Looking to switch to a smaller body

Cyprio

Cyprio

Messages
541
Edit My Images
No
I need some advice on a smaller, more compact camera to replace my D5100. I don't use it as much as I would like as despite it's small footprint it's still to big/heavy for me or my wife to easily throw into a carry around bag. I have lost touch with the compact/mirror-less market as don't have much time to read tech blogs and reviews.

I have toyed with higher end compacts before (Canon S95, Fuji X10) but found the smaller sensors not really adequate for the picture quality i have grown used to with larger DSLRs. Having said that I also tried early M3/4rd models and although loved the larger sensors I found the focusing too hit and miss for faster moving kids/pets.

Browsing the threads here I feel a bit overwhelmed by the choice available at present and so am asking for some help in narrowing my search. It seems that compacts are coming out with larger sensors and mirror-less bodies are getting smaller! A good summary article would be incredibly helpful.

I looks like a choice between M3/4rds, Fuji X series and Sony Nex. Where do I start?!

Thanks.
 
After a quick read I'm more convinced I am looking for a mirror-less interchangeable - both for the larger sensor and lens flexibility. Thanks for the tip though.
 
I personally would be looking at Sony NEX series because of the large sensor and interchangeable lenses. Sometimes I struggle with M4/3, I briefly owned an Olympus EPL2 and didnt really get on with it, it was almost as big as my X100 which has an APS-C sensor in. The difference is big enough so that there should be a difference in camera size but there isnt so im not too sure why people would go for M4/3.

Some people love M4/3 but I personally dont, just my 2 cents!
 
I'm sold on my x100s as its what I take if I'm out and about! Of course the DSLR has to take care of any distance shots as the x100s is a fixed lens. But in your case the X-PRO1 or E-X1 seems like the one I would consider if I was completely switching and just had to have different lenses.
 
Bit difficult these days but you need to handle them, especially coming from a DSLR, as they all have quite different handling quirks.

Personally I think Fuji X is the easiest transition from a DSLR, same sensor size and a stunning range of lenses that are actually fairly compact considering the speed of them, unlike NEX.
 
Thrash said:
I personally would be looking at Sony NEX series because of the large sensor and interchangeable lenses. Sometimes I struggle with M4/3, I briefly owned an Olympus EPL2 and didnt really get on with it, it was almost as big as my X100 which has an APS-C sensor in. The difference is big enough so that there should be a difference in camera size but there isnt so im not too sure why people would go for M4/3.

Some people love M4/3 but I personally dont, just my 2 cents!
Click to expand...

After much testing and comparison between MFT and APS-C I decided that there was precious little between them. Most people seem to think that DoF is the most important thing and the shallower the better but I see little difference between MFT and APS-C.

Other than that you could argue that MFT has the best lens selection of any CSC system and of course it's not just the size of the body that matters it's body + lens and a smaller system wil usually have the smaller lenses and smaller overall mass.

On body size I'm pretty sure that MFT bodies could be a bit smaller but we already have people saying that these bodies are too small so really deciding what the best size for a camera is is rather difficult and if MFT bodies were smaller than they are I'm pretty sure they'd lose as many buyers as they'd gain.

Personally I'd forget sensor size when looking at Nex, Fuji X or MFT as IMVHO it makes little real word difference in terms of DoF or even image quality.

Personally I'd look at features and lens selection rather than fixate on APS-C v MFT or MFT cameras being 5mm bigger than they should be.

PS. Two things that put me off Fuji X series...
1. Base ISO of 200. Get used to ND's if you want to shoot those lovely wide aperture lenses wide open in good light. I believe that the X100 has a filter built in, a luxury the X-Pro and XE1 don't share.
2. Processing RAW files may mean using Fuji or different software (my CS5 puts a grid of dots over Fuji RAWs so I'd need new software.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your comments guys. Still reading up on these. The Fuji sensor does appear to have an advantage at higher ISOs and their lenses get great reviews...
 
