Which one from the day before yesterday

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>I fear that, to an extent, I am asking for advice that has been sought by others. However, my question, in one respect, may be a little more specific than some.</p>

<p>I presently mainly use a Nikon D700 and D300. I do not intend to leave those behind. I also have Panasonic compacts to 'keep in my pocket'. At intervals I ask myself the question whether I should try the mirrorless system, including the Panasonic and Olympus 4/3. Of course, I could read the latest test reports etc, and spend as much money as I could. I'm not sure I want to do that.</p>

<p>What seems obvious is that this system is developing very rapidly, and much used equipment is coming onto the market, often at what seems to be very keen prices compared with what it was new only a couple of years ago: new model, price of old collapses. My impression is that quite a few users are upgrading. A friend has just acquired a GX7 because his son is already upgrading.</p>

<p>The question in that context, ie 'fairly new' is what should I consider buying? Potential image quality in relation to a body is paramount. I recognise that 'the right bit of glass' at the front also has a bearing on that!</p>

<p>Advice would be much appreciated.</p>

[PaulJohnson]

<p>As a new m4/3 user, I'm just a few steps ahead of you, so perhaps this will help. The D300 is sitting on the shelf, not forgotten, but this new format is looking good. I recently purchased a new GX7 body and some used Pany 14mm and 20mm lenses. At this point I've simply set to aperture priority (f4 for now), with WB and ISO automatic, letting the camera handle everything else. Here are several examples (at a table inside a building, outside group in a difficult lighting situation and inside a building facing a large window with bright sun outside.) Perhaps these may help in your pondering. <br>

<i>Mod: Bad links removed. Please post using the photo.net uploader or from an html site. Dropbox links will not display.</I></p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Paul - that is very kind and helpful of you, but for some reason your pics won't open. There is a x icon in their place. I often look at pics on photo net, and can't recall this happening before.</p>

<p>Have you gleaned what the performance is like at higher iso settings? That is where my 'little' digi compacts let themselves down.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I got some µ43 stuff to use alongside my Nikon D90 and it's lenses.</p>

<p>All the nikon stuff (except the 55mm micro) is now gone.</p>

<p>I'm much happier with something that is so much easier to carry where I go. OMD EM-5, 20mm f1.7 panasonic, 15mm lens cap lens (rarely used), and the standard 14-42 and 40-150 zooms. will probably eventually add a long prime (45 or 75, don't know which yet) and a wide prime (12mm) when I can afford it.</p>

<p>I'm happy as a clam.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Thanks for that Peter.</p>

<p>I do print quite a few pics (often smallish sections), and usually at A4. Without being silly at trying to use high iso settings, I can usually print first class images with my D700/300. I'd like to think I could do the same with a good 4/3 or whatever.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Looking for lots of IQ out of little body mass Fuji X-E1 seem an option. Drawbacks: They are far from a responsive action camera. And unfortunately their pre-owners get hooked by the SOOC JPG performance, keep the superb 18 -55mm kit zoom and just buy a new body that promises faster AF & finder.<br>

So a smart cheapskate should look for a system that offers used lenses or kits.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>If you buy a mirrorless camera which will accept Zeiss ZM or Leica lenses, your quest for image quality will reside in the sensor, not the glass, for the foreseeable future. Existing DSLR lenses are not in the same ball park (or league) as those designed for rangefinder cameras and (increasingly so) mirrorless cameras).</p>

<p>I was fortunate to have a set of Leica lenses from my film days at the start, but Zeiss ZM lenses are every bit as good, optically, at 1/3rd the price, as are used Leica lenses from the 70's. My camera is a Sony A7M2 (and M-9).</p>

[machts gut]

