Time for another change ?

Hello!

I missed from the forum for several years , but not given up photography . I switched from DSRL to mirrorless mainly for reasons of volume and weight . I went in paralel with Sony nex3 + MF legacy lenses and Olympus EP-L1 +kit for AF.

I use also a Sony a5000 +16-50 in the last two years ,wich replaced the Oly in the last two years ,and is really small , light, and good in low light as I like , so not using very much in the last time the MF lenses . I don't like the WB auto from the a5000 and the lack of external classic wheels and buttons . The sensor is fine , i shoot frequently indoors in low light handheld ,so the 16mm is a fine focal to have .Anyway , the Sony lens lineup is not very promising for me .The faster and better lenses are rather pricey , and not what I'd like.,some of them not stabilised ( sigma19/2,8)

I noticed the evolution of the mft sensors and the design of the OM-D 10 mk2 Olys ,wich is closer to what I'd like ,but I don't know how fast they are .The lenses seem promising , fast and smaller (thinking of the Pana 15/1,7) . Not convinced though it wouldn't be somehow a side step ???

IMHO, Micro 4/3 is as much a professional/serious format as any other. Of course your ISO limit will be lower. For example, 6400 seems to be the maximum usable ISO for Micro 4/3, whereas 25,000 is as high as you will want to go with most other cameras.

 

Having said that, I don't think that I would want to be so obsessed with ISO or sensor size. I prefer to look at a system overall. The best hand-held camera that you can buy is the Hasselblad X1D, which is, amazingly, smaller than most DSLRs, even with a lens. (If anyone wants to talk image quality, ask them if they have an X1D or a Fuji GFX. If not, then they have made a compromise, just like most of us have). But you won't be shooting birds with it. So, not all cameras are good for all things.

 

Micro 4/3 has terrific features, such as high-res mode and superb sensor stabilization. And for long focal lengths, lenses are much smaller than for the 24x36 format.

 

I hope that my comments have been helpful. :-)

Try Fuji, in my opinion APS-C better than 4/3.

Seems to me the fuji are indeed great cameras , I have a X20and it feels incredible in hand ,excellend experience tp use it ,and performes better than I could believe a compact can do ,especially in low light. The lens /sensor/prcessor system are so well optimised that the f2allows to keep the iso up to 1600 no more . the small sensor allows a good depth of field and prevents unwanted out of focus areas when using mostly f2-2,8

 

The apsc fujis are a bigger in volume and the zoom lenses seem not so compact than the mft or as I'd want to ,even if I know they are great (the little X20 is my reference) .And seem pricier ...but nothing good is for free ....Maibe I'll look carefully to choose one or two primes if I can afford .

I studied a bit the Fuji system and it seems that despite the excellent build ,sensor and controls ,the AF in low light for the Xe1 wouldn't be so great? Or my info is wrong ?

Also , the lack of the stabilisation is not what I am looking for.

The lenses are not too many and they are big enough to bring the package to a volume close to a DSLR. Don't like this .,I look for something more pocketable (or close to )

 

So , I have the chance to go with the few primes they offer and are moderately fast 18mm f2 and the 23mm f2 maybe the 27mm f2 . But all are unstabilised ....Would they be enough to shoot static subjects in low light (night city scapes , indoor catheedrals......)? Or maybe a stabilised f3,5-4 is better for my shooting style ?

Fuji does not have in-body stabilization, but most of their zoom lenses do, so it should not be a big issue. In my opinion, stabilization is a big plus for lenses FF equivalent about 85mm and up, but below this, much less important. They certainly have the largest number and most rational line of specifically APS-designed lenses of any maker.

Fuji does not have in-body stabilization, but most of their zoom lenses do, so it should not be a big issue. In my opinion, stabilization is a big plus for lenses FF equivalent about 85mm and up, but below this, much less important. They certainly have the largest number and most rational line of specifically APS-designed lenses of any maker.

