Anyone changed from SLR to M4/3 or Mirrorless

T

taxboy

Messages
1,614
Edit My Images
Yes
As per the title just wondered if anyone has switched and would care to share their experience please both positive and negative
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
What are you using just now?

Have a look in these threads....
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...ome-mega-thread.511885/page-1474#post-8587102

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/olympus-om-d-e-m5-e-m1-e-m10-mark-2-owners-thread.395080/

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/panasonic-g-series-owners-thread.262800/
Click to expand...
Currently using a Canon 7d ii. Just pondering over the Xmas hols about reducing the weight. Thanks for the links but unfortunately it would be the new year before I get round to reading all the posts [emoji3] Also they cover all genres so any summary points from nature shooters would be appreciated
 
taxboy said:
Currently using a Canon 7d ii. Just pondering over the Xmas hols about reducing the weight. Thanks for the links but unfortunately it would be the new year before I get round to reading all the posts [emoji3] Also they cover all genres so any summary points from nature shooters would be appreciated
Click to expand...
Olympus EM1ii or EM1X seems to be popular with nature lovers, along with the Panasonic G9.
The Panasonic Leica 100-400mm is also popular.
I'd suggest asking your question on the Olympus thread and you'll get some great feedback.
 
I imagine a lot if folks using mirrorless probably used (D)SLR is the past.
I did too.
Wouldn't go back to them. In the past EVF wasn't the best for shooting fact action because of the lag. So the DSLRs still had some advantages in this area. These days EVF works just fine anything for anything and everything. In fact if you are willing to spend a bit you can even get blackout free shooting with mirrorless.

One area DSLRs is still very attractive is the price of lenses. But they are also losing they value slowly since most manufacturers are moving towards a mirrorless future
 
sirch said:
Have a look at photos posted by @the black fox and @RedRobin both using MFT for wildlife I believe
Click to expand...

.... Thanks for the vote of confidence Chris.

@taxboy - All my m4/3 images are in a Flickr album titled 'OLYMPUS' : https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/albums/72157711552661781

I do not hide the camera details and EXIF. I moved from Canon 1DX-2 plus mirrorless EOS-R to Olympus E-M1X nearly two months ago.

I spent yesterday photographing steam trains in very overcast cloudy light and will be posting my best efforts on Flickr in the next few days as I cull and post-process the RAW files.

I haven't had breakfast yet but will try and post my summary for you about the camera later. I owned a Canon 7D-2 for about 3 years and regarding m4/3 I can only talk about the Olympus E-M1X Pro system.

HTH
 
Last edited:
Just to add E-M1ii after the software update has most of the bells and whistles of E-M1x and can be had lot cheaper leaving money to spend on glass.

Olympus does a test & wow scheme which lets you borrow E-M1ii plus a lens for free. It's awesome scheme, my other half made use of it. Even though we were wowed we decided to stick with the fixed lens cameras for her i.e. LX100ii.
 
I have added a Fuji to my kit bag so I have something light and portable, not sure if I wanted to be absolutely sure of capturing fast action if I would use it or my 5D3 or if the weather was poor, build quality seems ok but the xc lenses seem quite delicate, which is fine for what I wanted. Depends on what you want to use it for I guess.
 
I'm a "big" format fan, but recently at our club we had a speaker who demonstrated the in camera "focus stacking" ability of the Olympus system.
I was impressed enough to buy a Pen-F, and subsequently several lenses.
I remain unconvinced about the merits of the m4/3 system.
I don't really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, since a lot of my shots are either landscape or architecture, which I think are more suited to 3:2 or even greater AR.
I'm also a wide-angle fan, and the m4/3 system with it's 2x "multiplication factor" has a real problem with ultra-wide angle lenses. I have an Irix 11mm UWA that I use with my Canon 5D4 and there is nothing in the m4/3 world that can emulate this.
The low light performance of m4/3 also leaves a lot to be desired.
I have no problems using the 5D4 at 6400 ISO, but the Olympus runs out of reasonable noise levels at about 1600 ISO.
On a good day the results from the Olympus are surprisingly good, and I like many things about it, but I'm not about to make a full time switch to m4/3 any time soon.

For me, full frame with it's weight and bulk, still have the advantage over m4/3.
 
Brian G said:
I'm a "big" format fan, but recently at our club we had a speaker who demonstrated the in camera "focus stacking" ability of the Olympus system.
I was impressed enough to buy a Pen-F, and subsequently several lenses.
I remain unconvinced about the merits of the m4/3 system.
I don't really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, since a lot of my shots are either landscape or architecture, which I think are more suited to 3:2 or even greater AR.
I'm also a wide-angle fan, and the m4/3 system with it's 2x "multiplication factor" has a real problem with ultra-wide angle lenses. I have an Irix 11mm UWA that I use with my Canon 5D4 and there is nothing in the m4/3 world that can emulate this.
The low light performance of m4/3 also leaves a lot to be desired.
I have no problems using the 5D4 at 6400 ISO, but the Olympus runs out of reasonable noise levels at about 1600 ISO.
On a good day the results from the Olympus are surprisingly good, and I like many things about it, but I'm not about to make a full time switch to m4/3 any time soon.

