Mirrorless Camera for Documentary Photography

[clive_murray_white]

<p>A documentary photographer friend has just asked me for some advice about mirrorless cameras and since moving from Leica M and Olympus E-3 to Nikon D800 I've lost touch with 4/3s etc.</p>

<p>I guess many of you are dual system shooters and may have good opinions about which mirrorless system to recommend. I do have a Fuji X100 which takes very nice pictures, is great in low light, is a bit clunky to use and of course only has a fixed 35mm equiv lens - I'm guessing but the competition is really only between Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus and Sony isn't it? </p>

[andylynn]

It depends what your friend wants. Fuji has an old school feel and some amazing lenses. Sony has a ton of features and

full frame available. Olympus and Panasonic have smaller sensors but a good lens selection and some of the higher end

models have very good AF.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate PN forum for this broad question</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except maybe the "Mirrorless Digital Cameras" one: http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/ ?</p>

<p>Can't add anything more to what Andy said - it's too broad a question. It appears your friend isn't a photographic novice and hence likely has things in mind he would like to see in a system?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Just checked with Clive. I am moving the thread to the Mirrorless Forum. Apparently he overlooked that.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>thanks everyone - so here we are in the Mirrorless Forum now, and I'll be searching through other similar posts but all opinions are most welcome.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I thought I should add a few helpful things about the photographer and how she goes about her work, most of the work she receives is from such places as our state library to document specific communities. She tends tends to pose people/groups in an appropriate context, using available light. The destination for her pictures is in publications, on-line and printed (often A3 and larger even though her current old 12mp Canon is quite stretched doing this) for exhibitions.</p>

<p>Action photos are rare. Her logic in moving to mirrorless is her age, some arthritis and the weight of her current gear.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>A full-frame option could consist of a Sony A7/A7II, 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and 70-200/4. All lenses handle quite well on the small body (would get the newer A7II over the older A7 since handling has been improved a bit). Except for the 70-200, lenses are lighter than the SLR equivalents - but are a tad expensive. 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 primes are also available, with a 28/2 and 90/2.8 macro coming out in 2015.</p>

<p>Quite a bit less expensive: Sony A6000 with 10-18/4, 16-70/4, and possibly again the above mentioned 70-200/4. Also an excellent 24/1.8 as well as 35/1.8. Now we are in APS-C territory - more compromised high-ISO results and the loss of one stop in DOF. </p>

<p>Not too familiar with Fuji - the X-T1 comes to mind (cost quite a bit more than the A6000) - but there are f/2.8 lenses available: 16-55 and 50-140. And a long list of excellent primes.</p>

<p>Can't really comment on m4/3 - though the OM-D/E-M1 comes to mind. Not much of a money or weight saving compared to the APS-C options above - and another loss of 1 stop in terms of DOF.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>most of the work she receives is from such places as our state library to document specific communities. She tends tends to pose people/groups in an appropriate context, using available light. The destination for her pictures is in publications, on-line and printed (often A3 and larger even though her current old 12mp Canon is quite stretched doing this) for exhibitions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That doesn't sound like work that requires big lenses such as 300mm and up. However, available light means she probably wants to use APS-C or full 35mm frame. I wonder upgrading to a new Canon APS-C body with lighter lenses will work for her.</p>

<p>If not, I would probably stick with mirrorless with APS-C sensors.</p>

[andylynn]

For that sort of shooting I'd take a long look at a Fuji X-T1 or X-E2 with a set of primes. If a second body is needed an X-

E1 can be had cheap. A Sony A7 series would also be a good body choice, if the lenses she wants are available.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Clive, your friend's interests and physical challenges sound a lot like my own. I've switched to mirrorless and compact cameras for the same reasons: arthritis, chronic back and neck pain and weakness. With a compact mirrorless system I can tote everything in a sling bag or waist bag, including a tablet/e-reader and enough stuff to last the day, and not suffer aches and pains the next day.</p>

<p>A couple of thing are essential to my style: one-handed operation; image stabilization. I shoot at odd angles, often up very close, but like to have a choice between an eye level finder (optical or EVF, doesn't matter) and rear LCD. Most mirrorless and good compact P&S digicams have pretty responsive rear LCDs, so there's little or no distracting lag.</p>

<p>Due to budget constraints I've settled on the Nikon V1 (CX or "one-inch" sensor), Fuji X-A1 (APS-C) and Ricoh P&S teensy sensor digicams. Generally speaking I prefer more DOF and more in-focus, especially indoors, so the smaller sensor digicams suit my personal preferences. The Fuji has a little screen lag in dim lighting so I don't often use it for candid snaps of people indoors or at night. Too bad because it has excellent low light capabilities. The tilt-screen helps a bit with odd-angle compositions, although it's not fully articulating. Mostly I prefer the Nikon V1 for the ultra-quick handling - very quick AF, excellent face recognition AF, virtually no shutter release lag, and pretty good shot-to-shot buffer response.</p>

<p>I'm willing to accept less than state of the art IQ. If it resembles my older b&w film photos used pushed Tri-X or T-Max 400, I'm satisfied. Some folks demand noise-free IQ at ISO 6400, so they wouldn't be satisfied with the teensy sensor P&S digicams or CX/one-inch sensor mirrorless models.</p>

