Switching To A Smaller Camera - Anyone Else?

<p>I have been a lurker on the board for years and used come here when there was no digital ;) . I mostly shoot landscapes, architecture and people. Very occasionally I will do some macro stuff. Never sports or fast moving stuff. I apologize in advance for the long winded post.<br>

<br /> I have been taking pictures since I was a kid. My very first camera as a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 10 :) . I still have it in the original box. I got it when I was like 8 years old. I loved this camera as a child. Eventually I got my first 35mm film camera which was a water resistant Olympus point and shoot. It was small and very basic. Eventually I outgrew and got another Olympus point and show which had a power zoom lens and a lot more creative control.<br>

<br /> I outgrew that one as well so when I got out of college everyone told me I should get an SLR. I got a Canon Elan IIe film camera with a 28-105mm lens. Nice camera and we grew together but it was always a bit of a pain to carry. Carrying an SLR was in no way like carrying a point and shoot. I used to take the camera on vacations and what not. It was always clumsy and like carrying a brick.<br>

<br /> I than got my first digital SLR in 2004 when I bought a second hand Canon 10D. I picked the Canon because it could use my existing lenses and other Canon stuff. The 10D was a tank - all metal body and it was really heavy. A much heavier brick. Eventually the weight got to me so when Canon introduced the G9 I bought it.<br>

<br /> I used the G9 a lot - so much that the 10D just sat on the shelf collecting dust for a year. I sold the 10D and all I had was the G9. I loved the G9 and it took great pictures in bright sunlight. The high ISO was not great but it was ok. The downside was the auto focus was slow and rapid shooting was not so good but I took it everywhere as it was small and compact. Than one day after using it solid for 4 years the G9 jammed open. I got it repaired and than sold it for a Panasonic GF1.<br>

<br /> The GF1 was as small as my G9 and it interchangeable lenses. It was very light and I liked it a lot. The downside was as it did not have a viewfinder the screen was almost impossible to see in bright sunlight. Even with the external EVF it was tough. After I used it for about 6 months I sold it as it drove me crazy. I went back to Canon.<br>

<br /> I bought a Canon T2i (550D) and the 15-85mm EF-S. Though the T2i is not huge by DSLR standards, between the body and the lens its pretty substantial. The 15-85mm is a brilliant lens but weighs as much as the body if not more. I have had the camera for almost 3 years and frankly I have not used it that much. Its just a bother and its really heavy so I end up leaving it home a lot of the time. I also have the following:<br>

<br /> 70-300mm EF Diffractive optics zoom<br /> 100mm EF macro<br /> 10-22mm EF-S wide angle<br /> 430EX flash<br>

<br /> Not sure why I have it. I had high ambitions of using it. But every time I want to go out, the thought of dragging all this stuff with me turns me off. For the past 6 months I have been pondering getting rid of it all. Not sure yet. The one thing is for sure is I never like dragging this stuff around with me.<br>

<br /> I have nothing bad to say about the Canon, the camera or its lenses. The equipment works brilliantly and takes amazing pictures but taking all this stuff or even a piece of it is just like dragging around a millstone. I have a small pack that carries the body and one lens and no more. I also have a backpack that carries everything as well as a super light travel tripod but if I had to carry all this stuff I would drop a brick on my head. Its just too much stuff.<br>

<br /> When I had my G9, I would just pick it up and walk out the door with it. No fuss, no muss and even going on vacation it was like carrying nothing at all. I have always been drawn to the Leica's and their M mounts. It has always seemed like an elegant solution to photography. Especially the M9 with its full frame sensor. The body is not so large and neither are the lenses. But that being said the Leica's are way, way out of my budget.<br>

<br /> I am contemplating getting another camera - either one of the Fuji X-Mounts (X20, XE1/2 or X100S), Olympus OMD EM5, new Nikon Coolpix A compact or maybe a Sony NEX. I am not a pixel peeper and frankly I have realized that I don't need all this other "stuff". One primary lens and one ultra wide would do it for me or if it was all integrated that would work too.<br>

