Which camera will come closest to filling my needs?

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>First, let me say I shoot mainly medium format film, but do dabble in 35mm as well a digital. Here's my question........................I have a Contax G 35mm film outfit with 28mm, 45mm and 90mm Zeiss glass and would like to buy into a mirror less system to use those lenses on. I have a Samsung NX100 that I really like, but the optional EVF finder sucks along with not being able to use my G lenses on it. So here's what I'm looking for..................good-sharp image quality, excellent low light performance, optical or EVF viewfinder, the best JPEG output I can get(I use RAW too, but would like to have top-notch jpeg output if possible) and an easy camera to understand. My first real digital camera was an Olympus E1 and I absolutely loved it for its out-of-camera jpegs and color rendition. I'd like something like that again only in mirror less design. Here is what I was thinking of. Oh, and used is fine with me. The Olympus OM-D E-M10, Fuji X-PRO-1, Fuji X-E1, Sony NEX-6 or Sony NEX-7. I want to stay under $500.00 so I'll probably go used. I'm leaning hard on the NEX-6 for it's clean low light results, but the Fuji cameras look like they would fill the bill too. I'm in no hurry since I'm in the process of selling off most of my other digital hoard. Any suggestions? John W</p>

[andylynn]

If you want a Fuji I'd lean towards the X-E1 over the Pro1 because the E1 has a better EVF and the Pro1's OVF mode is

not suitable for adapted lenses. But a Sony is probably your best bet, as there is an AF adapter available for your G

lenses.

[donbright]

<p>Check things out on this, I recall a past thread on this and the buyers discovered that their Contax G lenses had color fringing with Sony sensors.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the XE1 has pretty clean hi-ISO.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The Contax G 45mm and 90mm are excellent on the NEX 6 but I found the less expensive manual focus adapters to be OK but less than satisfying to use (not really smooth working-ok for static/studio subjects) and the latest AF Techart adapter is pricy. I have not tried this AF adapter or the expensive (Metabones) adapters. Some are reporting good results with those.</p>

<p>I found the 28mm to be good in the center but blurry on the edges. A better solution would be to sell it and pick up the superb Sony FE 28mm f/2 or, for less $$ and wider FOV, the Sigma 19mm f/2.8. The Sigma is an APS-C AF lens but the Sony can work on APS-C or full frame.</p>

<p>Overall, IMHO, the Sigma AF 19mm f/2.8, 30mm f/2.8 and 60mm f/2.8 (especially crisp) native E-mount primes are the best budget/high quality approach for use with the Sony NEX/A6000 APS-C cameras.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Having a Sony hacked by an IR conversion company, to get a thinner RF lens friendlier filter in front of the sensor sets you back 4 to 500 bucks. <- Might make more sense on an A7 variant.<br>

I don't recommend elderly Fujis. I have an X-E1 and consider its EVF close to unusable due to refresh lag, but I am a hand holding low light / indoors guy. -YMMV on a tripod. IDK how to bring up X-Pro OVF framelines with <em>your</em> lenses; AFAIK Fuji only have an adapter doing this for M glass (and of course their native gems). <br>

Before I'll buy another Fuji I'll test it side by side to the X-E1 behind something slow, either a kit zoom with ND filter or a stopped down adapted lens. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>If you want quality comparable to medium format film, you want a camera with at least 24 MP (6000x4000), preferably without an anti-aliasing filter. Forget the optical viewfinder. In order to focus non-native lenses, you need an EVF, or at least live view. You should be able to find adapters for Contax lenses. I know there are adapters to use those lenses on a Sony.</p>

<p>The 45 mm and 90 mm should present no problem, but shorter lenses like the 28 mm may not do well in the corners. Every digital camera has glass covering the sensor, some thicker than others. This changes the optical path especially for lenses which come close to the sensor (e.g., Biogon design), causing the corners to smear. Sony A7's have a 2 mm cover glass (protection, IR and AA), which is over twice as thick as for a Leica M (0.8 mm). Sooner or later you will want to use native lenses in order to make best use of the camera, including auto focus.</p>

<p>Staying under $500 may be the biggest challenge of all, unless you can find what you want on the used market.</p>

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>Ed,<br>

I had already pretty much settled on going the used route. I'm not really trying to equal my medium format film quality so 16 MP is fine for me. I'm most interested in good out-of-camera-jpegs and at least the ability to use my Zeiss glass. I'm really leaning toward the Fuji X-E1, but should be able to get an X-E2 used for under $400.00. I'm sure I'll also get the Fuji 18-55mm since I've read nothing but good stuff about that lens. I'm in no hurry and that helps in the buying department. John W</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>John, I like the Sony A6000 a lot. I tested this and the Fuji, and I like the focus peaking on the Sony better for working with MF lenses. </p>

<p>This camera is already a bargain, and with the announcement of the A6300, should go lower.</p>

<p>Good shooting whatever you choose.</p>

 

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>Sebastian,<br>

The A6000 might be a good option for me. Looked into the NEX6 at BestBuy some time back, but maybe I should look at the A6000. In the old days most 35mm cameras were pretty much equal and simple to operate. Now it's a nightmare for a 65 year old who doesn't want to even hear bells or whistles. Let alone find them and push 'em. I long for the days of simple photography sneaking into the digital camera age. JohnW</p>

[andylynn]

John, I think for you, given what you've said about JPGs and simple operation, I'd go the Fuji route. Only with Fuji lenses.

Adapter lenses are a chore and never work out as well as you hope for. Fuji puts aperture on a lens ring where it belongs,

and has a shutter speed dial and great JPGs, and much better lenses than the Sony APSC line.

 

The X-E2 definitely beats the X-E1, if you can get it. Fuji just released a v4.0 firmware for X-E2 that has a huge AF

system improvement along with a lot of other upgrades. It makes the X-E2 almost identical to the newer X-T10.

[j_sevigny]

<p>The a6000 is very good. It's my everyday camera. Honestly, megapixels aside, I think the NEX6 is just as good (and maybe better in terms of build quality and handling) if you pipe your images through Capture One or DxO. Everything <a href="http://johnsevigny.portfoliobox.io/sketchbook">here</a> was shot with the NEX6 and Sony 20mm prime. Editing in LR. </p>