Mirrorless

Hi, just wondering what you all think of the Fugi XT1 and the Olympus OM-D M5 (there is also the newer Olympus OM-D M10 which looks good too). I currently use a Nikon SLR but am wanting a lighter travel camera good in low light (will continue to use my SLR for wildlife). Thanks!

I use the Olympus E-M5 and am very satisfied with it. I.ll send you a link to sample pics.

Keith

Thanks Keith! I really like this camera but just really didn't like buying a camera that came out 2 years ago. My email is cperkinson@cfl.rr.com Thanks!

Candy

I purchased my Oly EM-1 last year. It is about the same size as the EM-5, weatherproof, FAR superior in capability/quality, and came out just last winter. It has a remote PC link for adjusting and taking photographs without being near the camera. The camera accepts all micro 4:3 lenses but works best and is weatherproof with Olympus lenses.

The EM-1 with 12-40mm lens is about 40% less in weight than my Olympus E-5 with a similar zoom lens. My neck is a lot happier and there is no fall-off from the quality of my E-5.

Thank you Crew News! I think I looked at that one too but it was more like the SLR so I thought that might defeat the purpose of getting something small. I've got so much tied up in my Nikon equipment that I don't really want to start anew but I will look at it again if you do think it is better. I do like the weather sealing which it has and the M5 (but that one is 2 years old) and then the M10 doesn't have the weather sealing but is newer.

Don't discount the Sony A6000 as an option. Smaller and lighter than the OM-1 with a 50% larger sensor and it plays very well with adapted Nikon lenses. It's also several hundred dollars less expensive.

Just sayin...;)

Dave

Thanks Dave! I will look into that one - just seems most of the reviews lean towards the Fuji or Olympus but am afraid the OM 1 will be too heavy for what I want the camera for so if the Sony is lighter that is a good thing!

Cruz,

You won't get a bad camera between the newest series of mirrorless from Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, or Sony - they all have really upped their games with regards to not only image quality where they could already match, but now focus speed, tracking ability, and growing lens collections.

The A6000 was widely praised in nearly every review, and is definitely considered one of the best of the breed out there right now in the mirrorless world, all the more surprising because of the price - it, along with the Oly EM1, Fuji XT1, and Panasonic GH4, were all pitted against full-frame DSLRs in focus speed and tracking tests and handled surprisingly well. The Fuji and Sony stick with APS-C sensors, while the Oly and Panasonic go with the slightly smaller M4:3 sensors. Together, since Oly and Panny share the same mount, they have the largest overall lens selection...Fuji has a widely praised selection of primes and high end lenses that trend towards expensive, and Sony has a growing 2-level collection of both cheaper consumer level lenses and more expensive high end lenses. Overall you'll still have a good 20+ native autofocus lenses to choose from in any of those mounts...so the selection should be there.

And of course, get into the world of adapters for other lens mounts and manual focusing, all of these cameras open themselves up to literally tens of thousands of available lenses they can work with.

With one of the highest resolutions, some of the top high ISO ratings, and among the very best tracking focus systems in mirrorless cameras, it's hard to ignore the pricing and compact size of the A6000 - they packed a lot of camera into a small footprint and at a price half or less than much of the others. Certainly worth looking at, along with the excellent Fuji and Oly models!

Thanks zackiedawg! I am definitely going to look in the Sony now. Not sure that I am going to need a lot of lenses due to my existing Nikon system but you just never know - I might get hooked on the mirrorless!

Thanks Dave! I will look into that one - just seems most of the reviews lean towards the Fuji or Olympus but am afraid the OM 1 will be too heavy for what I want the camera for so if the Sony is lighter that is a good thing!

A lot of the attraction of the Oly and Fuji models is generated by their cool retro styling. Leica has even jumped on this with their M Edition 60 which is full-frame and has no LCD...and costs somewhere north of $16K. :eek:

The reason I mentioned the A6000 is because of the research I did before buying one. I have found it to be a great travel camera with no compromise to image quality. Below is a link to my first all-mirrorless cruise (with the NEX-7). It was unnerving to leave the DSLR at home but carrying two bodies, 5 lenses, my laptop, both of our tablets and assorted cleaning and charging equipment in a single moderate LowePro Fastpack 350 was quite liberating.

