Cheapest used mirrorless

[MJWC1]

I have quite a few old lenses, in various mounts, from my minor obsession with collecting 35mm SLRs. It seems that mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are able to effectively use lots of old glass with easily available adapters.

This has led me to thinking that it might be fun to get a mirrorless body to play around with. Being on a meagre budget, or would have to be cheap.

Any ideas on what would likely be the cheapest mirrorless camera I could pick up (say, through a well known auction site) that would be worth buying?

Being just for play, I wouldn't expect anything particularly great, but also wouldn't want any camera generally regarded as rubbish.

 

[hannahntilly]

I'd imagine a Lumix G1 would fit the bill. It has a v good EVF too. (The later G2 adds video.) The GF1 is a bit more compact but has no built-in EVF and costs more too. The Olympus Pens have the advantage of built-in image stabilisation - an EPL1 would be cheap.

 

[woof woof]

Yup. I have a G1 and it's worth pennies now so that might be a good way forward. The G2 is similar but has vid.

The G1 is a first generaltion product and the higher ISO performance lags behind newer cameras. I find anything up to ISO 800 to be ok and up to 1600 quite usable. 1600 is usable with care and even 3200 can be used at a pinch.

EVF-less models can aso be had and indeed my first MFT was a GF1 but I decided I couldn't live without a built in VF, an external one is available for the GF1.

If you can grab a bargan a Samsung NX may interest you, they have an APS-C chip.

Being just for play, I wouldn't expect anything particularly great, but also wouldn't want any camera generally regarded as rubbish.

My G1 produces images that after processing can get easily lost amongst prints or screen images from my 5D. I've challenged people to tell A4 and A3 prints apart (an expensive little test...) and without getting a magnifying glass out or looking for DoF clues people can't. Same for on screen images, without pixel peeping and at low to middling ISO's these early cameras can produce images that get lost in more serious camera company.

 

[heidfirst]

you should be able to pick up an early NEX 3 or 5 for little money now & that will get you an APS-C sensor that will outperform the early micro 4/3.
Can't remember when they introduced the EVF option for NEX-5 but you can easily research it. The same for peaking which seems to be a much loved feature for users of manual glass.

 

[MJWC1]

Thanks for the suggestions - much appreciated.

Focus peaking sounds like a seriously good thing. Yesterday I was using an old Chinon 300mm with a vintage Soviet M42 teleconverter on a Pentax K100D (bought very cheaply as it has some issues), taking bird shots. Depth of field was tiny. When I nailed the focus the shots were excellent, but I only managed this about 10% of the time.

It seems the NEX 3 scored focus peaking through a firmware update, so that could be a good option. An EVF would be better (especially when handholding heavy lenses), but I could cope with the LCD.

Time to check a certain well known auction site...

Cheers

 

[Micehorns]

I've been watching NEX 3s (first gen) going for under £90 body only on eBay recently. I'm sure it was firmware v4 that added peaking. Sadly the EVF doesn't work with the first generation (3 or 5) or one of the second generation (C3) NEX series.

You could also look at the Samsung NX range; the NX100 goes for about £80-100, the NX5 for under £70 sometimes and the NX10/11 (same camera) £120. NX100 has liveview and a detatchable EVF (of poor quality), the NX5 has no liveview but a built in EVF and finally the NX10/11 has liveview and a built in EVF. The NX mount won't accept M mount, C mount, D Mount and i don't think it accepts L39 mount (unsure though).

I've used both 14mp sensors from Sony and Samsung, both are equal until you reach ISO 800+ then the Sony is stronger. If I had to pick either, it would be which ever one was cheaper on eBay that day, focusing peaking is great but the rear LCD on the Samsung was clearer. Performance wise, the Sony is faster (start up, fps, writing RAW) but nothing that would make the Samsung appear slow.

 

[MJWC1]

Thanks Chris - I will definitely check out the Samsungs as well. I don't have anything in M, C or D mounts, so that is no issue.

Of course, I don't need another camera and I am already pressed for storage space with all the old film cameras, lenses and accessories. But the mirrorless are so small...