Mirrorless Camera for Documentary Photography

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, not for really large prints, no way.

 

Way.

 

How large? I've printed 20x20" a couple years ago for a project. With phones that are three generations later today, I

wouldn't even think twice.

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Brad, in the OP's words.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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>A phone camera is going to be really weak for that.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Thanks Brad - great work and very helpful in this discussion. Barry I used to use all sorts of legacy lenses on my 43s stuff and enjoyed it immensely, old Zeiss and Leica R mainly but was pretty handicapped by the crop factor (50mm in effect becomes 100mm) OK for portraits but lousy at the wide end.</p>

<p>It is actually an important observation that you make Brad as phones are everywhere and everyone could be a "journalist" if they happen to be in right place at the right time, but I know my friend wouldn't like the impositions that phone cameras make on the photographer's range of options, particularly those that have anything to do with separating subjects from backgrounds.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Clive, the Panasonic, Olympus and Pany/leica, Cosina Voigtlander all make really fine lenses for the Olympus and Panasonic 4/3. Its also not true that there isn't in camera stabilization in the GX7, I use it on legacy lenses all the time if that is an issue. Not as good as the Oly, but it is pretty good, and of course many of the Pany lenses have OIS in the lens which is pretty good if you really think you need stabilization to make a good photo. I can't figure out how so many great photos were taken in the last 75 years without I.S. Less coffee?<br>

iPhones? Yeah! The new phones are pretty nice and they are pretty high resolution. I think panasonic just put out a "camera" phone and there are little lens attachments also for iPhones though they are pretty good.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A mirrorless camera (with an EVF) is adequate for nearly any routine photographic task except sports and action events. The only downside to the EVF I find, so far, is it can be hard to see in bright sunlight. The EVF is important. I can't imagine using the rear screen for anything besides menus and image review (or possibly copying and low-angle closeups).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't imagine using the rear screen for anything besides menus and image review (or possibly copying and low-angle closeups).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i used to think that too, especially coming from a DSLR. but i find sometimes i actually prefer the rear LCD for certain things, like for example shooting street when you need to be aware of your surroundings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> if you really think you need stabilization to make a good photo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not that i think i need a stabilized lens, but with a smaller body, balance or should i say ballast, is an issue. the Fuji 60, for instance, is a great tool for semi-macro close-ups, but taking handheld macros at that focal length really screams for stabilization with an XE1 (or XE2).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were to get one now, I think my choices would be an APS-C one between Fuji and Sony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>personally, i think the APS-C mirrorless cameras have the best combination, or compromise, of image quality and compactness. personally, i think Shun would be a good candidate for a Fuji X100t. as a take-everywhere camera, it's hard to beat, and even a mirrorless body with a pancake lens will protrude more. for a compact system, Fuji has a lot going for it, especially in the wide-to-medium range. Sony and Panasonic are probably better options if you plan to mix stills and video, but neither has as good of a kit lens as the fuji 18-55, meaning you have to go for a more expensive option if you want to get the most out of those sensors, especially the 24mp on the A6000.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>i think Shun would be a good candidate for a Fuji X100t. as a take-everywhere camera,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Eric, we are getting off topic. This thread is about appropriate gear for a photographer (Clive's friend) who is, as far as I know, not participating here. It is not about the preference for any one of us who is participating.</p>

<p>However, in my case, when I was 13, 14 or so when I got my first SLR, I figured out that having a selection of many focal lengths is critical to my photography. Therefore, any camera with a fixed lens that cannot zoom is a non-starter for me. That includes the Fuji X100 family, Nikon Coolpix A, and some Sony .... I am also a bit over 6" tall so that small mirrorless cameras and SLRs are harder for me to handle. In these days I always have an iPhone with me (I know, no zoom) and that is my emergency "camera," not great but good enough. However, all of that have little to do with Clive's friend.</p>

[phillips]

<p>Shun mentioned that smaller cameras are hard for him to handle;it reinforces something that I think may be very important for your friend, particularly if arthritis in the hands is an issue. I primarily use my Fuji X-T1 as a travel and walk around system for exactly the reason your friend is interested in mirrorless. My three lens system weighs a little over 5 pounds with the bag. I think it's important for her to hold and try the body/lens combinations before choosing a particular make. For example I like the dials and settings on the Fuji, while I never got used to the menu and feel of my Sony NEX 6. However the dial arrangement of the Fuji might present some difficulties for her.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>No Shun my friend isn't actually participating but checking-in on what everybody has to say, whenever she gets a moment between two projects involving fairly difficult communities. She thoroughly appreciates the comments so far.</p>

