Mirrorless w/Viewfinder

[tony_m]

<p>OK call me anal but after using film SLRs for 40 years and 74 year old eyes, I'm lost without a viewfinder. Looking for recommendations for a mirrorless with viewfinder which, hopefully, won't break the bank. Is there anything available in the $400.00 range?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If you can accept an electronic viewfinder rather than optical, your best bet in that price range is a new/old stock, refurbished or used Nikon V1. Bought mine new for $300 with the 10-30 VR kit zoom last year and really enjoy it. Mostly I use it like a P&S on steroids - it's very quick. I'm planning to add the 18.5/1.8 "normal" lens and flash.</p>

<p>But the V1 prices shot back up after than and even the refurbs and used models seem to run just over $300. Still worthwhile.</p>

<p>Don't count on easy use of manual focus lenses with the Nikon V1 EVF. There are no focus aids, no focus confirmation. I manage with my 56 y/o eyes, but I prefer autofocus now. The Nikon 1 System cameras have outstanding AF- quick and accurate.</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Panasonic G5, NOS or lightly used.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I use the electronic viewfinder (VF-2) on my Olympus E-PL2...the package + 14-42mm lens was a refurb at around $300 in January. I use mostly legacy lenses instead of the zoom. The same viewfinder (rebranded) is used on the new Leica body.</p>

[philip_wilson]

If you want to go with film camera lenses then you need a larger sensor. the Nikon 1 bodies are pretty much useless due

to their small sensor which gives a 2.7x effective focal length (so your 21mm wide angle now has the angle of view of a

standard lens). Of the rest then m4/3 has a number of options with a built in or added EVF from both Panasonic and

Olympus or you can look at the Sony. NEX range - although here it might be hard to find a body and viewfinder in your

budget. The Fuji x1 pro bodies are excellent but out of you price range. As Lex said if you just want a compact digital

body with AF at a low price ( and do not want to use legacy lenses) the Nikon 1 series is hard to beat for the price.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Depends on what you like to photograph. For candid pix I just use the V1 and 10-30 kit zoom. But for the rare occasions when I photograph critters the 1-inch CX sensor's 2.7x factor is handy for stretching out even the modest 105mm f/2.5 AI and 180/2.8 Nikkors. I may have been too hasty last year in selling my 300/4.5 AI Nikkor, which I'd rarely used since it didn't get enough of a boost from the DX sensor's 1.5x factor. Smaller sensors do have some advantages, including plenty of DOF even at f/2.8-4. Again, it just depends on what you like to photograph and whether you prefer shallow DOF or everything more or less in focus.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>There is one thing in the digital age and that is you do not have to manual focus and depending on the camera and the size of the focus target area you can use it to focus quickly and surely pretty much the way you focused with your film camera. Pick the spot, place the target on it, and press the trigger halfway down to tell the camera set itself up on that spot ... continue to hold HT and re-frame for the shot you want ... takes much longer to type that than to do it :-)</p>

<p> In my experience there are two camera with adjustable 'target areas' whic enable me to use the nice and smallest for precision. The cameras do have focusing modes which pick items in the view they think Iwould want to focus on but I prefer to decide myself using a single focus area.</p>

<p>The cameras are the Panasonic G and GH models ... the GH is probably above your budget* but the G should fit. I am talking about second hand models here but if you buy from a reputable source you probably will not notice much difference from New .. B&H, KEH, Adorama ... I have bought from the first two. That includes a basic kit lens with equivlanet of 28-84mm zoom lens.... if you have SLR lenses an adaptor could cost you about $20 [ MFT to M42 ] but although I do it occasionally manual operation is a PITB.</p>

<p>I am 82 next month and been using EVFs for the past decade and consider them superior as a means to see what I am taking to any alternative. If you cannot get MFT[ Micro Four thirds] then with your budget I would suggest a Panasonic FZ model... there are two basic sizes and I used the 'large' FZ20-30-50 until finally changing to MFT and way back was very glad lack of finance steered me away from a DSLR to the bridge or 'super-zoom' camera when I stopped using my SLR ... they do have some limitations but there are so many things to photograph they never bothered me ... whatever camera you get will have limitations. </p>

<p>I changed from using a heavy bag of SLR and half a dozen lenses for a beautiful compact and light camera could do almost everything my SLR bag could do and better. The camera is still with me a Nikon 5700 and in occasional use after nearly a decade.</p>

