Stumped on Which CSC/Four Thirds Kit?

Forkbeard

Forkbeard

Messages
475
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been using a Nikon D90 and a Sony RX100(i) and both are getting a bit long in the tooth. The Sony buttons are playing up and the Nikon is dated - it's also staying at home more due to size. The RX100's lack of viewfinder and one or two other things are beginning to annoy me. I'm thinking of replacing both with something mid sized like a Sony A6300 or Olympus em5ii but haven't looked into it much more. I have nothing invested in the Nikon system so will be starting almost from scratch. The Olympus 12 - 40 f2.8 appeals to me (partly for the weather sealing to match the em5ii) but I know absolutely nothing about Sony lenses.
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
I've been using a Nikon D90 and a Sony RX100(i) and both are getting a bit long in the tooth. The Sony buttons are playing up and the Nikon is dated - it's also staying at home more due to size. The RX100's lack of viewfinder and one or two other things are beginning to annoy me. I'm thinking of replacing both with something mid sized like a Sony A6300 or Olympus em5ii but haven't looked into it much more. I have nothing invested in the Nikon system so will be starting from scratch.
Click to expand...

I think this is going to depend on what you want to use it for, and therefore what lenses etc you're likely to need. Both camera and both systems have their pros and cons.
 
I use Olympus cameras (I have an E-M1 and E-M5ii) and for me they are great bang for the buck. You can get decent enough lenses for pretty cheap, and the features of these cameras is amazing. The major weaknesses I've found of the M43 system is:
- small sensor = noisy at high ISO (I wouldn't want to go above 1600 ISO ideally), inherantly large DOF (getting nice out of focus areas is more tricky - you'll want a longer prime for this i.e. 45mm f1.8), and low light performance is not great
- low MP count = not much room for cropping & limitations on how large you can print at high quality

All in all these weaknesses don't both me too much (although I will eventually upgrade to FF for the increased dynamic range) and I find them very fun cameras to shoot with :)
 
gad-westy said:
I think this is going to depend on what you want to use it for, and therefore what lenses etc you're likely to need. Both camera and both systems have their pros and cons.
Click to expand...


Yep, sorry I meant to state what I'd be using it for - mainly travel photography, a bit of macro and landscape. Not necessarily sweeping vistas, more trip reports from hikes and walking routes, hence wanting something a bit smaller. I'm in the process of starting a walking website which is going to be time consuming enough so I'd like to get nice sooc jpegs to save me some time (I'm not all that experienced with raw and my laptop isn't the best either).
 
LojikDub said:
I use Olympus cameras (I have an E-M1 and E-M5ii) and for me they are great bang for the buck. You can get decent enough lenses for pretty cheap, and the features of these cameras is amazing. The major weaknesses I've found of the M43 system is:
- small sensor = noisy at high ISO (I wouldn't want to go above 1600 ISO ideally), inherantly large DOF (getting nice out of focus areas is more tricky - you'll want a longer prime for this i.e. 45mm f1.8), and low light performance is not great
- low MP count = not much room for cropping & limitations on how large you can print at high quality

All in all these weaknesses don't both me too much (although I will eventually upgrade to FF for the increased dynamic range) and I find them very fun cameras to shoot with :)
Click to expand...

I think I could live with what you've mentioned here; I don't normally shoot much low light, but that's another reason i quite fancied the 2.8 12-40. I normally don't print any bigger than 7x5, but do like having a pile of pictures knocking about to leaf through rather than them being stuck on a hard drive. I had a Lumix g3 briefly though and have got a nice a3 print from it so I'm not worried. I think the dynamic range will be about the same as what I'm used to anyway.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
If you don't want to outlay too much money at the outset you'd do well to go for this:

https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/olympus-e-m10-ii-twin-kit-14-42-ez40-150-black-6511-p.asp

or this

https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/olympus-e-m10-iii-twin-kit-14-42-ez40-150-silver-8060-p.asp
Click to expand...

The other cheaper option is the Panasonic GX80 which is one of the best bargains around at the moment.

You're not really going to get a bad camera from Panasonic, Olympus, Sony or Fuji. It's just a case of weighing up cost and features

I had a Lumix g3 briefly though and have got a nice a3 print from it so I'm not worried
Click to expand...

I still shoot with my G3 every now and again, and make prints with it. Probably the best second hand bargain around.
 
I use the Sony A6300 for a travel camera and when paired with a nice lens such as the 16-70 F4 its capable of producing some great images.But you probably need to list down what you want / need and find one that fits my needs for a camera may be different form yours. There are a few 6300 available used so you could pick it up at a great price.
 