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/reflection2013

I bought the A6000 recently and moved the NEX-7 to backup status. I did a brief review of the A6000 compared to the 7 here:

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/a6000.html

I have always believed in looking at all the options when shopping and since Sony doesn't get the love that "hipper" brands get, I thought I would interject and share my experience with what I have found to be a very innovative series of mirrorless cameras.

Dave

Just looked at your pics Dave and they look great! I might just be able to leave the SLR at home once I get a mirrorless. Now as far as your night time shots (skyline and ships) were you hand holding and what lens were you using? Thanks!

Candy

You know I agree with you, Dave. After all, I've had the A6000 since the day it debuted, having had it on preorder - I was an early adopter! I love mine - wonderful camera and very happy to take it instead of my DSLR on some trips, on hot summer days out birding, and for general walkaround stuff. I still love the DSLR too - but it's more something I make plans to use for certain occasions like serious wildlife trips. The A6000 can more than handle most other needs...even some birding!

Just looked at your pics Dave and they look great! I might just be able to leave the SLR at home once I get a mirrorless. Now as far as your night time shots (skyline and ships) were you hand holding and what lens were you using? Thanks!

Candy

The low angle fisheye shots were done from a tiny Giottos pocket tripod but everything else was handheld. I used the kit lens almost exclusively. Many have panned it but with the auto-correction turned on, it produces some pretty darned good performance. Plus, it's stabilized.

Dave

Thanks Dave - I was hoping it was the kit lens. Zackiedog I love your pics as well - were you hand holding? I did notice you were using faster lenses than the kit lens.

Thanks Dave - I was hoping it was the kit lens. Zackiedog I love your pics as well - were you hand holding? I did notice you were using faster lenses than the kit lens.

Thank you Cruz. Probably 95% of my shots or more with the A6000 are handheld - I mainly love taking advantage of the portability, so I rarely would bring a tripod for that system. I mostly use the tripod with my DSLR for long-exposure work. There are some very nifty modes on the Sony models for taking night exposures at very high ISO levels with little to no noise- where they can combine multiple frames in camera by stacking them - really effective and makes night landscape and architecture possible handheld.

I have the very good 35mm F1.8 OSS lens for low light work in the native mount, and I also have a fair number of older manual lenses, primes mostly, that I like to play with, including a Leica mount Voigtlander 35mm F1.4, and a very good Konica 40mm F1.8.

I bought an Olympus OM-D soon after it was released, and have used it in many different situations. With high-quality prime lenses, the pictures produced are comparable to mid-grade DSLRs.

As a travel camera, its advantages are numerous, including the unobtrusive size, light weight, excellent viewfinder and touchscreen LCD, and robust, weather-resistant construction. It also provides image-stabilization with most lenses; very helpful for hand-held stills and smooth video! Battery life is several hours.

For RAW images, Olympus provides editing software, similar to Nikon Capture, for after-the-shot adjustments to exposure, sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc.

Ubiquitous cellphone cameras have made a big dent in the point-and-shoot market, straining Olympus' finances. Hopefully, the development of this fine camera can continue.

Thank you Sleeperman! The Olympus is very appealing to me. I definitely want something better than my iPhone but more portable than my DSLR.

I'm committed to the OM-D for now, having purchased a body, 3 excellent lenses, plus accessories, to the tune of approximately $4K. And there's a nostalgia factor for me as well, having owned OMs in an earlier epoch. But if I were starting from scratch, I'd consider other mirrorless cameras, keeping in mind that lens quality, variety, and availability are big part of the overall package.

However, having been a Nikon user for decades, from film to digital, there's no doubt that the image quality from my little Olympus system pales in comparison. If you're willing and able to carry the DSLR load, bear the cost, secure it in remote locations, and put up with snarky comments from the blissfully ignorant majority, you'll get better pictures, with more options in the post-processing phase.

There is a very small mirrorless camera, the Panasonic DMC-GM5 which even has a (tiny) viewfinder. The older GM1 lacks a viewfinder.

That might be an option if you really want to travel light. The size may be a problem though, as the body isn't bigger than a small P&S. Difficult with bigger lenses and somewhat cramped controls.

There are two kit lenses, the collapsable 12-32 and the new small 35-100.

As it is a micro 4/3 system the lenses are in general very compact and light.