<br /> I know it sounds kind of stupid that I don't want to carry all this equipment and I feel somewhat foolish about whining about it. I do love taking pictures and I took the most pictures in my entire life when I had my G9. I am familiar with that saying that the best camera is the one you have with you. In terms of functionality I know that I do need a viewfinder (or at least the option of one) as well as the ability to control all the functionality so a point and shoot with no controls won't work.<br>

<br /> Would love to hear what others have to say about this. I can't be the only one thinking like this.</p>

<p>Hi John. I bought a Sony NEX-6 back in June and liked it so much that I sold off my Nikon DSLR and lenses. In addition to the NEX-6, I bought the 16-50 kit lens, the 55-210, and the 35mm (my walk around lens).<br>

I took everything to England with me in September and was very pleased with the smaller size and weight I carried around. I haven't regretted the changeover for one second.<br>

Happy shooting with whatever you decide to get!<br>

regards! cb :-)</p>

<p>I have reached the point with µ4/3 that I use my Nikon D7000 maybe once a year. I started downsizing with µ4/3, and haven't had any interest in the NEX or Fuji cameras, because they have APS-C sensors and the same sized lenses as an APS-C DLSR. Between Olympus and Panasonic, the native lens line is more extensive than either Sony or Fuji. Since Olympus came out with the the E-M1, the E-M5 has been dropping in price and will probably drop more early next year when the E-M5 replacement comes out.</p>

<p>Concerning photography, I have always been interested primarily in the idea of having equipment with the best balance of capturing everyday life in the highest quality possible. That has always meant that it had to be compact but uncompromising in quality. Compact and quality are both subjective terms, and different people find their own balance.<br>

BTW, my first camera was also a Kodak 110 Instamatic perhaps similar to yours. My next camera when I was about 10 years old was a Pentax K100 with a 50 f2 lens: quite a step up, but I was ready. My Dad was a photographer. I guess my point is that in film cameras I found the Rollei 35 with good film in it to be a fantastic small and quality unit because the lenses available on the various versions were very good and stopped down to 5.6 you got simply fantastic results for a landscape while camping or a street scape while clubbing for that matter. But even in film I suppose I found a Leica CL with a good Leica lens on it to be an even better size to performance relationship.<br>

My point is that DSLRs have no place in this contest for me. That is assuming that really good focus tracking is not needed. If you need that then the dslr has to remain in the discussion. If you don't, then forget the dslr.<br>

Lately I use a Sony NEX 5n with the external 2.5 million pixel EVF and the $200 but absolutely superb Sigma 30 2.8 lens which is equivalent on the APS sensor 5n to a 45 mm lens from 35mm film. I don't think this combo can be beaten. I sometimes want a wider lens for my normal lens, and sometimes I want a little longer lens for normal. In the end, this kind of "normal" is so supremely useful. The lens is rather plasticky. I mainly use it in manual focus mode, and when you squeeze the focus ring, if you are not gentle you can compress it and constrain its ability to turn. I've never seen such a combination of only decent materials and physical criteria in such a thing whose performance is beyond reproach. The lens performance is simply stunning. Read up on it. I don't think you can much surpass this outfit at any price for size and performance. It is very very small. I think you can get the body for about $450, and that would be for the 5r or 5t successor now that are essentially the same as the 5n but with a control dial now. The EVF is now about $250, but it is really good/excellent, and I've already described the lens at $200. I know that is $900, but now you have what you need. Yes, a Fuji 100s is similar, but it is more money at $1200 and you can't mount other lenses when you want. The Nikon Coolpix A is very nice but has no EVF and you can't change the lenses either, and those are both huge issues. The other Fuji interchangeable lens bodies that have EVF options or built-in are bigger and so is Sony's own Nex 6. The micro four thirds camera sensors just are not quite as good as the recent 5 series Sony aps sensors.<br>

I should mention that before the Sony 5n I was mainly a Leica M6 and Nikon FM3a film camera user. I use my manual focus Leica M and Nikon lenses on the 5n with adapters with excellent results, but I use that little cheap Sigma in Sony e mount most of all. There is always room for improvement however.<br>