Ste_S said:
The other cheaper option is the Panasonic GX80 which is one of the best bargains around at the moment.

You're not really going to get a bad camera from Panasonic, Olympus, Sony or Fuji. It's just a case of weighing up cost and features
Click to expand...

I've got my few months old GX80 in the classifieds if you want an economical way to give it a try, that's what I did.
Well impressed so went out and got a GX9, its my travel kit and enjoy using it with a few small primes.

Briefly had a EM1 and 12-40mm, contrary to some I found the lens a bit on the large and weighty side.
Also be aware that some of these cameras have an issue with something called "shutter shock" worth researching.
Olympus have addressed it with firmware updates and the Panasonics I mentioned appear to be cured by design although earlier ones certainly did have the problem
 
Last edited:
LojikDub said:
I use Olympus cameras (I have an E-M1 and E-M5ii) and for me they are great bang for the buck. You can get decent enough lenses for pretty cheap, and the features of these cameras is amazing. The major weaknesses I've found of the M43 system is:
- small sensor = noisy at high ISO (I wouldn't want to go above 1600 ISO ideally), inherantly large DOF (getting nice out of focus areas is more tricky - you'll want a longer prime for this i.e. 45mm f1.8), and low light performance is not great
- low MP count = not much room for cropping & limitations on how large you can print at high quality

All in all these weaknesses don't both me too much (although I will eventually upgrade to FF for the increased dynamic range) and I find them very fun cameras to shoot with :)
Click to expand...

errr panasonic g80 iso 4000 kind of puts that statement to bed
top dog by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
Forkbeard said:
Yep, sorry I meant to state what I'd be using it for - mainly travel photography, a bit of macro and landscape. Not necessarily sweeping vistas, more trip reports from hikes and walking routes, hence wanting something a bit smaller. I'm in the process of starting a walking website which is going to be time consuming enough so I'd like to get nice sooc jpegs to save me some time (I'm not all that experienced with raw and my laptop isn't the best either).
Click to expand...
That 12-40 is a great lens, the Olympus 60mm macro is a really great lens, and so small. But the 40-150 4-5.6 is really light, small and cheap. Great bang for your buck and easily pocket able. That's a travel kit for you.

And this is at 6400 ISO
Climbing by Pete Banks, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Can I play too?

A squirrel at ISO 16,000 taken with a Panasonic GX80. At 100% there's noise but detail is still visible and for viewing as a whole picture it is OK, IMO :D

P1010803.jpg

On the DoF issue, I like thin DoF but there's a time, place and a subject that suits it and with MFT and a f1.4 or f1.8 lens I think that adequately thin DoF is available for many shots. For example if shooting a head and shoulders or half body portrait with FF and a 50 or 85mm lens I'm probably not going to be shooting at f1.4 as the DoF will be minimal. Stop a FF 85mm down to f2.8 and the DoF can be matched by MFT and an f1.4 lens but in reality a lot of the time I'd want to stop down further to get more than one eye sharp. Just MHO, but I do know that some crave razor thin DoF :D

I think that any modern MFT or APS-C camera will easily exceed the image quality the OP's been getting from the D90. Depending on the lenses I think that either a MFT or A6xxx camera would be a good starting point and easily provide good image quality for hiking and web use.
 
You can achieve much shallower DOF with a slow tele lens than you can with a short wide aperture prime if you know what you're doing, just saying

Also, M43 is capable of clean enough results at higher ISO levels, as the guys have proven above, they know how to expose properly of course, this helps a lot. With FF I think many use the ISO performance as a bit of a crutch. There's a bit of "meh, I can under expose and push the crap out of it later in post" at times. Which is really better DR, not so much ISO performance
 
Last edited:
Just to be contrary, I quite like the noise you get from m4/3 sensors, especially the older ones. Its quite close to film grain.

Anyhoo, re dynamic range. Never had a problem with recovering highlights or shadows from any digital camera shot in RAW. I'm quite lazy with digital (as opposed to film), stick it in 'P' and trust the matrix meter will give me a file I can work with.
Experimented once to get motion blur with shooting at 1/10sec hand held in strong sunlight with an ageing Olympus 12MP e-p2. Not only did they ibis keep the image sharp, the over exposed highlights were perfectly recoverable.
 
Ste_S said:
Just to be contrary, I quite like the noise you get from m4/3 sensors, especially the older ones. Its quite close to film grain.

Anyhoo, re dynamic range. Never had a problem with recovering highlights or shadows from any digital camera shot in RAW. I'm quite lazy with digital (as opposed to film), stick it in 'P' and trust the matrix meter will give me a file I can work with.
Experimented once to get motion blur with shooting at 1/10sec hand held in strong sunlight with an ageing Olympus 12MP e-p2. Not only did they ibis keep the image sharp, the over exposed highlights were perfectly recoverable.
Click to expand...