Cyprio said:
Thanks for all your comments guys. Still reading up on these. The Fuji sensor does appear to have an advantage at higher ISOs and their lenses get great reviews...
Click to expand...

But you'll need to think about how you're going to process the images, or shoot JPEG.
 
Much sage advice above. You might want to think too about what kind of viewfinder you need (evf, optical or none).
 
woof woof said:
But you'll need to think about how you're going to process the images, or shoot JPEG.
Click to expand...

I process all the images so shoot in raw. Just not good enough yet to set to jpg and go and not sure I'm too impressed with the fuji presets... they get great reviews if that is what you prefer though.

Edit: Yes, LR does support Fuji at least LR5 does?!
 
Last edited:
I've not had a problem with X-E1 RAW files in Elements, in fact I wasn't even aware there was (still) an issue.
 
Last edited:
The original Nikon 1 v1 is a cracking little camera with compact lenses. The 18.5 produces some excellent results. I have gone from that to an OM-D but to be honest it's a lot larger for little IQ gain at normal viewing, the main benefit is more control. That's what the 1 lacks in.
 
ukaskew said:
I've not had a problem with X-E1 RAW files in Elements, in fact I wasn't even aware there was (still) an issue.
Click to expand...

I have camera raw 6.7 and Adobe have stopped letting me update anything to do with CS5 so the only way I can get an update is to spend more money.

6.7 will open Fuji files and process them but it places a grid of dots over the files. See my 6.7 problem here...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=490635

If anyone has a version of Adobe or some other software that'll process Fuji files then it's not an issue, likewise it's not an issue if you are happy to use whatever Fuji bundle with the camera.
 
I moved from big canon cameras to a smaller system and don't regret it in the least. I toyed with m4/3 and fuji gear, going in the end for fujis. Three big issues as far as I am concerned:
1. I like a shallow depth of field and used f1.2 or 1.4 lenses on full frame canons. I cannot get that same look as easily with the smaller cameras. But fuji primes are fast and the sensor relatively large so they come close. The Olympus cameras have smaller sensors and slower lenses which fights against a shallow depth if field. The difference may be small, especially on paper, but for the shots I do it is still crucial. The other side of the coin is that getting deep depth of field on a m4/3 is dead easy without closing down to f22. So I guess it depends on what style you like. Related to this, think about the lenses you will want. Fuji primes are lovely and while oly/Panasonic have some good primes it seems to me they do best in producing good zooms. The new pro oly zoos look magnificent. But they will be f2.8 at best so not great for shallow dof (assuming you care about that)
2. Autofocus speed. Fujis are not great here plus they are a bit quirky so if you like to shoot fast then look at good m4/3. I had an OMD EM5 and it was lightening fast to focus. Neither system was good at following a moving subject though.
3. Handling. For me, this is crucial. Try before you buy. The m4/3 cameras I used were really tiny and as I have larger than average hands I just couldn't get used to them. The fujis are better for me but that does mean they are relatively large and heavy, especially with grips added
 
I'd stick with the D5100 and stick a 35 1.8G on it - some great shots on your Flickr page!
 
Dmac60 said:
I'd stick with the D5100 and stick a 35 1.8G on it - some great shots on your Flickr page!
Click to expand...

Thanks, but didn't use it enough and want something to carry round with me all the time.

Gone back to looking for a RX100 as it seems to fit my needs well.
 
Thrash said:
I personally would be looking at Sony NEX series because of the large sensor and interchangeable lenses. Sometimes I struggle with M4/3, I briefly owned an Olympus EPL2 and didnt really get on with it, it was almost as big as my X100 which has an APS-C sensor in. The difference is big enough so that there should be a difference in camera size but there isnt so im not too sure why people would go for M4/3.

Some people love M4/3 but I personally dont, just my 2 cents!
Click to expand...