I love the idea of the full frame Sony A7 and A7r. If they could jam that sensor into a little 5 series body, which I think they can, and then allow the attachment of my wonderful little EVF then we have something even more special. Keep in mind I never use flash with the 5n because the EVF is in the only port on the camera that is also needed if you want to connect a flash. The 5n isn't really a "professional" camera. Neither was a Rollie 35 or Leica CL or Minox or any of the other outstanding small cameras that could yet yield "professional" resulting images when loaded with the best film. <br /> Some of my friends insist that for their everyday needs they are satisfied with the high quality point and shoots like the Sony RX 100 or Panasonic LX7. The only benefit of those little cameras over the Sigma 30 2.8 option I described is the zoom lens. You really can't put either in a blue jean pocket anyway so what is the point? Those little cameras can't compare in low light performance. Well, some of those folks have expensive dslrs, and the fact that the Sony 5 series with the right lens is just about as good is disturbing to them I guess. I have friends (about 3) that insist that their D600/800e is so good that they have to have it for "serious" things but they contend that their RX100 or Pani LX7 is "good enough" for Christmas morning and candid park trips and such. I don't understand this thinking at all. I have pictures of my daughter when she was less than 5 (she is 5 now) at the grocery store, getting her first hair cut, at a car dealership, and in all kinds of places in very high quality. <br>

Ultimately I guess my friends don't embrace the small quality concept because I think they want to take some kind of artistic technical masterpieces at the absolute uttermost quality and then they also need photos as memory markers with no effort at all. I like to combine the two ideas.</p>

<p>You really enjoyed the G9. Why not just get the most current generation of that camera, the G16, and get on with your life taking pictures and having fun?</p>

<p>Yep, I've mostly used compact digicams and film cameras for the past couplafew years and enjoy photography more. I actually have a camera with me everywhere I go and take more of the kinds of photos I enjoy. Whether it's candid photos of people I meet, or more deliberately composed photos of static subjects that catch my eye, I don't often feel I'm missing anything by relying on small P&S and mirrorless system cameras.</p>

<p>And everything fits into either a small waist bag or a small shoulder bag that can double as a belt bag to get the weight off my shoulder and neck when the grumblies set in after a long day.</p>

<p>I still occasionally use the old bulky dSLR around the house. It's still useful for some stuff. I have several lenses and a very good TTL flash. The resale value of the dSLR is next to nothing so it's more sensible to keep it even for only occasional use.</p>

<p>But I can't imagine toting a dSLR again unless a manufacturer mimics Sony and squeezes a full frame sensor into a small body - nothing larger or heavier than a classic Olympus OM-1.</p>

<p>The G16 is a really nice camera and would probably meet your needs nicely, as would the G15 which is selling for very nice prices at present. These are both very nice cameras. I have become very fond of the EOS M which is as small (body only) as your G9 but it has the same size sensor as your Rebel. It has its downsides to be sure, but in use the positives outweigh these negatives, at least for me. The image quality is superb as is the build quality. There are better mirrorless systems out there for sure, but as I said, the IQ is superb and ultimately, I want a compact body that delivers the same IQ as my dslr. What may also make the M attractive to you (besides its low price) is that with the Canon adapter you can also use your existing Canon lenses on the M if you ever choose to. Also consider the SL1 which is tiny but still a complete dslr that gives you all of the benefits of a dslr in a very compact and lightweight body.</p>

<p>If you liked the G9, consider the Canon G1X. It's similar to the G9 but has a large proper sensor instead of the tiny comedy ones used in the rest of the G series line. The sensor is actually larger than that of the micro 4/3rds cameras such as the OM-D. The G1X offers excellent high ISO performance and lovely clean images from its 14 megapixel sensor. The built in 28-112mm zoom also opens up to f/2.8 at the wide end which isn't bad for a 4x zoom. It also has a built in optical viewfinder which is something the mirrorless system cameras don't offer.</p>

<p>It's a good all in one solution with great image quality for your pocket.</p>

<p>Canon now makes a tiny DSLR which you might consider since you still have the EOS lenses.</p>