<p>Printing in the size of A4 is no problem. I have prints in 40cmx50cm hanging on my wall, from an outdated 12mp Olympus E-PL 1, that looks much cleaner than everything I got out of 35mm film. Like always, the kit lenses are not really made up for large prints, but I found the Pana 20mm to be very sharp. I would suggest to buy a second-hand OM-D E-M5 and add the Panasonic 20mm and the Olympus 45mm. That would be a really small set-up with high IQ. If this turns out to be not to your standards you can sell it and won't have much loss. My guess is, you won't see much difference, if any at all, in more than 90% of your photos qualitywise. A different question is, if you will like like the crop factor compared to the D700? It is overrated in many situations, but might be worth to think about.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I'm getting good prints off my GX7. I agree with Edward above that legacy lenses are great. Of course with M4/3 you are basically cropping by 2x but pics do look great. I'm curious Edward, if you could talk a little more about your Sony. M9's are just to expensive for me but wonder which you prefer. Mervyn, I do believe the M4/3 cameras do have a lot of advantages. They are getting better and better. Its very nice to walk around with 2 rangefinder lenses, and a couple of quality Panasonic lenses all in a smallish bag weighing less than a D700 and 24-70 and taking pictures of very good quality. Negatives are, basically higher ISO ranges (past 3200) and the crop factor. In miracles, there's other great options as well. As several threads here have pointed out. If you want to see some GX7 photos, look at my photo.net Color street photos. About the first 15 are with the 4/3 if you want to get an idea of what the actual pics look like. </p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>Just throw away M4/3 camera and lenses. Now using Sony A7II with those Leica lenses bought in the early 90'S. Very pleased with the result. Consider thousands and thousands of lenses made for 135mm camera in the past 60 years, there should be tremendous fun in exploring.<br>

<br />Can't wait for the lens adapter to put my Hasselblad lenses with A7II...</p>

<p>Beside, don't know for how long that Panasonic could stay in the business of digital camera.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Mervyn, I have always wanted the best quality for the camera size while also having a usable interface with the camera. What I mean for example is that I always loved the little Rollei 35 (size of a pack of cigarettes but thicker), but it had only a viewfinder and not a rangefinder, so you had to estimate distance, which was no problem in the daylight outside at f4 or 5.6, but it wasn't ideal. The point is that you could put good quality 100 speed film in it, and it had a really good Zeiss designed Tessar or Sonnar lens. Right? There were the 35mm Minox cameras. Contax had some handy models in the 1990s and 2000s. Of course there were the 1950s folders like Retina and Contessa of course. In my opinion, you have to be reluctant to compromise on sensor size just like you wouldn't want to compromise on film choice, but you want the smallest camera. The sensor size is a big issue IMO for low light shooting. I settled on using a Nikon FM3a and Leica M6 most of the time, but they were actually a little bigger than I preferred. My point is that the full frame A7 and A7II are amazing, but the APS-C size sensors are also amazing and may be perfect as long as the camera body and lens can be small enough to make that worth while, and I think they are, particularly in the case of the Sony NEX 5n,5r, 5t series even using the add on electronic viewfinder. You can buy a 5n for not more than $200 used at KEH, and get a brand new EVF for it now discounted to $225. Go to camerasize.com and look at how the 5n is smaller than the Panasonic GX-7 even though the Pani has the much smaller 4/3 sensor. True, finding lenses that are also small isn't automatic for the 5n, but you don't need many tiny lenses for a go-everywhere camera. You need a couple small lenses, and then just use whatever else with other adapters for when size isn't that big a deal. When I'm using my 5n with my Leica 40mm Summicron-C (TINY)(as an equiv. 60mm fov), I really feel I have a professional quality short portrait AND low light camera/lens in the palm of my hand. I take it everywhere.</p>

[J.W. Wall]

<p>FWIW, recently I sold my Canon 50D and lenses, in favor of an Olympus OM-D E-M10. It is an amazing little camera for about $600. I got the November deals from Olympus for about $370 off camera and two lenses, a small 40-150mm and the excellent 12-40mm f/2.8 pro. The E-M10 isn't quite as complex as the E-M5, but the 10 does have the newer processing chip and better E-M1 based electronic viewfinder. Nice review by Robin Wong (an Olympus employee but personal blog) if you are interested in more info. http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/01/olympus-om-d-e-m10-review-part-1.html </p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Please can I put on record how very grateful I am to all contributors. I am certainly now more educated and informed. Whether I am nearer to taking a decision is another matter! As always, image quality is paramount, but there is also a need to take into account downsides in relation to models that provide first class iq.</p>