Before buying such a small camera you should really try if you're happy with the controls and handling.

I don't have any experience of this camera but am really interested as a small camera for travel.

From what I have been reading, the pic quality is as good as the OMD:s, but as I said I have no experience of this myself.

/Erik

As others have said, I think you're better off with a smaller micro 4/3 system rather than a XT1 or a OMD5. Depending on your current DSLR, the XT1 and OMD5 will not be that much smaller and lighter because of their design. If you don't need a viewfinder, many of the mirrorless systems will be smaller and lighter. The A6000 is an excellent camera but keep in mind that the Sony lenses are typically bigger than a micro 4/3 system because of the sensor size. Unless you're just using a prime pancake lens.

I've taken my old E-PL2 on a few trips to Budapest, Prague and Paris and came back with decent pictures. I don't feel I absolutely need a viewfinder.

With the Power Grip and a (25mm) normal lens attached, the OM-D is about half the size of a Nikon D800 with a (50mm) normal lens. Without the Power Grip, the OM-D is downright dainty.

Eyepieces are most useful in brightly-lit situations, when the LCD can be hard to see. But they're also helpful when using the camera at shows and recitals; with the room lighting off, a brightly lit LCD can be annoying to those seated behind you.

With the Power Grip and a (25mm) normal lens attached, the OM-D is about half the size of a Nikon D800 with a (50mm) normal lens. Without the Power Grip, the OM-D is downright dainty.

 

Eyepieces are most useful in brightly-lit situations, when the LCD can be hard to see. But they're also helpful when using the camera at shows and recitals; with the room lighting off, a brightly lit LCD can be annoying to those seated behind you.

I am going to take a wild guess that if the original poster owns a D800, he would not be asking camera advice on a forum dedicated to discussing cruises.

Size is relative, yes an OM-D will be smaller than most DSLRs, but for me, it's still might not be small enough if you prefer travelling light. I own a D300s and I know I hated taking it to Tokyo after walking 10 hours everyday.

I am not here to discuss the merit of having a viewfinder vs not having one. Having one is almost always better than not EXCEPT when it comes to size of the camera. I fully agree with you in regards to reasons for wanting a viewfinder. But in my experience, the number of times I absolutely needed a viewfinder and I cannot take a picture without one....is far less than the number of time I wished I had a smaller and lighter camera.

The Sony A6000 would be a nice balance as it has a viewfinder and cheap enough.

I am going to take a wild guess that if the original poster owns a D800, he would not be asking camera advice on a forum dedicated to discussing cruises.

I'm not the OP here, not asking, just adding my $.02 to the discussion, trying to be helpful...

Our viewfinder philosophy is pretty much the same. It's just that the picture-taking situations in which I find myself make it more valuable to me, especially on a cruise; YMMV.

Flying commercial is a PITA these days; so I travel less frequently, but make it count. With good lens selection, both OM-D and D800 will easily fit in my carry-on luggage, with room to spare. A sturdy, lightweight monopod goes in a checked bag...

Thanks Erik for your ideas! I am thinking I don't want the very small compact thus the mirrorless. Being used to a DSLR the small compacts just feel too small. I am so used to a view finder I do want that as well.

Thanks Erik for your ideas! I am thinking I don't want the very small compact thus the mirrorless. Being used to a DSLR the small compacts just feel too small. I am so used to a view finder I do want that as well.

If you've decided on that you do want a viewfinder, then you have even more choices to choose from. The thing to consider now is hold all the ones in your hands and see if you like the feel of it in your hands. You will still have the decision to make regarding which mirrorless system to invest into.

Micro Four Thirds (Olympus and Panasonic) generally are smaller cameras and lenses because of their smaller sensor. I would look at the OM-D 10 (Smaller than the 5) or the GX7.

APS-C (Fuji, Sony, Samsung) everything else being equal IN THEORY should have better low light performance because of the bigger sensor. But most people probably can't tell unless you look looking at pictures on a monitor at 100% zoom. Their lenses have to be bigger because of the bigger image circle it needs for the bigger sensor. No doubt the XT-1 is a good camera but it's just too much money. I would seriously look at A6000 or the X-E2.

Just want to add that when I say bigger lenses, I mean when it compares with the equivalent lens.