<p>I've been itching to ditch my D7000 and bag of heavy lenses for something much smaller and portable. I do work as a part time photojournalist and get called for assignments here and there. The pay sucks and the assignments are sporadic.....used to be once a week, now maybe once a month. It's the only reason I'm keeping the dSLR....for now. Since I live in the NYC area, I often walk around Manhattan and every time I want to bring the dSLR, I've got to use a small shoulder sack, and after hours of walking around, you really feel the weight and the clumsiness of it all. Even when I take off the battery/vertical grip, it's still not a camera that you can wear around your neck all day, so whenever you see something interesting, you've got to pull it out of the bag, start it up, take the cap off......the moment you were going to capture is usually gone.</p>

<p><br /><br />On the other hand, so what? Henri Bresson never fretted about missing shots.....I believe he said something to the effect of "there's always another shot to get", so what's the big deal anyway about pulling out the dSLR from the bag. I think as photography pros and enthusiasts, we're always thinking we're going to miss the "money" shot, when in fact, some of the best photos that I personally like were artistic shots of static objects, juxtapositions of shapes and colors that were striking, ordinary things made beautiful where 3D AF tracking and 10fps were the last things you would ever need. I guess it all depends on what type of photography you want to do.</p>

<p>I know the last time I went to Europe, I told myself that I will absolutely take a smaller camera and leave the dSLR monster at home. I've also shot nothing but film in past European trips and that was the most fun I had. How often do we even look at all our vacation photos from years past? Does it matter if there's a little noise in your photos due to the smaller sensor in the compacts? If you make 5 x7 prints from a compact and show someone, are they really going to notice, providing the composition and light are interesting enough?</p>

<p>I do have a Leica D-LUX 5 which I will use when I travel again. I also have an M5 and 35mm 'Cron. To tell you the God's honest truth.....I think shooting film is still the best way to go with any photography. You will take less pictures which makes post much easier and pleasant, you'll think about light, color, and composition much more before pressing the shutter, the 35mm film "sensor" is the equivalent of roughly 30-40 mega pixels, you don't have to constantly recharge the batteries, and lastly......you might actually enjoy yourself more wherever you are with whomever you're with. Something to think about.</p>

<p>BTW, I wanted to add that what I don't like about compacts is that I don't like zooming with a little lever on the top of the camera. I also absolutely need a viewfinder, optical or electronic, I don't care.<br />My personal requirements in a compact camera has led to my interest in the Nikon 1 V2. I like the little zoom lenses, it has a viewfinder, and you can put an external flash on it too. If anyone has any experience with these cameras, I'd like to know what you think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"On the other hand, so what? Henri Bresson never fretted about missing shots.....I believe he said something to the effect of "there's always another shot to get", so what's the big deal anyway about pulling out the dSLR from the bag."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That may be true for hunter-gatherer candid/street photographers, or folks who can plan out each session. But it wouldn't work for me. I do a lot of personal family documentary photography, hoping to use some photos for hospital fundraisers. My style depends on capturing fleeting moments. I don't have time to fish a camera out of a bag and ask people to recreate a moment. I always have a compact camera at hand - two on my desk right in front of me at the moment. Whenever I'm attending medical appointments with family members I almost always have a small camera in my hand, turned on and ready to use in an instant.</p>

<p>Up until 2005 I typically carried compact film cameras, like the Olympus 35 RC and XA3. In 2005 I tried the dSLR route for awhile to document the life of a newborn family member who was born with a serious heart defect. After a year I switched back to smaller cameras.</p>

<p>And now, whether for personal documentary photography or candid/street photos, the dSLR rarely leaves the house. I've used it exactly twice outside the house since 2010: once in 2010 to photograph an annual street fair; once in early 2013 for some maternity photos - half of which I did with a Nikon V1. I preferred the results from the smaller V1. It's easier to manipulate higher, lower, or off to the side for spontaneous photos. If I could afford a Ricoh GR with the APS sensor I'd add that to the bag of tricks. I have an older Ricoh GX100 and while the ergonomics and controls are excellent, the best of any small digicam I've tried, the IQ is pretty poor above ISO 100, as noise escalates quickly even at 200. The GRD4 has much better high ISO performance, as does Nikon's 1 system CX sensor, but neither can match the overall IQ of an APS sensor.</p>