<p>I am now far more aware of just how many models and variants there are. I am in the UK and there, perhaps, are not quite the same opportunities for used stock as in the US. However, I quite regularly buy from one or two very reliable dealers. No doubt I shall spend a good deal more time further considering what contributors have said, reading test reports etc., and browsing dealers' lists.</p>

<p>Thank you all again. Further contributions are, of course, welcome!</p>

<p>Can I just add this. I bought my first 'proper' camera in 1958. It was incredibly expensive for what you got. One factor that inevitably arises in relation to assessing cameras today is the cost, especially with the wide range available. All I can say is that there is much better value for money than there was in 1958!</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Barry,</p>

<p>I got a used M9 from KEH at a very good price, so it wasn't a ridiculous choice to extend the life of the lenses I bought in 1964 and re-enter the compact world of rangefinders. The image quality is stellar, as you would expect, once I re-learned how to handle and focus a rangefinder. Sadly, my DR Summicron won't fit due to interference in the body, but used Summicron 50's of that era are very reasonable (by Leica standards).</p>

<p>Sony priced the A7M2 upgrade at the same level as the original version. The ergonomics and performance were greatly improved, and the recent firmware upgrade improved the internal image stabilization for viewing and focusing. Frankly, had the A7M2 come along earlier, I would not have bought the M9 - it's that good. Besides the image quality, the focusing aids and internal image stabilization are the killer issues. It is almost impossible to get sharp focus with a 90/2 or 135/4, wide open, with the M9, much less use it without a tripod. The Sony focuses like a charm, and a tripod only offers incremental improvements over IS.</p>

<p>I find that my Nikon 20/2.8 AF-D works very well on the Sony, without vignetting or color casts at the edges like the Leica or Zeiss alternatives, and nearly as sharp (according to reviews). The Nikon 28-70/2.8 works very well too, but dwarfs the camera in size. Mostly, I plan to travel light, 14 pounds instead of 35+.</p>

<p>The A7M2 is the same weight as the M9, but a little smaller overall - same height but 1/2" less in width and maybe 1/8" thinner front to back.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'm not sure what you are planning the mirrorless for. - If you are going to adapt some legacy lenses you might still have, I suggest visiting a dealer with interesting models and asking to be shown how the manal focusing with them is done.<br>

Here I was pondering an elderly NEX -5 maybe - but none of the local dealer's present staff seemed capable to sponatnously show me manual focusing on a NEX.- So maybe ask in advance before you spend travelling expenses.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Jochen - many thanks for your contribution.</p>

<p>I don't intend to get a mirrorless system to replace my Nikon dslrs, but I certainly want something lighter that will produce first class images without all the weight to carry round. I am in my 73rd year and age and maladies are taking their toll!</p>

<p>I have a 'wealth' of legacy lenses. Not only Nikon, but Canon, Minolta, Fuji, M42 etc. However, while I am not disregarding the possibility of using them, it is not a main purpose. I have spent sometime researching the use of legacy lenses though.</p>

<p>I live in rural Yorkshire in the UK. Our nearest 'big' town is about 20 miles away. There used to be four good dealers there. There are now none. Even if I were to travel some distance, I suspect I might struggle to find one who is really 'hands-on' in relation to what you mention. I don't say that they don't exist, but they are few and far between. </p>

<p>For what it is worth, I am drifting towards the Fuji X system.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Update.</p>

<p>A little over my original budget - but what is new in that - I've bitten the bullet.</p>

<p>I've ordered a Fuji X-E2 with the 18-55 lens at what I think is a very good price directly from Fuji 'refurbished'. Professional and user reports/tests are very good, and I think (hope) it will meet my needs! Assuming it does, I shall have to save-up for the 55-200 lens...</p>