M43 cameras are more capable than many imagine [usually those who have never had the pleasure of using them] but we can't fool ourselves at the same time. The dynamic range and ISO performance pales in comparison to full frame at the best of times. Now, APSC users should always stay clear of these comparisons, because they're no better off. There's really very little between M43 and APSC, and M43 has it's advantages, in particular the IBIS, at least for static subjects. But for faster moving subjects there's little to differentiate, we may need a little further push on the NR slider is all. I made the transition from Fuji APSC to M43 without noticing any downside, I think a lot of APSC users like to inflate the difference in sensor size, when they are almost as far behind as us. Especially Canon APSC, a 1.6x crop isn't much behind a 2x, simple physics/math - they have a teensy advantage, but then without IBIS or dual IS, that goes out the window. I am looking at other systems, canon being one, only because I fancy a change, not because I feel I'm losing out on anything. There's just some Canon lenses I'd love to try, on the budget end. I wouldn't be leaving because of bad ISO performance or bad DR, there's plenty enough for me to work with within the constraints.
 
Last edited:
LojikDub said:
Perhaps I should have phrased my statements in comparison to FF sensors. M43 is noisier at comparable ISO...but like I said it doesn't bother me and I love shooting M43.
Click to expand...
The one important thing your leaving out of the equation is cost, all makes of full frame cameras cost substantially more than there m4/3 equv plus the lenses are also heavier and more expensive.
And with good p.p I can’t see that much difference in dynamic range over the likes of the much vaunted Nikon bodies .
The one advantage the m4/3 has over these large full frame bodies is ibis making hand holdable shots a reality in lots of situations where tripods are banned plus the ability to impart that ibis advantage to legacy lenses giving them a new breath of life
 
the black fox said:
The one important thing your leaving out of the equation is cost, all makes of full frame cameras cost substantially more than there m4/3 equv plus the lenses are also heavier and more expensive.
And with good p.p I can’t see that much difference in dynamic range over the likes of the much vaunted Nikon bodies .
The one advantage the m4/3 has over these large full frame bodies is ibis making hand holdable shots a reality in lots of situations where tripods are banned plus the ability to impart that ibis advantage to legacy lenses giving them a new breath of life
Click to expand...

Agreed, in fact in my first post the first thing I said was they are great bang for the buck :)
 
the black fox said:
The one important thing your leaving out of the equation is cost, all makes of full frame cameras cost substantially more than there m4/3 equv plus the lenses are also heavier and more expensive.
And with good p.p I can’t see that much difference in dynamic range over the likes of the much vaunted Nikon bodies .
The one advantage the m4/3 has over these large full frame bodies is ibis making hand holdable shots a reality in lots of situations where tripods are banned plus the ability to impart that ibis advantage to legacy lenses giving them a new breath of life
Click to expand...


This is not a massive deciding factor but I have a few Minolta MD lenses, could they be used on a Sony or Olympus body? I also have some Oly lenses but they're pretty beaten up.

I've been looking at the original Sony A7 as well as those mentioned earlier...
 
Forkbeard said:
I've been looking at the original Sony A7 as well as those mentioned earlier...
Click to expand...

This would be my choice for landscape work of the various cameras listed in this thread, probably with a couple of primes, possibly even manual focus versions, for low weight and great image quality.
 
The Olympus system is great, I have no issues using it as a lighter alternative to my full frame Nikon as far as image quality is concerned, as long as you don’t mind losing the ability to get the really shallow DOF (comparatively).

Sure ISO handling is not as good as full frame but I bet it’s not far off the D90, or maybe even better. It’s certainly better than the RX100. I try to keep it below ISO 3200 but in extreme cases I have got useable images at ISO 6400, with fairly heavy NR in PP. However, Olympus (and possibly Panasonic?) has a secret weapon. The IBIS is so good that you can hand hold with really slow shutter speeds and hence keep ISO lower. So for example I can hand hold my Olympus with 12-40mm f2.8 (24-80mm we) at least 4 stops slower shutter speed than my D850 and 24-70mm f2.8, and my Nikon isn’t 4 stops better in noise handling (this of course is only relevant for subjects where you can use slow shutter speeds).

I had the EM5-II and rated it highly, however I now have the EM1 and personally think it balances better with the 12-40mm and overall has better ergonomics (YMMV). You can also pick up a used EM1 cheaper than a used EM5-II.

