Noob camera advice

andyman_esq

andyman_esq

Messages
30
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Sorry to be one of those people... however I'm brand new to photography and would appreciate some advice.
I'm looking to get a relatively light kit for walking around. Night photos would be nice too.

I really liked Fuji photos that I saw online and had decided on getting an X-T2. However, I went into the store to try it out and preferred the size/weight of the X-T20 to the X-T2.
The guy in there ended up extolling the virtues of the M43 form factor and showed me an EM-10 MkIII with different lenses. The compact size was nice, along with the wider potential for lens upgrades.

That said, I really preferred the X-T20s feel and its photos out of the box. Maybe I just need to play with the Olympus colour balance to get similar..

So:
An X-T20 + XF18-55 is £700 refurbished.

I got offered an EM10 (new, not used, which is not so preferable) + 14-42 + 40-150 for £685, plus there's an Olympus offer to get a free 45mm 1.8 if registered online.


What would you recommend?

Note: I'm open to alternatives (e.g. Lumix)
 
What's the priorities? Light weight, best possible image quality, flexibility, cost, handling, getting drawn into a hobby that will induce you to spend money?

The EM10 kit is a relative bargain, and would set you up with a decent 'instant outfit' while remaining small and very easy to carry around. We've had an E-M10 MkI here for a couple of years (because it's really small and my wife doesn't want anything larger) and at screen size it's quite difficult to tell the difference between that and a full frame Nikon camera for a well exposed image. However it's always better to buy the camera that feels great to you, because it will make you WANT to go & shoot, rather than feeling like you're having to deal with something that's a bit awkward.

One more thing - images from the camera are the starting point. White balance not good - a quick tweak (batch tweak for lots of photos) will fix that, especially if shooting raw format. You should probably allow £70 to £120 for image processing software too.

Neither of the cameras you mention are bad, and more choice will only make it more difficult. ;)
 
I'm surprised by this, usually these store assistants try to push people away from M43 to Fuji or Sony!

As ancient_mariner says, both are very nice options, it really depends on your personal preference here. DO you mostly shoot 'stills' - as in, non moving subjects? or do you also like to shoot fast moving targets [kids, pets, any kind of sports]? The Olympus has excellent stabilization that cannot be beat [apart from other higher end M43 bodies] for stills photography and/or smooth video. The image quality from Oly cameras is great at lower ISO and it can be a cheap as you like system to buy into.

On the other hand, the Fuji will be at least a stop better in terms of higher ISO/low light performance but it does not have in built stabilization [the 18-55 kit lens does have OIS though, which isn't quite as good but good nonetheless] - Images will be a tad better quality at similar settings but you'd only notice when pixel peeping, or during processing when you're really pushing the files.

I'm using both M43 and Fuji atm, I cannot say which I prefer tbh, they both have pros and cons. Just go with your instinct. The Olympus deal is the better value here, especially if you get the 45 1.8, this will help negate the low light differences.

Both do wonderful Jpegs too
 
ancient_mariner said:
What's the priorities? Light weight, best possible image quality, flexibility, cost, handling, getting drawn into a hobby that will induce you to spend money?
Click to expand...

Yes.

OK, probably light weight, IQ, and flexibility. I imagine I'll start with a kit lens or two and figure out what I want through experimenting. From this point of view I suppose having three lenses isn't a dealbreaker unless I'm passing up a stupid great offer or something.


Cagey75 said:
DO you mostly shoot 'stills' - as in, non moving subjects? or do you also like to shoot fast moving targets [kids, pets, any kind of sports]? The Olympus has excellent stabilization that cannot be beat [apart from other higher end M43 bodies] for stills photography and/or smooth video. The image quality from Oly cameras is great at lower ISO and it can be a cheap as you like system to buy into.

On the other hand, the Fuji will be at least a stop better in terms of higher ISO/low light performance but it does not have in built stabilization [the 18-55 kit lens does have OIS though, which isn't quite as good but good nonetheless] - Images will be a tad better quality at similar settings but you'd only notice when pixel peeping, or during processing when you're really pushing the files.

I'm using both M43 and Fuji atm, I cannot say which I prefer tbh, they both have pros and cons. Just go with your instinct. The Olympus deal is the better value here, especially if you get the 45 1.8, this will help negate the low light differences.
Click to expand...

Action shots aren't a primary goal. More well-composed stills. I actually did hear about the ISO advantage of the Fuji, but Olympus fans were adamant that IBIS more than makes up for it in low-light sitations.

The IBIS, lens expandibility, and easier RAW workflow maybe make the Olympus a better option on paper, but for some reason my original decision to go Fuji has got me stuck. Head vs heart?
 
andyman_esq said:
Yes.


Action shots aren't a primary goal. More well-composed stills. I actually did hear about the ISO advantage of the Fuji, but Olympus fans were adamant that IBIS more than makes up for it in low-light sitations.

The IBIS, lens expandibility, and easier RAW workflow maybe make the Olympus a better option on paper, but for some reason my original decision to go Fuji has got me stuck. Head vs heart?
Click to expand...