Thank you for your answer , Robin ! The zooms are large enough to look and feel unbalanced on the camera , wich applies also to some (not all) of the mft zooms , especially Panasonic I verified on the camerasize.com . And I look for something more compact.That's why I was referring at their primes

Have you tried them on the Fuji? You need to actually hold them. If in-body stabilization is an absolute requirement, then obviously no Fuji for you. I personally think though you would be cutting off your nose despite your face. Many of these apparently vital specs are actually not such a big deal in practice. Edited October 24, 2017 by Robin Smith

Have you tried them on the Fuji? You need to actually hold them. If in-body stabilization is an absolute requirement, then obviously no Fuji for you. I personally think though you would be cutting off your nose despite your face. Many of these apparently vital specs are actually not such a big deal in practice.

I am just searching in my EXIF datas to see the paramerers used when shooting handheld lowlight ....No , probably the stabilisation especially on wide lenses isn't so critical , but it helps to feel more confortable....

 

I see that the 18/2 lens isn't too much applauded in tests ,and probably I'd need it the most .And at 2,8 sharpness is clearly better in the 18-55 zoom wich is weird for a prime .

I began my sojourn into mirrorless photography with a NEX 7, which I bought used a few years ago. I'm still using the same camera, and I have been generally pleased with the results I've gotten with it. My plans are to upgrade to a Sony A7 II -- after considerable thought on the matter, I've decided that I don't really need all the extra resolution of the A7R or R II. I have found the NEX 7's 24.3 mp resolution to be plenty. I mean that's 6000 x 4000 pixels ya know. And the A7 II's resolution is the same. I am much more interested in the full frame capabilities of the A7 II and its in-body stabilization. Especially the latter since most of the time when I'm using my NEX 7, I'm shooting with manual focus lenses. This is a big reason why I bought my NEX -- because I have a large selection of MF lenses. And Sony's AF lenses are really expensive, which is a drawback for me. So I'm gonna stay the course and upgrade to the A7 II when finances permit.

The days when zooms were clearly inferior to primes has passed. Many of the current (<10-15 years old) are often better than older prime lenses from the film era: some are even better than modern primes. I assume this is due to greater computational power for lens design and the availability of more exotic glasses.

Fuji XE2 seems appealing to me second hand . I think I'll get one and a 16-50 II lens . I know that the 18-55 /2,8-4 is more applauded but I need more the 16 mm end .

What I don't know it is if the little Sony a5000 in night mode (3-4 exposures supraposed at 6400 ) is better than the xe2 at 6400

Teos, maybe the Sony has a better night mode, but if your subject is moving, this doesn't matter. The good thing about night mode is that you can hand-hold the camera, but your subject cannot move.

"I think I'll get one and a 16-50 II lens" teos.

 

Excellent lens you will not be disappointed.

Thank you for the feedback! Generally , my subjects are static ....boring , eh ? :) .But the little Sony feels less than a real camera than the Fuji , at least for me.It's me ,probably . It really is damn' small and light with the collapsible kit 16-50

I began my sojourn into mirrorless photography with a NEX 7, which I bought used a few years ago. I'm still using the same camera, and I have been generally pleased with the results I've gotten with it. My plans are to upgrade to a Sony A7 II -- after considerable thought on the matter, I've decided that I don't really need all the extra resolution of the A7R or R II. I have found the NEX 7's 24.3 mp resolution to be plenty. I mean that's 6000 x 4000 pixels ya know. And the A7 II's resolution is the same. I am much more interested in the full frame capabilities of the A7 II and its in-body stabilization. Especially the latter since most of the time when I'm using my NEX 7, I'm shooting with manual focus lenses. This is a big reason why I bought my NEX -- because I have a large selection of MF lenses. And Sony's AF lenses are really expensive, which is a drawback for me. So I'm gonna stay the course and upgrade to the A7 II when finances permit.

Of course , a stabilised FF body with legacy lenses is ideal . But can't afford one , and over that ,I prefer something small+light