big lenses.

Looking at mirrorless options, Canon was my first choice, but it seemed to be let down by plastic lenses. The Fuji XF lenses are a bit like Canon L lenses, with 2 tiers, the pro lenses and the slightly slower, but lighter lenses equivalent to the Canon f4 zooms. The bodies are great too, with better ergonomics than my old Canon systems.
 
I changed earlier this year from canon . I used 1d3 and 1d4 bodies with a sigma 150-600 sport all up weight of the rig was around 7kg plus backpack with another couple of lenses and bits and bobs weighing a few more kg .
I now use a Panasonic g80 with Leica 100-400 on a 2x crop giving the same reach , and weighing in at 1.5kg all up camera and lens .the i.q is even better and results satisfy me ,

I have posted plenty of results from this rig on here and you know the old saying the proof of the pudding ?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Phil V if you want to save weight then M4/3 is well worth a look at .
Rob.
 
You have a very nice DSLR outfit, including two APS-C bodies plus 70-200/2.8 and 16-35/2.8 lenses. That's where most of the weight is, particularly in those f/2.8 max apertures. Unfortunately, you can't replicate all that with a significant weight saving. You're going to have to compromise quite a lot, so I would start by prioritising what's most important to you, eg if you can live without f/2.8 then quite a few options open up.

Knowing nothing about what you like to shoot and how you like to go about it, I can only speak personally and EOS-M would be the least disruptive in terms of operating familiarity (and same APS-C format) but with fairly dramatic weight savings if the compromises and a bit of kit rationalisation are acceptable*. You may not be able to make a good judgement on that without actually trying it, so I'd get an EOS-M and a couple of lenses and see. If that works, then happy days and move the DSLR kit on.

For a complete change, Fuji has strong gadget appeal at least for me with retro style and controls. I wouldn't go M4/3 - too much of a format lurch though the size/weight savings are clear. Nothing wrong with Sony but they just don't press my buttons.

*You could save quite a bit of weight simply by swapping your big L-grade lenses for Canon EF-S equivalents, at least on focal length, such as the sweet 55-250 STM and 15-85. You already have the EF-S 10-18... :)
 
GyRob said:
I agree with Phil V if you want to save weight then M4/3 is well worth a look at .
Rob.
Click to expand...


I get accused of championing for M43 a lot, but I've been through all formats bar MF and outside of FF there's naff all between them. Canon APSC has nothing over M43, I've looked hard into it as I did ponder on switching to an 80D at one point, also the M50, but there was no benefit over M43 whatsoever. Both as bad as one another for ISO performance, the G80 actually has slightly better DR, and the IBIS alone makes it worth keeping over any Canon APSC.
 
Cagey75 said:
I get accused of championing for M43 a lot, but I've been through all formats bar MF and outside of FF there's naff all between them. Canon APSC has nothing over M43, I've looked hard into it as I did ponder on switching to an 80D at one point, also the M50, but there was no benefit over M43 whatsoever. Both as bad as one another for ISO performance, the G80 actually has slightly better DR, and the IBIS alone makes it worth keeping over any Canon APSC.
Click to expand...

That's not quite the full picture though. The big difference between sensor formats really boils down to two things - high ISO performance and shallow depth-of-field control. Both those things are better served by larger formats (it's physics, not technology) but that aside, all formats are capable of excellent results more than good enough for pretty much everything if we're honest.
 
HoppyUK said:
That's not quite the full picture though. The big difference between sensor formats really boils down to two things - high ISO performance and shallow depth-of-field control. Both those things are better served by larger formats (it's physics, not technology) but that aside, all formats are capable of excellent results more than good enough for pretty much everything if we're honest.
Click to expand...

ISO performance is one thing I'd want improved if I was to switch, I was actually very surprised to find the 80D wasn't any better so that shot it down for me right away. The likes of Fuji and Sony [later models, the A6000 is no better] APSC would have better performance in low light, Fuji by a fair whack. Canon's APSC are 1.6x crop so there's not so much in it really. With M43 I try to stay down low on that ISO, the IBIS helps a lot - also, the fact most of my shooting is still life. Shallow DOF is an area I'm not overly concerned about, I appreciate the deeper DOF at smaller apertures for macro, and most lenses I buy will have nice close focus if and when I want that 'bokeh' :) Really depends on your needs, as ever.
 
Last edited:
If you want to go to mirrorless, lightweight and compact then you could consider a G series Canon.
The Canon G7 MKII is great as mentioned above. I've recently bought a G3X (with the EVF) and am very happy with it. Good quality photos, very light, strongly built, shoots in raw, full camera control, and has a great zoom from 8.8 to 220mm on a 1 inch sensor.
 
As you can see from the replies, there are many options. The other day, we went to the mini photo fest held by London Camera Exchange in Bath. I put this also in the context of having been harangued at a presentation about the wonders of one particular brand for about 40 slides and an hour.... Anyway, there was a brand ambassador there [different marque from the Death by Powerpoint presentation]. He started by saying that there weren't really any bad cameras any more. His advice:

1 - write down what you want your camera to do.
2- research and find out which cameras do that, regardless of the brand name.
3- cross out the ones on the list that you cannot afford
4 - go and get hands on the ones that are on the list.

Now, you also have the added element of having a system already which has mirrorless cameras and a much debated / argued recent release that is full frame.

In terms of mirrorless experience myself, I have tried a few. Personally, I like the look of the Olympus system and I was able to try that before I bought - Olympus WOW. It's a much lighter thing. Can it do everything that my Canon FF does? Well, I have seen some terrific results from the Olympus ambassadors like Scott Bourne but I am not there yet but I do know that it can be done. It produced two of the images in my monochrome panel for my ARPS recently - two that I wouldn't have had if I hadn't taken it on walkabout down at the beach in Oz.

Good luck with your decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top