IBIS is great, I can't be without it since I've gotten used to it. This is why when I felt the urge to give Fuji another try, the XH1 was really the only one I wanted, so I go it. But I still have my Panasonic G80[similar sensor to the Olympus em10 mkII], and I've been directly comparing them over the last few days since getting the Fuji. There's things I like and dislike about both. The IBIS on the G80 is MUCH better for one, but then with the Fuji I am much more comfortable shooting with Auto ISO set to 6400, where on the G80 I limit this to 1600 [2 stops, but the reality is more like 1 - 1.5 difference]. If you hear people say that with Fuji files you'll encounter bad issues with artifacts when using LR, those people were over-sharpening by a lot! I'm using LR for both and getting no such issues even with higher ISO files. You just need to learn to process the different systems in very different ways. With G80 files I will pump sharpness to 45 no problem and then perform some masking, with Fuji I'm staying below 25, files end up equally as sharp for my liking.

The touch screen on M43 newer models is also far superior to Fuji's, and the M43 lens line up is much more budget friendly. BUT, get one decent Fuji prime, and you realise why they are that bit more expensive, they really are excellent. The worst Fuji lenses are still better than most other system's average ones.

Sorry ... really not making this easy for you! :D
 
andyman_esq said:
Action shots aren't a primary goal. More well-composed stills. I actually did hear about the ISO advantage of the Fuji, but Olympus fans were adamant that IBIS more than makes up for it in low-light sitations.

The IBIS, lens expandibility, and easier RAW workflow maybe make the Olympus a better option on paper, but for some reason my original decision to go Fuji has got me stuck. Head vs heart?
Click to expand...

At the sort of focal lengths I like (something like 14-45 in MFT terms or 18-56 In APS-C terms) I've never really found IS all that useful as if the shutter speed is low enough to need IS it's possibly low enough to show movement of the things in shot unless you're shooting a still life scene. If there are any people or other things that are likely to move in the shot I'd want a higher shutter speed to freeze movement and IS would very likely be superfluous. At longer focal lengths it'll doubtless help though so it'll all depend on what you want to take pictures of.

I've no doubt that APS-C is a little bit better than MFT in low light but there is debate about how much better and Fuji are suspected of massaging the ISO and exposure perhaps a little more than most but at the same aperture and shutter speed there should be an advantage to APS-C, the question is how much and I'd suggest that maybe there isn't enough in it for it to be a major factor. Maybe it can just be one more factor to consider along with all of the other things to think about but not a deal maker or breaker.

I don't suppose I've helped... Just my 2p worth :D
 
I’ve had both systems there’s nothing much in it. Both will serve you well at the start & from the sounds of it you have two sensible choices to match what you want shoot, don’t end up in analysis paralysis.

I would probably go towards the Olympus purely because three lens to start with and learn. If it’s the 40-150R lens then you’ll have a good little telephoto, haven’t used 14-42 but the 45mm might challenge you to find the best times to use it.

Remember to factor in the cost of memory cards, extra battery and maybe some editing software.

Have a camera you enjoy holding, then go shoot lots and learn what you enjoy.
 
woof woof said:
At the sort of focal lengths I like (something like 14-45 in MFT terms or 18-56 In APS-C terms) I've never really found IS all that useful as if the shutter speed is low enough to need IS it's possibly low enough to show movement of the things in shot unless you're shooting a still life scene. If there are any people or other things that are likely to move in the shot I'd want a higher shutter speed to freeze movement and IS would very likely be superfluous. At longer focal lengths it'll doubtless help though so it'll all depend on what you want to take pictures of.

I've no doubt that APS-C is a little bit better than MFT in low light but there is debate about how much better and Fuji are suspected of massaging the ISO and exposure perhaps a little more than most but at the same aperture and shutter speed there should be an advantage to APS-C, the question is how much and I'd suggest that maybe there isn't enough in it for it to be a major factor. Maybe it can just be one more factor to consider along with all of the other things to think about but not a deal maker or breaker.

I don't suppose I've helped... Just my 2p worth :D
Click to expand...

I've been directly comparing both at the same settings using the same lenses [have Canon AF adapters and lenses for both] and the Fuji files are definitely a tad darker. I don't know if it counts as them cheating a little [as suggest by some across other forums] but there is a noticeable difference. The Fuji files can still be pushed more in post, by a fair bit I would say from my testing. ISO 6400 for example is cleaner - slightly, than ISO 3200 on the G80, but is that Fuji an honest 6400? I have no idea, I just have to go by the numbers shown on camera. When processing in general though, there's not a lot in it, bar the 'feel' of the images, Fuji files certainly have their own look, but then so do Panasonic's. Might not make sense to everyone, but I prefer Panasonic's greens but Fuji's reds :D
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm surprised by this, usually these store assistants try to push people away from M43
Click to expand...

This isn't true and hasn't been for quite some time.

A lot of the larger camera retailers push m43 and Olympus in particular very hard as they are a much higher margin product. Olympus are also one of the few manufacturers that still offers quite a lot of incentives for units sold.
 