The E-PL2 is old technology with the panasonic sensor the E-PL5 and E-M5 use the latest Sony sensor and are on a par with the Nex and easily better than the older NEX3.

You are comparing old technology with new which is not a fair comarason or does the OP any favours in making his mind up.:)
 
ianmarsh said:
I moved from big canon cameras to a smaller system and don't regret it in the least. I toyed with m4/3 and fuji gear, going in the end for fujis. Three big issues as far as I am concerned:
1. I like a shallow depth of field and used f1.2 or 1.4 lenses on full frame canons. I cannot get that same look as easily with the smaller cameras. But fuji primes are fast and the sensor relatively large so they come close. The Olympus cameras have smaller sensors and slower lenses which fights against a shallow depth if field.
Click to expand...

Really!

All at six feet focusing distance.

The fuji 60mm f2.4 has exactly the same dof as the Olympus 45mm f1.8 and costs three times as much and they both have a equivalent focal length of 90mm that is ideal for portraiture.

Fuji does not have a equivalent lens for the Oly 17mmf1.8. (34mm)

The nearest I could find was the fuji xf 18mm f1.4 (27mm) which has 10 inches less DOF at three times the price.

The Xf 27mm f2.8 (41mm) again has 10 inches less dof.

And of course Fuji does not have a comparable prime lens for the Oly 75mm f1.8 (150mm) which has a dof of only 1.2 inches at 6 feet.

I'm not saying one is better than the other just that your assumption about comparable lenses and dof is off the mark. ;)
 
Last edited:
But... You'll be getting better iq with the Fuji (bigger sensor & great fuji glass) The 60mm F2.4 is the sharpest lens I have ever owned.

If you are really craving shallow depth of field at sensible focal lengths then you'd be better with APSC or even better full frame (Sony A7 mirrorless on the horizon).

Fuji have announced a 23mm f1.4 (35mm equivalent) although not cheap, there is no doubt it will be fantastic!
 
The thing is... APS-C is only significantly bigger in one direction. The consequence is there isn't that much in it DoF wise - especially if you crop to an alternate and squarer ratio (e.g 10x8)

Do the maths - APS-C is only 1.25x u4/3 and that's across the diagonal!

u4/3 also has some excellent glass too - among the sharpest you can get.
 
Before this thread goes that way :D

The physics only really matter to the person who is using said camera. If you (op) are happy with the output of the camera and lenses available, then that's all that matters.

The biggest benefit to M43 from my perspective is the really small size & excellent lens choice (particularly Olympus). Where as APSC you will get a smaller D.O.F for the same aperture and naturally, the benefits a bigger sensor gives you for overall IQ. To some the difference is negligible, to others not. It's a very personal decision.
 
hobodan said:
the benefits a bigger sensor gives you for overall IQ. To some the difference is negligible, to others not. It's a very personal decision.
Click to expand...
The benefits of sensor size can be nullified or even reversed when you look at the system as a whole (and include lens characteristics into the equation). These days, simply having a bigger sensor does not necessarily mean a better IQ.
 
hobodan said:
The biggest benefit to M43 from my perspective is the really small size & excellent lens choice (particularly Olympus). Where as APSC you will get a smaller D.O.F for the same aperture and naturally, the benefits a bigger sensor gives you for overall IQ. To some the difference is negligible, to others not. It's a very personal decision.
Click to expand...

But have you checked the actual difference in DoF?

I did a shed load of testing between my G1 (MFT,) 20D (APS-C) and 5D (FF) and my conclusion was there's next to nothing in it between MFT and APS-C.
 
woof woof said:
But have you checked the actual difference in DoF?

I did a shed load of testing between my G1 (MFT,) 20D (APS-C) and 5D (FF) and my conclusion was there's next to nothing in it between MFT and APS-C.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this, only thing which would give APS-C camera an advantage would be down to the lens used.