For me, full frame with it's weight and bulk, still have the advantage over m4/3.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should try FF mirrorless....

M43 is great for nature/wildlife, where the 2x crop factor is a benefit.
Nature photography is the intended use for the OP.
 
Last edited:
@Brian G :
taxboy said:
Currently using a Canon 7d ii. Just pondering over the Xmas hols about reducing the weight. [snip] ... any summary points from nature shooters would be appreciated
Click to expand...

.... However Brian, I do appreciate that m4/3 may not suit you for lots of very valid reasons.

As I have said many times before, it's 'Horses-for-Course' mixed with individual personal preferences including simply which camera system physically feels the most comfortable. And what subjects you shoot of course.
 
Brian G said:
I'm a "big" format fan, but recently at our club we had a speaker who demonstrated the in camera "focus stacking" ability of the Olympus system.
I was impressed enough to buy a Pen-F, and subsequently several lenses.
I remain unconvinced about the merits of the m4/3 system.
I don't really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, since a lot of my shots are either landscape or architecture, which I think are more suited to 3:2 or even greater AR.
I'm also a wide-angle fan, and the m4/3 system with it's 2x "multiplication factor" has a real problem with ultra-wide angle lenses. I have an Irix 11mm UWA that I use with my Canon 5D4 and there is nothing in the m4/3 world that can emulate this.
The low light performance of m4/3 also leaves a lot to be desired.
I have no problems using the 5D4 at 6400 ISO, but the Olympus runs out of reasonable noise levels at about 1600 ISO.
On a good day the results from the Olympus are surprisingly good, and I like many things about it, but I'm not about to make a full time switch to m4/3 any time soon.

For me, full frame with it's weight and bulk, still have the advantage over m4/3.
Click to expand...

.... Overall, your stated reasons for preferring full-frame with its weight and bulk (if D-SLR) is totally valid but for you and not everyone else. I loved my Canon 1DX-2 plus Supertelephoto L lenses etc but now the Olympus E-M1X Pro system suits my photography much better because I find it more enabling and I don't have to leave any lenses or a second body behind.

This image was taken yesterday on a 12-40mm (24-80mm equivalent) wide-angle zoom in fast fading light on a totally cloud covered day and as dusk was fast approaching. So, as stated on Flickr, handheld 1/200s, F/2.8, ISO 2500. And on my person with both hands free for this shot, I was also easily carrying Olympus Pro lenses 40-150mm (80-300mm equivalent) and 300mm (600mm) and 1.4x.

I'll let others be the judge but I am very happy with this photo :

LEAVING THE STATION AS DUSK APPROACHES by Robin Procter, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Maybe you should try FF mirrorless....

M43 is great for nature/wildlife, where the 2x crop factor is a benefit.
Nature photography is the intended use for the OP.
Click to expand...
I don't see any advantage to me in FF mirrorless, other than even more expense.
Maybe if I were starting now I'd consider it, but I have too much inve$ted in Canon EF to make a change worthwhile.
IQ wise, I'm not going to see any difference between mirror or no mirror, and after all, it's the final image file that matters.

I agree one area where m4/3 scores is at the long end, where the 2x factor IS an advantage, but you still have the limited ISO problem.

Sorry, I didn't realise this was the Talk Nature forum until after I'd posted.
Wildlife is not one of my main interests, I was simply answering the "Have you changed?" question.
As I said, I'm yet to be convinced that m4/3 is right for my type of photography.
 
Brian G said:
.
I don't really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, since a lot of my shots are either landscape or architecture, which I think are more suited to 3:2 or even greater AR.
.
Click to expand...

I really do - I crop a lot of my full frame D810 to 4:3 taking off the softer sides. I also find 4:3 or 3:4 suits portrait crop's a lot more. I like a lot of square images too. I shoot only landscape and architecture. 3:2 is too skinny for most portraits and not quite wide enough for those wide landscapes where 16:10, 16:9 and 2:1 and wider really work. For general landscapes I really dig 5:4, 4:3 or even 7:5

In terms of maximizing the image circle square sensors should rule the roost and it would also keep the softest part of the image circles away from the sensor - then the photographer can crop at will from there. Why don't they make camera's like that beats me.
 
Last edited:
Once you try live preview exposure its game over, you can never go back.

You can see the exposure needs a little tweak and adjust to get it just right.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I really do - I crop a lot of my full frame D810 to 4:3 taking off the softer sides. I also find 4:3 or 3:4 suits portrait crop's a lot more. I like a lot of square images too. I shoot only landscape and architecture. 3:2 is too skinny for most portraits and not quite wide enough for those wide landscapes where 16:10, 16:9 and 2:1 and wider really work. For general landscapes I really dig 5:4, 4:3 or even 7:5

In terms of maximizing the image circle square sensors should rule the roost and it would also keep the softest part of the image circles away from the sensor - then the photographer can crop at will from there. Why don't they make camera's like that beats me.
Click to expand...