Cagey75 said:
I've been directly comparing both at the same settings using the same lenses [have Canon AF adapters and lenses for both] and the Fuji files are definitely a tad darker. I don't know if it counts as them cheating a little [as suggest by some across other forums] but there is a noticeable difference. The Fuji files can still be pushed more in post, by a fair bit I would say from my testing. ISO 6400 for example is cleaner - slightly, than ISO 3200 on the G80, but is that Fuji an honest 6400? I have no idea, I just have to go by the numbers shown on camera. When processing in general though, there's not a lot in it, bar the 'feel' of the images, Fuji files certainly have their own look, but then so do Panasonic's. Might not make sense to everyone, but I prefer Panasonic's greens but Fuji's reds :D
Click to expand...

I don't want to take this thread too far off topic or cause too much aggro with Fuji owners but I thought it was widely known and reported by the more respected and reliable test and blog sites that Fuji cook their files and interpret things a little more/differently than some others. The end effect being that Fuji files can perhaps superficially look a little better at higher ISO's than files from some other brands.

Being polite I think I'd believe that their exposure and ISO settings are perhaps a little more less accurate than some others and maybe this is why it's perhaps best to use identical settings when comparing different brands.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I don't want to take this thread too far off topic or cause too much aggro with Fuji owners but I thought it was widely known and reported by the more respected and reliable test and blog sites that Fuji cook their files and interpret things a little more/differently than some others. The end effect being that Fuji files can perhaps superficially look a little better at higher ISO's than files from some other brands.

Being polite I think I'd believe that their exposure and ISO settings are perhaps a little more less accurate than some others and maybe this is why it's maybe best to use identical settings when comparing different brands.
Click to expand...

It's all good, as I am a Fuji user now :D Like I say, have directly compared, and though I have noticed differences at the same settings, there's little in it. The Fuji files being a little darker at the exact same settings, but cleaner as expected at the same time. And because you can push them a little more it negates any arsing about that might be happening.
 
andyman_esq said:
OK, probably light weight, IQ, and flexibility. I imagine I'll start with a kit lens or two and figure out what I want through experimenting. From this point of view I suppose having three lenses isn't a dealbreaker unless I'm passing up a stupid great offer or something.
Click to expand...

The first item you list is light weight, so on this basis I'd go Olympus over Fuji - pretty much everything will be smaller and lighter (40-150 is featherweight for an 80-300mm equivalent lens, and also decently sharp) plus the 45 f1.8 would be a good portrait lens.
 
Probably. I thought I'd get away with the X-T20 and one or two good lenses, though, since that body is pretty light.

One major factor in this is the two kit lenses in the Olympus deal: from looking around it's seems that they might not be so great?
Given that you can find M43 lenses as good as the Fujis, but for comparable prices, it makes me wonder: how much use did you guys actually get out of the mid- to low-range M43 lenses? (This might be a stupid question. Sorry.)
 
We have the 14-42 EZ pancake and 40-150 here. Both are better than typical 'kit' lenses but don't always have the biting sharpness (or weight) of the pro f2.8 lenses, and are fine for general use.

Judge for yourself from a quick look at Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus 14-42 EZ
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus 40-150 f4-5.6

If you want the fuji, buy the fuji.

Just done a quick size comparison - camera bodies almost excatly the same with fuji a touch smaller. http://j.mp/2rLyWb4 =
 
Last edited:
andyman_esq said:
Probably. I thought I'd get away with the X-T20 and one or two good lenses, though, since that body is pretty light.

One major factor in this is the two kit lenses in the Olympus deal: from looking around it's seems that they might not be so great?
Given that you can find M43 lenses as good as the Fujis, but for comparable prices, it makes me wonder: how much use did you guys actually get out of the mid- to low-range M43 lenses? (This might be a stupid question. Sorry.)
Click to expand...

The Olympus lenses are decent. Those two are particular popular because many buyers gravitated to m4/3 to save some bulk and those particular lenses are both very light, cost effective travel options and cover such a massive range. There is not much wrong with either other than feeling a little plastic, but obviously that's why they're so light. You can't always have your cake and eat it.
 
gad-westy said:
Just in case it helps, the E-M10 iii can be bought here with the 14-42 and 40-150 for £479.

https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/olympus-e-m10-iii-twin-kit-14-42-ez40-150-black-8058-p.asp

Many offers kicking around are for the MK2 version so thought I better mention it. Great little camera although worth saying that the Fuji and m4/3 systems are both so well developed now, that you cannot really get this wrong.
Click to expand...
Holy s***, that's an amazing deal, no?! Thank you for this.

Sorry for the lack of replies everyone - I'm swamped with work right now. I'm actually heading away for work for a month and was going to pull the trigger on something this weekend to take with me, but there's been a lot of valid back-and-forth here on the cameras, and I forgot about the bank holiday, so I think I'm going to spend the next few weeks actually just considering everything you guys have said :/

Hooray? (hooray)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top