Some sage advice given on the merits of m43 - my gripe with Fuji is build quality. Totally disappointed in the X100 and would never buy another one (this on top of the whole processing issues with the X-Tran)
 
I'm pretty amazed you found the X100 to be of poor build quality! I used to own the X100 & build quality would have been the last problem I had with it, In fact I found it exceptional. The autofocus speed used to drive me bonkers at times though :D
Just goes to show how we all view things differently.

I have never owned a M43 camera, although I have been tempted many a time, especially by the offerings of Olympus. I have no doubts about the IQ of M43 from the samples I have seen, certainly good enough for ME, although there are some reviews out there that clearly state it is more difficult to achieve shallow d.o.f on m43 compared to APSC. Again whether it's an issue for you is well.. Your decision (op)

I've previously owned an NEX7 (great camera) before buying the X-pro1 (It was the x100 that introduced me to Fuji). What the Fuji does for me is great build quality, excellent fast lenses that are reasonably small and stunning image quality.... But the biggest reason I love using the Xpro is how much fun I have using it, especially with the manual controls and lovely hybrid viewfinder ect. And with photography only being a hobby for myself, that is important to me.

The best thing for anybody to do is get down to a shop and handle all the cameras on the shortlist. If that's not a Canon or Nikon it can be tricky, I have never seen an Olympus or Fuji flagship camera anywhere; maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
 
hobodan said:
although there are some reviews out there that clearly state it is more difficult to achieve shallow d.o.f on m43 compared to APSC.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of sweeping statements on the internet :) It depends how you cut the cake as DoF is affected by crop too and you have to remember a u43 sensor is a different shape to an APS-C sensor (4:3 as opposed to 3:2). If you simply crop the image of the APS-C sensor to a 4:3 ratio, you end up with a sensor that is a little more than 10% bigger in x and y. The effects are negligible, and normally outweighed by the better lenses on u43 (the better lenses are higher resolution than even good FF lenses). Fundamentally u43 punches above where you think it would based purely on sensor size.

Oh.. and not everyone is into very narrow DoF - in fact it can be a distinct advantage to have more depth of field at a given aperture simply to get more of the image in focus whilst retaining shutter speed.
 
arad85 said:
in fact it can be a distinct advantage to have more depth of field at a given aperture simply to get more of the image in focus whilst retaining shutter speed.
Click to expand...

I have heard this a lot from the M43 crowd, I just wonder why people have never mentioned this about compact cameras? It almost seems to be a statement to justify a purchase.

Physics are physics of which there is no shortcut. That 10% or whatever it is could be negligible to the op, or it could be the deal breaker! It's not our decision.
 
I have tried quite a few compact over the years,just cant seem to get on with them.
I just dont like the way you have zoom in and out,much prefer an csc or a fixed lens they just seem to slow me up.

:)
 
hobodan said:
I have heard this a lot from the M43 crowd, I just wonder why people have never mentioned this about compact cameras? It almost seems to be a statement to justify a purchase.
Click to expand...


Quite simply because the extended dof of a small sensor compact is anything up to eight fold that of a APS-C/FT sensor in other words f2.8 on a compact has the same dof as f16/f22 on a a APS-C sensor that is why compacts are great for macro, everything is sharp because of the extended DOF and why you rarely get a compact that goes over f8 as at anything higher diffraction is a big problem with degrading the image quality because of the extended dof.

They would be great for everything except shallow dof if the image quality was not crap at anything over ISO 80.;)

Until recently I used both APS-C and MTF systems together and never really saw much difference in DOF and certainly not enought to split hairs about.:)
 
Last edited:
hobodan said:
That 10% or whatever it is could be negligible to the op, or it could be the deal breaker!
Click to expand...
That almost seems to be a statement to justify a purchase. ;)
 
If you don't mind the shutter noise, take a look at the about-to-be-shipped 'new kid on the block' Sony alpha 7 (24mp) and 7r (36mp) which are full frame and mirror less ...... peering into Leica territory at non-Leica price points
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top