<p>However if I had the budget I'd seriously consider the Sony A7 series. I've seen some excellent results from photo.netters Louis Meluso and Ian Taylor (although I think Ian returned the Sony and switched to the Fuji XT-1, if I'm recalling correctly). The Sony would provide outstanding available light results and the top notch high ISO capabilities would enable stopping down for more DOF when desired. And the sensor based image stabilization would extend the usefulness of other favorite lenses with adapters.</p>

<p>I probably won't get deeply invested in the Fuji X-system because it lacks sensor based stabilization. Too bad because I really like Fuji's out of the camera JPEGs and in-camera raw conversion options. Saves a lot of time in post work.</p>

<p>Here are a few health care documentary photos I've been working on, for a cousin's little boy who's had multiple open heart surgeries since he was born. The top two were from late 2012 with the Ricoh GRD4, the last teensy sensor version of Ricoh's outstanding little GR series. The bottom photos were taken late last year with the Fuji X-A1, while checking on Stewart's progress after his most recent medical treatments. First three photos straight-from-camera b&w JPEGs. Bottom photo tweaked in Lightroom 4.<br>

*<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17889739-lg.jpg" alt="R0017782_November 06, 2012_GR DIGITAL 4_LR4" width="600" height="800" border="0" /><br /><em>Ricoh GRD4 in auto-everything mode with fill flash, ISO 640, 1/125th @ f/2.8.<br />Stewart showing me his autumn 2012 heart surgery tuneup</em>. <br>

*<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17946219-lg.jpg" alt="Stewart 2012-R0017873.JPG" width="525" height="700" border="0" /><br /><em>Ricoh GRD4 in auto-everything mode, no flash, ISO 700, 1/125th @ f/1.9.<br />Stewart and Auntie Shera looking at cell phone cam pix, with Stewart's doctor in background.<br />The teensy sensor and wide angle lens makes it easy to get everything in reasonably sharp focus.<br />The tiny, nimble camera makes it easy to get odd angles spontaneously, without my having to ask folks to pose or stage a moment like this.</em><br>

<em>*<br /></em><br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17946275-lg.jpg" alt="DSCF2924_August 09, 2014_X-A1_LR4" width="667" height="1000" border="0" /><br /><em>Fuji X-A1, 16-50mm kit zoom at 16mm (24mm equivalent), ISO 400, 1/340th @ f/5.</em><br /><em>Stewart showed me some of the unevenly healed scars from many surgeries. Eventually he'll need some minor plastic surgery to relieve discomfort from clothing rubbing against the lumpy scars</em>.<br /><br /><br>

*<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17843673-lg.jpg" alt="Sooper Stew" width="1000" height="1500" border="0" /><br>

*</p>

<p>Incidentally, if I had the budget I'd definitely grab either the current Ricoh GR with APS-C sensor or Nikon Coolpix A with same size sensor. Either would make an excellent choice for documentary photography where discretion is desirable. I don't photograph secretly, but I do prefer not to distract folks in health care situations with large or noisy cameras, especially in small rooms where the camera may be only a few inches from someone's head!</p>

<p>Ideally I'd like to see Nikon combine the quick and nimble performance of the 1 System into a DX sensor Coolpix A update, including full iTTL/CLS flash compatibility.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Thanks everyone - Shun you are right I can't ever remember seeing anything of hers taken with a long lens, I'm also beginning to think that APS sized mirrorless may be best, I suspect she's on a fairly tight budget.</p>

<p>Indeed Lex it does seem that you and my friend share many of the same "interests", her long term camera store is recommending Panasonic GX7 but I'm a bit suspicious of it, yes it seems like a reasonable performer but m4/3 sensor size worries me with printing etc, my personal choice at the moment seems to be Fuji XE-2, but I have to admit that I have a soft spot for Fuji colours and lens rendering.</p>

<p>Again my view is, from what I've seen, the Fuji takes the best looking pictures.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Clive, I'll bet your friend would find the Fuji very satisfactory. The JPEGs are lovely straight from the camera, and the in-camera raw processing offers plenty of options for additional interpretations. For color I usually stick with the Provia option and reduced saturation, but the X-A1 (and X-Trans version X-M1) are the budget priced X-series cameras. The X-E2 probably offers more overall flexibility. And if your friend doesn't need to photograph active kids scampering around the AF performance should be just fine. I'd like to get my hands on an X-Pro 1 and try it with manual focus lenses and an adapter just to see if it might suit my preferences, but there are no Fuji dealers locally.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>She tends tends to pose people/groups in an appropriate context, using available light. The destination for her pictures is in publications, on-line and printed (often A3 and larger even though her current old 12mp Canon is quite stretched doing this) for exhibitions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i wouldnt recommend an f/4 zoom for available-light photography, which can get quite dim, especially if you need to keep shutter speed high. so while the Sony A7 would meet the print size requirement and deliver the best high-ISO results,, you're giving those stops right back with a slow zoom. there are really only two available native lenses i would consider for doc work with the a7, the 55 and the 35, both 1.8. the a6000 also suffers from the lack of fast lenses, though there are some sigma 2.8 primes, but i wouldnt take that over a fuji system unless video was important.<br>