<p>*Slightly above <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1K-12-1MP-Thirds-Interchangeable/dp/B001WAKSCW/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1385018961&sr=1-2&keywords=panasonic+gh1">http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1K-12-1MP-Thirds-Interchangeable/dp/B001WAKSCW/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1385018961&sr=1-2&keywords=panasonic+gh1</a></p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Another thing about digital worth mentioning is that while the camera may feel like breaking the bank the running costs are negligable if you use a computer to view rather than prints.<br>

When I got that 5700 mentioned above I took more photos in the first five months than in the previous 20 years with the SLRs :-) The camera was paid for and back then cameras 'cost' like NZ$2500 for that camera and $2200 for the Canon P&S it replaced.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>costs are negligable if you use a computer to view rather than prints</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />If that's all you're doing, you might as well use a 1.3MP camera from 15 years ago!</p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<p>Tony, you didn't tell us a lot about your context, but if I understand well you want to move to digital, mirrorless (possibly because of lightweight) and still keeping the pleasure of photography where you are in full control - that is, not just "point and shoot and share immediately to Facebook". For comparison, I'm 43, I've been shooting for 15 years with Nikon SLR (digital for 13 years) and I'm evaluating the mirrorless world because of my back pain that is requiring to carry along less and less weight, but I want to keep on with the good practices: viewfinder, full control of shutter and aperture, manual focus when needed.<br /> In the past weeks I've run through a deep evaluation of mirrorless systems on the given premises. My list of candidates were the following ones:</p>

<ul>

<li>Olympus OM-D E-M5 (780€)</li>

<li>Olympus OM-D E-M1 (1200€)</li>

<li>Panasonic DMC-GH3 (1170€)</li>

<li>Fujifilm X-E2 (850€)</li>

<li>Sony NEX-5R (800€ with an accessory EVF)</li>

<li>Sony NEX-6 (610€)</li>

</ul>

<p>Prices are roughly evaluated from Amazon Italy (so they are in euro), you might find some discount or rebate in your country, but I fear that for new equipment you don't reach your target price. The thing that comes closer is the NEX-6. <br /> From that list I've then chosen to buy the NEX-6 also after an evaluation of lenses, thinking of what I'd like to replace in my current Nikon system (curiously enough, the Olympus/Panasonic offerings in this area aren't lighter than my current equiment, while Sony is).<br /> Lenses evaluation is quite hard because of abundance, as Olympus/Panasonic have the larger catalog of products, including some excellent pieces, Fujifilm is less complete, but very good to excellent in quality, and Sony being the weaker one, but with a few very good lenses starting to be available since this year (and they just announced an agreement with Olympus/Zuiko for new products): so there's plenty of choice and there's not a single parameter to choose a system.<br /> Be aware that the EVF is not as good as an optical one yet - it's very close and in my opinion is very usable, it has also some advantages (such the capability of viewing 1:1 crops for manual focus) and in my opinion EVF is future, but there are still artifacts that might disturb. I'm talking after the experience with the NEX-6 which is reputed to have a top quality EVF. I think all residual problems will go away in 1-2 years, after which the EVF will probably be superior to OVF in almost all aspects, but at the moment we're still in the middle of the transition.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Why mirrorless? Buy yourself a cheap DSLR. They are cheaper, generally handle better than the tiny mirrorless cameras and also include the optical viewfinder you are already accustomed to. The entry models are also lightweight and will probably offer better or at least equivalent image quality to any mirrorless camera in the same price bracket.</p>

[tony_m]

<p>Thanks to all for the advice. I'll research all models suggested and also consider an inexpensive DSLR.<br>

PS: Found a used Panasonic Lumix G5 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera with Lumix G Vario 14-42mm Lens at B&H Photo for $290.00. Any thoughts?</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>The point is that the optical viewfinder is NOT the finder he is used to but a useless token put there for people who cannot learn new tricks such as how to use AF properly LOL and are fortunate to have a camera with good tools to do it as Panasonic provide in the G and GH. I forsoke Nikon for Panasonic and they have not left me in the lurch.<br>

G5 at B&H .... I would say GO FOR IT :-) You will find it is vastely superior to some old and ancient DSLR of the same price. In digital terms old and ancient is three to five years old :-)<br>

I changed from the G to the GH becuase I enjoy having controls on the outside of the camera instead of going into menus though the G has the esentials on the outside.<br>

While the 1.3Mp camera may be suitable for computer viewing the 16Mp and what comes with it gives you greater flexibility ... but I agree the computer screen is a great leveller :-)<br>