.... I have been following your recent landscape missions on Instagram and am very impressed.

I agree about 2:3 portrait orientation images and preferred to crop 4:5 which is a long established 8x10 film format. But now I find that the 3:4 works well as a portrait orientation and having dual controls and dual grip on the M1X makes that a doddle.

Occasionally I will do an unconstrained crop if it helps the picture - I prefer to keep an open mind and cropping to fit or to best suit a presentation comes from me being a 'retired-but-hardwired' professional Art Director. Tough titty if the photographer doesn't like it < Unless they are really really famous and are paid thousands per day! But I would work with a professional photographer to get the end picture proportions needed for my client - So everyone was happy.
 
Caerus said:
Once you try live preview exposure its game over, you can never go back.

You can see the exposure needs a little tweak and adjust to get it just right.
Click to expand...

.... What is "Live Preview Exposure"? If it applies any kind of highlight alerts I switch it off because it is enormously distracting when shooting anything other than something which doesn't move (architecture and still life etc which I don't shoot).

Also, I rarely shoot in Live View unless at ground level with the screen angled up and then invariably it has to be very quickly taken anyway. Such is wildlife photography.
 
RedRobin said:
.... What is "Live Preview Exposure"? If it applies any kind of highlight alerts I switch it off because it is enormously distracting when shooting anything other than something which doesn't move (architecture and still life etc which I don't shoot).

Also, I rarely shoot in Live View unless at ground level with the screen angled up and then invariably it has to be very quickly taken anyway. Such is wildlife photography.
Click to expand...
It's when you can see the exposure live either on the screen or in evf.
Change a setting and the image changes so wysiwyg
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's when you can see the exposure live either on the screen or in evf.
Change a setting and the image changes so wysiwyg
Click to expand...

.... Ah, I thought it might be a separate option. The wysiwyg is something I particularly like about mirrorless cameras. Include the histogram mountain range section in the EVF or LV and you are well on the way to nailing a good shot.
 
RedRobin said:
.... Ah, I thought it might be a separate option. The wysiwyg is something I particularly like about mirrorless cameras. Include the histogram mountain range section in the EVF or LV and you are well on the way to nailing a good shot.
Click to expand...

I use the histogram preview in LV on the DSLR all the time. For landscape it is the way.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I use the histogram preview in LV on the DSLR all the time. For landscape it is the way.
Click to expand...

.... Yes, that works very well for subjects such as landscapes and architecture but for wildlife you are mostly buried in the viewfinder. I found that I could easily miss a shot or fps burst by moving my eye from the viewfinder to the LV on the D-SLR. Even a wildlife target spotting your head movement can easily spook them and then the shot is missed.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I really do - I crop a lot of my full frame D810 to 4:3 taking off the softer sides. I also find 4:3 or 3:4 suits portrait crop's a lot more. I like a lot of square images too. I shoot only landscape and architecture. 3:2 is too skinny for most portraits and not quite wide enough for those wide landscapes where 16:10, 16:9 and 2:1 and wider really work. For general landscapes I really dig 5:4, 4:3 or even 7:5

In terms of maximizing the image circle square sensors should rule the roost and it would also keep the softest part of the image circles away from the sensor - then the photographer can crop at will from there. Why don't they make camera's like that beats me.
Click to expand...
I agree, particularly for portraits, 4:3 is a good AR, although your comments regarding landscapes seem to be rather contradictory.
However, I don't do portraits, and for other things, landscape or architecture, if I crop to a wider or taller AR then I'm throwing away many of those valuable pixels, which are already in short supply with m4:3.

Another thing I've noticed with the Olympus EVF is the large number of artificial light sources that are not constant and result in a pulsing or strobing VF image. This seems to be particularly true of LED light sources, which are apparently constant, but pulse like crazy when seen through an EVF.
I recently visited a well known London tube station which has a wall of illuminated panels. It's a popular spot for 'togs and I've photographed there previously with an OVF and not noticed anything unusual.
However, looking through the Oly EVF I saw such violent strobing of the light source it made me feel ill. The same using the LCD screen, virtually unusable and certainly a case of not seeing what the end result would be like.
There were some other 'togs there, shooting with Canon and Nikon DSLRs and even using "Live View" none of them exhibited the strobing viewfinder the Pen-F displayed, so EVF's just don't work for subjects like this, which do not have steady illumination.
 
Thanks to everyone for their input. I'll see if I can have a play with some kit in the new year.

Will need to be convincing as I have quite a bit invested in my Canon EF kit but long term may be the way to go, particularly as the technology appears to have levelled out.
 
You could always dip your toe into the mirror less systems and stick with Canon that way you can use your existing lenses while gaining the benefit of the lighter body.
Quite a few people are jumping ship and going for Sony (what model depends on your budget) but the 200-600 lens for wildlife is getting some great reviews.

Tim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top