<p>Related to Eric's comments - In addition to what people have said here I suggested that she makes a concerted effort to see how well she copes with the shift from DSLR viewfinder ......by "playing" with her phone I think when you've had a lifetime of work with SLRs and then DSLRs adjusting to this very different way of working/seeing may cause you some distress.</p>

<p>Phil - for my last driving holiday I thought I should load the car up with pretty much my entire Nikon kit, my big rolling camera case weighed more than my clothes and when it came to using the camera somehow I always had the wrong lens on it! I also took my little Fuji X100....guess what got used most for "holiday snaps"?</p>

<p>In truth I'm not a holiday snapper.</p>

<p>My friend almost exclusively uses a good fast 50mm lens and keeps a quality standard zoom handy if she really need to go wider or longer. </p>

 

[catcher]

<p>Are zooms essential to her work? I know Sam Abell (former National Geographic Photographer in the documentary style) said that the vast majority of his shots were with a 28mm lens and a 90mm lens. I think David Allen Harvey ordinarily shoots with just a 35mm fixed lens. As I recall, Abell usually carried two cameras--one for each lens so he didn't have to switch. Of course, two cameras weigh more than one, but, then again, two small primes with wider apertures may weigh less than a large zoom lens. </p>

<p>So (if possible financially) how about an APS-C ricoh GR with 28mm (equivalent) 2.8 lens (no viewfinder, though) [[or Nikon A, or Fuji X100s or T [i've had both the original X100 and X100s--the newer versions are worth it for handling]] and a Canon SL1 with the cheap canon 50 1.8 (would be 80mm equivalent).That would be a light set up. Plenty of aperture for low light, natural light work. Wide angle for groups and indoor; moderate tele (equivalent) for portraits. </p>

<p>The screen of the Ricoh works fine for me in bright light--not ideal, but it works--and it's so small I throw it in my pocket for walks every day. It hardly weighs anything at all. Yet, with an APS-C sensor the image quality is great. </p>

<p>Finally, as someone else mentioned, it's not just weight that often keeps my 6D 24-105 combo home. It's the fact that every time I point it at someone they look as though I've got a bazooka pointed at them. No one takes my Ricoh or X100s or SL1 seriously which makes it far easier to go unnoticed. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>One of the cameras with a good EV might be useful to your friend as it will give you the through the lens framing and I believe they are 100% of the frame (?). I would say now for a lighter mirror-less several excellent suggestions have been made. I think you and/or your friend will need to take a morning or afternoon off and go to a good camera store and just check out the different choices. You can also now check out camera reviews on the different models etc. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Thanks Barry - actually, though I didn't mention it, this discussion started because my friend went to her regular camera store, a very big one, they recommended Panasonic GX7, she then asked me what I thought and as quite a few other cameras seemed a better choice to me, I put the question out in this thread. Next time she goes there she'll be armed with a lot of helpful info. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>fyi, the Fuji X100 series have adapters to make them into 28mm or 50mm cameras, in addition to the 35mm equiv. focal length. after shooting with an x100 for more than a year, i think i would prefer 35mm if i could only have one focal length, but if your friend is used to the 50mm perspective, A fuji X body with the 35/1.4 will do the trick. i like the fuji system as long as you are aware of its limitations. the XE series are travel/walkaround-sized, while the XT1 adds a little helf for balancing longer lenses as well as perfomance capacity. but the x100 is much easier to carry around than any Fuji body/lens combo except with the 18 or 27 pancakes.</p>

<p>would i get a GX7? probably not as Olympus has the better in-body stabilization and native lenses. i would consider the LX100, but that's almost a different class of camera, which competes with the sony RX100. as evolved as m4/3 has gotten, the sensor size is always going to present certain limitations, such as high-ISO. i can report that the XE1 is clean up to ISO 5000 and usable at 6400. with an m4/3, ISO3200 would be the hard and fast limit for me. that may or may not make a difference in your shooting style.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yeah, Eric is right about 3200 limit, but a usable limit in M4/3. Not sure if Olympus native lenses are "better", both makers use the same mounts and use each other lenses. Olympus stabilization is well ahead of Panasonic, but the IS on the GX7 works very well and their native zooms now have OIS on the lens which works very well. If you go 4/3 both makers have good entries. Many believe the Oly M-1 is the best of all, no bayer filter and weather sealed. GX7 is very light but solid. If video is a consideration, Panasonic is much better generally. Your main issue with 4/3 may well be the ISO and the 2x crop factor. </p>

[les_lammers]

<p>My friend almost exclusively uses a good fast 50mm lens and keeps a quality standard zoom handy if she really need to go wider or longer.<br>

An X-Pro 1 and a XF 35mm 1.4 would be affordable and worth consideration. </p>