LOL I changed from bridge to MFT two years ago and recently I am going to physio for back pains ... I know of course there is no connection :-)</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Further on the G5 .. visited B&H and they have two others with a better grade for over $300 which you might feel happier with but searching KEH there seemed to be an abundance of offerings there except they sell body and lens separately.</p>

[tony_m]

<p>Thanks JC Uknz. Learning new tricks isn't the problem. Learning with old eyes is. I do appreciate your Panasonic input especially reminding me that there are two other Gs listed with better grades. I 'll probably go for the 9+.<br>

Since so many new mirrorless do not include any for of finder, how do you am/pros handle bright days, beach scenes etc. without a finder?</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>Since so many new mirrorless do not include any for of finder, how do you am/pros handle bright days, beach scenes etc. without a finder?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>We struggle. After looking through a friend's electronic viewfinder last year I knew I had to have one so I bought the optional VF-2 finder for my Olympus E-PL5. It has transformed the camera.<br>

Seriously, the only <strong>major</strong> benefit mirrorless has over a DSLR is size. Even the weight isn't much different when comparing them to the smaller consumer DSLRs. You get a lot more for your money with a cheap DSLR and that includes a viewfinder for a start :-)</p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<p>The viewfinder is important not only when you're in bright light, but also because it allows you to have a better and immersive preview of the photo - in particular, I appreciate the fact that some mirrorless cameras sport a viewfinder magnification larger than 1. This facilitates composition and inspection of the borders for a better framing.<br>

The weight of good mirrorless combos is actually not that different that you'd expect, but it also depends on the camera and lens. Sony equipment tend to be actually lighter in some combinations, for instance a NEX-6 plus two lenses in the range 10-70mm and a 30mm normal (which is my basic set for landscape) is almost 40% lighter than a Nikon D5100 plus equivalent lenses (both in the focal range and quality - indeed, probably better quality).<br>

I any case, Tony, I think that the Lumix G5 is a good choice, and it sounds you've found a very good price.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I don't struggle becuase I have not bought a camera without a viewfinder [ except for a cheap Sports 'fun camera' [[Go-Pro alternative]] the other day ] While the fully articulated LCD is useful on occasions I mainly use it as a way to view the menus without putting on my reading glasses. Occaasionally have used it for high or low angle shots. All my current cameras have fully articulated LCDs and I would look sideways at anything with a fixed or just a folding LCD.<br />The EVF is of course adjusted for my eyesight ....pre-cateract operations days I once was working in persistant drizzle so I corrected the EVF for my sans-glasses eyesight and kept the camera mainly under a plastic coverall with glasses in my pocket. I am fortunate that my eyes have never been THAT bad.<br>

My rig is about half the weight of a DSLR equivalent ... GH2 with Lumix 14-140 [x10 zoom as I wanted a larger sensor 'bridge camera'] and about the size/weight of a NEX with kit lens or an SLR with a short zoom. I had the lens on my G3 originally after finding the 14-42 kit lens very restrictive after being used to the x12 zoom of my bridge cameras .... you can become addicted to reach :-) which I use to save my old legs rather than for artistic reasons of perspective.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>If you can still pass a driver's license test you won' t have any trouble managing the electronic viewfinder. I have been happy with Panasonic Lumix and that price you quoted is a steal for what is a well spec'd camera. Try it and see. If you can't see, sell it or put it in some grandkid's stocking.....good luck. I use a GH2 Lumix and am planning to buy the latest water resistant Olympus which allegedly has the latest pixel plenty EVF. EVF's are the coming thing. I kid you not. I do not print lately but I still crop and want sufficient pixels and good rendering and low distortion and a lens that will allow low light indoor shooting. And a half dozen other qualities, like small and light but with a solid gripping chamber.....the and ability to make a print if I get lucky in my result.....mirrorless models are getting there fast....Computer screens are getting sharper all the time. And TV screens will soon be 4K across. Go for what feels good if you can try one out or get return privileges, which is nice and worth the return cost. I sent back a 1400 camera because I did not like the feel and the menu structure. And took the 60 buck fees as part of the process, why not. You save all I mean all the packing and junk.....<br>