<p>The APS sensor compact cameras may be the sweet spot for a compromise between genuinely compact cameras and image quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"My personal requirements in a compact camera has led to my interest in the Nikon 1 V2. I like the little zoom lenses, it has a viewfinder, and you can put an external flash on it too. If anyone has any experience with these cameras, I'd like to know what you think."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been using the Nikon V1 for a year, and recently added the little SB-N5 flash. It's a very good system for my purposes. The AF speed and overall quickness are excellent. The IQ strikes a reasonable compromise between tiny sensor 1/1.7" P&S digicams and larger APS sensor cameras. The EVF is handy, although in actual practice I find myself using the rear screen most of the time - once I adapted to it I found it a bit quicker for spontaneous photos.</p>

<p>The V2 appears to have resolved some of the nagging quirks of the V1 - particularly the annoying controls. It's too easy to inadvertently nudge the mode dial and spinning wheel. The latter limits its usefulness for full manual exposure control, which assigns aperture control to the spinning wheel - any contact with my thumb or palm tends to nudge the aperture. To compensate I have to rely on auto ISO to avoid severe under/over-exposure. But while I've adapted to the V1's quirks, the V2 appears to be a better camera overall.</p>

<p>My primary gripe about the Nikon 1 System is that it still fails to take full advantage of Nikon's existing CLS/iTTL flash. I'd hoped to be able to use my existing Nikon SB-800 flash with CLS control for off-camera TTL use, but Nikon failed to ensure full compatibility with the Nikon 1 System and Coolpix A.</p>

<p>Other than those quirks, it's a satisfying camera. The AF is very quick, overall response is very quick, it's absolutely silent with the electronic shutter, and overall beats any tiny sensor P&S digicam. But don't compare it against a Micro 4:3 mirrorless camera - the CX sensor isn't in that class, other perhaps than at the base ISO 100.</p>

<p>Two years ago when heading to Asia for a month I added a Olympus E-PL1 with kit lens to my lineup of Nikon DSLRs and liked it so much that the Nikons see less and less action. Yes, I still use my DSLR for sports, but for the rest of my photos I bought an OM-D E-M1 and love it. The entire kit from 7 mm to 100 mm fits into a fanny pack. Quite a difference from my Nikon gear, which takes up the better part of a backpack. I am looking forward to trying out the E-M1 in Iceland this summer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... fits into a fanny pack</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just a warning, if you ever say that in England you will get arrested :-)</p>

<p>I would like to concur with almost every point that Mark Amos made. I, too, will not be moving to bigger sensors but either staying with the NEX system or moving to the Micro 4/3 system (or both).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the 35mm film "sensor" is the equivalent of roughly 30-40 mega pixels</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't agree, Thomas. It's more like 24Mpx (from Ektar 100). However, film gives better colour images than digital does. Not in terms of accuracy or resolution, but in terms of rendering (digital is too harsh when challenged). I will still be using digital more, even though I"ll still be shooting film, but that's another story. I do now own a Minox 35 and I might... maybe... buy a Leica M4. Or two.</p>

<p>I'm moving the other way. Selling my Nikons and buying medium format digital stuff.<br>

Too slow to capture the decisive moment? Sometimes, yes. But I tend to shoot form, color and texture, so not a great concern, given my peculiar style.<br>

Too big and heavy, you say? I'm 72 and I've carried a 20 pound gadget bag around most of my life. Quit whimpering!<br>

And when it comes to making the large prints that I love, it's no contest. (See gallery wall pix, attached.) </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>After only using film for many years, I am trying digital since a few years. To get a compact camera on holliday and to avoid the darkroom.<br>

I used a Nikon P7000 for a few years, a Leica Digilux, and now I use Olympus FT and MFT.<br>

I am pleased with the results of digital and print up to A3 with the Olympus MFT. But that is the limit for the equipment & the small sensor. The main advantage for me is that I can use the digital workflow and print in a spare moment.<br>