<br>

honestly, if you're shooting close and fairly inobtrusively, a large-sensor compact could work. the nikon coolpix A just had a significant price drop, but the Ricoh GR is faster-focusing and the Fuji X100t probably still best in class. the nikon and ricoh are 28mm equivalents, the fuji is 35mm equivalent. when i take documentary-style pics, i much prefer a smaller, less obtrusive camera which can be quickly set up and deployed; external controls on the fuji are great for this. my older x100 is a bit fiddly with the UI and focus acquisition, but otherwise delivers in candid situations; the 't' version has on-chip phase-detect and a host of other improvements, while the ricoh reportedly has snap focus.<br>

<br>

a best-case scenario for this kind of work is probably a large-sensor compact AND a mirrorless ILC. Fuji already had a bunch of stellar primes which would be great for this kind of work, some with apertures faster than what Sony FE currently has. and they just launched some fast zooms. pairing those lenses with an XT1 or XE2 body would give you a small, competent system. the fuji 14/2.8 is great for medium-wide shots, while the 35/1.4 is a go-to lens for defocused backgrounds with sharp centers. pair either or both with the just-launched 16-50/2.8 and you should be good to go. i doubt you would even need a telephoto for this kind of work. alternately, you could go with the 10-24 over the 14. the x100t has a 35/2 lens, so if you got that, you could skip the 23/1.4.<br>

<br>

@Lex: i hear you on the Coolpix A update, but the quick nimbleness of Nikon 1 is due to the smaller sensor. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>available light handheld photography,</p>

<p>The sensor size isn't going to be the biggest contributing factor to possible image softness, imho.</p>

<p>And having something small and silent like that GX7 COULD have major benefits in terms of capturing candids.</p>

<p>That said, the perfect system might end up being a DX-sized ILC. I'd look at Fuji, myself.</p>

[andylynn]

For available light handheld shooting, I think a Panasonic would be at the bottom of my list. At least with Olympus you get

to use sensor IS with any of the prime lenses. Panasonic has the small sensor disadvantage and doesn't have the sensor

IS advantage to compensate.

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I've just had an idea, dangerous I know but... sometimes people describe their needs inadequately i.e. in this case by mentioning the word "mirrorless" when in fact they may just be feeling the need to have a smaller lighter camera. Not being particularly familiar with the Canon product range I did a bit of a search and stumbled across their tiny DSLR the SL1/100D and got the impression that it was easily as good as many of the cameras mentioned already on this thread or am I missing something?</p>

<p>It seems that Canon designed it to go pretty much head to head with mirrorless.</p>

 

[andylynn]

Again, it depends on what is needed. That Canon body is somewhat smaller than other SLR options, but not as small as

you can get with mirrorless. The lenses for it are Canon SLR lenses, some of which are small and some of which are not.

You'd have to take a look at the whole package the camera and the lenses that would be used with it and compare. Also,

that tiny SLR is as consumer-grade a body as you'll find.

[ShunCheung]

<p>As I said earlier, a small Canon APS-C DSLR may work. A little over a year ago, Jeff and I went to a camera store together and he looked at the 100D. That thing is tiny. If anything, I think the 100D is too small for me to comfortably hold and use, but it could be a great fit for Clive's friend, who apparently doesn't need big lenses.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Yes Andy, I noticed that it was very much a consumer grade offering, its really annoying how both Canon and Nikon make it very clear to their customers that cheap must also mean unnecessarily nasty. I guess that it encourages people to "upgrade".</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Shun I too find very small cameras uncomfortable to hold, do you think it was so badly made or compromised in some way that we should take it off the list of potential suggestions. It struck me that with a fastish prime or 2 it could be very competitive.</p>

<p>When I moved over to Nikon D800 I started with light 1.8Gs and though the plastic made me feel a strange the image quality was outstanding.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Clive, in the current discussion, only one person's opinion matters, i.e. your friend's. A few weeks ago, my local camera store had a sale and I checked several mirrorless cameras, and the EVF still doesn't appeal to me. That is partly why I don't know my mirrorless camera myself yet, although I have reviewed a couple of them for photo.net. If I were to get one now, I think my choices would be an APS-C one between Fuji and Sony. But I have an extensive Nikon DSLR system, and weight is not that big an issue to me. At this point equipment is not the limitation to my photography.</p>

<p>But everybody is different and this will be this particular documentary photographer's decision. At least I have no idea what her preferences are.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I use a Fuji XT1 for small documentary projects, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.817336224995034.1073741863.171846589544004&type=3">like this one</a>. Any of the above mentioned cameras would be fine. </p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>All of the above. I think pretty much all the cameras mentioned are very good. I use a Panasonic GX7 and often stick an old manual focus lens, works great and is at a very good price point at this time. The Fuji Xt1 seems to be a big fave and the Olympus EM-5 or better but a bit pricier, the EM-1. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> I'm guessing but the competition is really only between Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus and Sony isn't it?

 

Don't forget phone cameras...

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Brad, not for really large prints, no way.</p>