And some new mirrorless have add on grips for vertical shots. Just like the big old Canon guys.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I find the VF-2 good as a finder but rather disconcerting sticking up on top of the camera when all my other cameras have the VF as part of the body... it works ... well ... but doesn't feel right for me. I am using it on my Olympus e-PL1 which cost less than the Vf as a body only deal to use my legacy lenses ... currently carrying a x2 telephoto converter behind a Tokina 90-230 f/4 to give me 920mm AoV rig :-) One of the advantages of contrast detection AF is they are happy to work in any light so long as there is some contrast to detect :-) Though of course I have to manual focus this rig.</p><div></div>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously, the only <strong>major</strong> benefit mirrorless has over a DSLR is size. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the benefit that was most aggressively marketed. But it is not the main benefit. To not repeat myself in each thread, <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2012/12/mirrorless-technology.html">I wrote a post on what makes mirrorless cameras special and the next evolutionary stage for photographic equipment</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since so many new mirrorless do not include any for of finder, how do you am/pros handle bright days, beach scenes etc. without a finder?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My first MILC did not had an EVF. On bright days, I could not see the image on the LCD with full contrast, but I could still see enough detail to focus manually. Here's a <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2011/12/vacation-with-one-prime-lens.html">post about a vacation I did with it using just one prime lens</a>. Even when I have an EVF, I still use the LCD for some shots - it only becomes very challenging once you have to use very long lenses, because stabilization while using the LCD is tricky.</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>Ever since for financial reasons I was saved from exchanging my SLR for a DSLR by an early bridge camera I have felt that it was the camera type that digital brought us. It was a great camera if only 5Mp .... Nikon 5700 .... and is still with me and used from time to time.<br>

Unfortunately the small sensor size places limitation on a serious user with regard to ISO and cropability and after waiting several years for this to be rectified ... but no ... R&D went to longer and longer zoom lenses. Plus after designing a static lens Panasonic FZ30/50 they started tromboning and seriously loosing aperture with the zoom. The FZ20 and the latest FZ200 have constant.<br>

So I have added MFT to my stable of Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic with a Pany GH and for my legacy lenses an Olympus E-PL1. But to preserve the 'bridge' camera feel I have the 14-140 lens for the GH2. It is good to have a relatively modern ILC and it makes my DSLR redundant [ purchased eventually purely so I could use extension tubes and bellows from film days] with the zoom range [reach] of the Nikon 5700 and a bit wider which I never missed but quite enjoy now I have it.<br>

So the concept of the single lens [bridge] with MFT seems to me to be what digital has brought me and others if they follow or preceeded me :-)<br>

I see a problem with modern photography with the extreme pre-occupation on technical excellence and seemingly little attention to subject matter and tools to capture it. Probably inevitable with digital as it is largely an electronic medium with technicians ruling the roost.<br>

The best combine both but there is a huge horde of soul-less technicians.</p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<p>You're right about the concerns of the latest paragraph; some wrote that in this era people is more fascinated by the question "does it work?" rather than "is it good/bad, does it look good/bad?". So, I agree that we shouldn't be obsessed but technical questions.<br>

But consider a detail of the thing: we're going to spend big bucks in equipment and good equipment is not cheap as it happens for other technological fields, such as computers or tablets. So, before spending 1.000€ in a lens, boys I want to be reasonably sure it's worth it. After buying it, and evaluating it, I'll give the IQ thing a much lower priority. </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I would suggest in the politest manner possible that if you spend 1000E upwards on a lens then you are thinking technical but if you spend perhaps a third of that on a zoom lens you are more likely to be thinking about photography .... I know it is quite possibly not the best but it is the tool I want for my photography and the difference between them is in the last 1% or even 5% so the viewer if they are not technically inclined will accept the lesser image as good becuase it is a good photograph whereas perhaps not with the better lens.</p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<p>Note that sometimes you have little choices, if no choices at all. For instance, I've spent (roughly) 1.000€ only twice so far: for the AF-S 12-24mm f/4 and the AF-S 300mm f/4. The former, in 2004 when I bought it, was simply the only wide angle for the Nikon DX cameras (at the time there were no alternatives such as Sigma or Tokina). The latter was and for many aspects is the only reasonably not too expensive solution for wildlife (not worse than f/4, accepts teleconverters, it has fast AF, etc).<br /> Again, should I confirm my choice for the Sony E-mount, the only lens available in the range for my workhorse landscape photography is the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4. The 200€ Sony 16-50mm is too short and IQ not good enough for my needs; I'm not asking for stellar optics and I'd be fine with an intermediate offering between the 16-50 and the 16-70, say, at 400€/500€, but there's none. I can accept to buy the Zeiss, so, but it must be worth that value.</p>