I can print bigger with 35 mm and much bigger with 120. Maybe film is better but than I have to use the darkroom and that is time consuming. I often use film and scan the images. But a good scan takes several minutes per image. Direct digital is faster.</p>

<p>I went through a similar soul searching experience recently. I have a Nikon D600 that I love, I took it on a recent trip to Paris, but I've felt it was just too big to carry around at [nearly] all times for those spontaneous photographic opportunities. </p>

<p>I looked seriously at both the Canon G16 and the Nikon P7800. The Canon just didn't "feel good" in my hands and I hated its viewfinder (having a viewfinder was very high on my list as was RAW, good image quality, and size). The Nikon P7800 looked like a good candidate until I read reports about how slow it was in saving images (especially RAW). I then stumbled across the Sony NEX6 and almost immediately fell in love. Size was OK (a bit larger than my original hope), but it offered full control, RAW, a decent EVF, and a large sensor that I had gotten used to with recent DSLRs.<br>

<br />I got it with the kit 16-50 zoom but have replaced the lens with the Sony 35mm f/1.8 that I really enjoy. I'm not going to sell my DSLR -- I still will need it for serious birding, nature photography, macro, etc. However, I expect to get many miles from the NEX because it will be with me nearly all the time.</p><div></div>

<p>Harvey, give that lens a clean for God's sake. Stuff like that makes me lose sleep :-)</p>

<p>I use the D700 and D800 for my professional work. A few years ago, I picked up a Sony Nex 5n (rented a couple of times first) with the 18-200 lens. Over several family vacations I will take either a D700 or D800 with the Sony Nex 5n. Once home, the pictures are reviewed by my wife and other family members and ranked. I always look at the number of pictures taken with each camera type vs the percentage of pictures taken with each camera type that survive the review/selection process. I have describe these results on a couple of different blogs<br>

http://www.e2photo.net/blog/sony-nex-5n.html<br>

http://www.e2photo.net/blog/safari-in-south-africa.html<br>

In all cases the percentage of pictures that survive the review process favor the Sony Nex 5n camera type slightly. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is related to how the different bodies are used. The Sony is a walk around camera and so I tend to get many more spontaneous pictures with it (The best camera in the world is the one that you have with you!) The larger camera bodies are used for high speed photography and/or HDR so there tend to be lots of frames for finding/constructing the final single picture. Nonetheless, the Sony competes very well with much larger and heavier DSLR for this type of application.<br>

Caveats:<br>

1. As amount of light decreases, eventually the D700-D800 will out perform the Sony in terms of digital noise.<br>

2. The Sony does not have the breath of lighting capabilities afforded to the D700-D800 so if you are going to need to add light, the Sony is less capable.<br>

3. I have found that in bright light, the Sony back screen is very difficult to see. <br>

4. The Sony plus lens is not terribly small, but pretty easy to use.<br>

Given this learning experience, I have been looking for a mirrorless camera that provides for a great EVF and flash control capability along with great image quality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had a t2i and spent too much time renting mirrorless cameras: the X100s; the NEX cameras; even the RX-1. They're all great cameras. I eventually went with the Olympus OM-D because I couldn't see the difference in image quality between the X100s and the OM-D with the 17mm f 1.8 lens. The lens selection is much better and less expensive than the NEX lenses (right now, anyway). The in-body stabilization is much more useful than I'd imagined.<br>

The good news is that there are few if any "bad" choices. </p>

<p>Sorry, Jamie. I know I should not have posted that shot. How's this? Not perfect, but better.</p>

<p>Happy New Year</p><div></div>

<p>Oh, lord, fix the chromatic aberration around the Sony logo or I won't be able to sleep! And do your nails. A little moisturizer on those hands wouldn't hurt either. It's winter, you know. Hurry, before I lose any more sleep!</p>

<p>CA? I used some green magic marker around the logos to give them color. Moisturizer? Can't you see the improvement between the first and second shots? Nails? I'm a guitarist. If these don't work, please take two doses of Photoshop and call me in the morning. :-)</p>