The Sony A6xxx camera’s are also excellent, and also overall have better AF systems for moving subjects. However, it is only that later ones that have weather sealing and these are still pretty expensive. Also, the APS-C e-mount lens lineup isn’t as good as the m4/3, although does have plenty to choose from.
 
Forkbeard said:
This is not a massive deciding factor but I have a few Minolta MD lenses, could they be used on a Sony or Olympus body? I also have some Oly lenses but they're pretty beaten up.

I've been looking at the original Sony A7 as well as those mentioned earlier...
Click to expand...

I often use Minolta Rokkor primes on my A7 with a Novoflex adapter. They work well :D They'll also work on mft but the focal length will be doubled.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, plenty to be thinking about...

I've had plenty of cameras before - dslrs, compacts, bridges, 35mm film slrs... I usually buy used for a particular trip or period of time then sell them on. This way I've been able to try different stuff out and don't lose much on reselling. The only problem being I've never really built a system up or settled on anything. There are pros and cons to everything. This time I'm going to buy new and stick with something. I've got a while to go before I'll have the money together so plenty of time to think about it.

The A7 is cheaper than I expected and using my Minolta lenses would be great. Decisions decisions...
 
Last edited:
If it helps at all...

What I intended to do was buy a few native Sony lenses and use film era lenses for the focal lengths I don't use enough to justify buying modern AF lenses. I did manage that but I've also gone a teeny bit overboard buying old lenses just for the ever so slightly look they all give.

It may be worth thinking about getting a basic kit covering your most used focal lengths and covering the once in a while needs with the older lenses.
 
Forkbeard said:
Hmmm, plenty to be thinking about...

I've had plenty of cameras before - dslrs, compacts, bridges, 35mm film slrs... I usually buy used for a particular trip or period of time then sell them on. This way I've been able to try different stuff out and don't lose much on reselling. The only problem being I've never really built a system up or settled on anything. There are pros and cons to everything. This time I'm going to buy new and stick with something. I've got a while to go before I'll have the money together so plenty of time to think about it.

The A7 is cheaper than I expected and using my Minolta lenses would be great. Decisions decisions...
Click to expand...
Olympus have a try before you buy scheme (can’t remember the exact name) so maybe get some hands on time before forking out for new gear?
 
snerkler said:
Olympus have a try before you buy scheme (can’t remember the exact name) so maybe get some hands on time before forking out for new gear?
Click to expand...

Olympus is at the top of my list, so I'll definitely be trying them out. I love my OM2n and am hoping I'll feel the same about the OMD series.
 
snerkler said:
Olympus have a try before you buy scheme (can’t remember the exact name) so maybe get some hands on time before forking out for new gear?
Click to expand...

They call it Olympus Wow https://wow.olympus.eu/

Forkbeard said:
Olympus is at the top of my list, so I'll definitely be trying them out. I love my OM2n and am hoping I'll feel the same about the OMD series.
Click to expand...

Just AFAIK just need to see where the nearest WOW dealer is???
 
Forkbeard said:
Olympus is at the top of my list, so I'll definitely be trying them out. I love my OM2n and am hoping I'll feel the same about the OMD series.
Click to expand...
Kinda feel the same about my Pen-F as my OM1n
 
Forkbeard said:
I think I could live with what you've mentioned here; I don't normally shoot much low light, but that's another reason i quite fancied the 2.8 12-40. I normally don't print any bigger than 7x5, but do like having a pile of pictures knocking about to leaf through rather than them being stuck on a hard drive. I had a Lumix g3 briefly though and have got a nice a3 print from it so I'm not worried. I think the dynamic range will be about the same as what I'm used to anyway.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what you're used to.
I dont have any issues with wildlife shots at iso 3200 using my G80.
I've been more than happy with the results from my m43 camera.
I used to have a g3 as well, and it was a good camera too, but was a bit small for me.
I do love the look of the Olympus cameras though, especially the silver ones, so retro looking.
 
It's worth checking out how you get on with the different EVFs. The EVF in my Sony is good, though struggles in strong light, but the EVF in my wife's E-M10 MkI is quite poor by comparison.
 
ancient_mariner said:
It's worth checking out how you get on with the different EVFs. The EVF in my Sony is good, though struggles in strong light, but the EVF in my wife's E-M10 MkI is quite poor by comparison.
Click to expand...
The EM10 EVF isn’t the best, other Olympus ones are much better. The best I’ve used is on the Sony A7riii.
 
So far I'm *almost* settled on the e-m5ii, the viewfinder of which is meant to be pretty good from what I've read. It's always in the back of my mind to stick with what I know.

I'm just worried about the button layout etc being a bit fiddly. It looks completely alien to me coming from Nikons/Canons - both of which I'm more or less comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
So far I'm *almost* settled on the e-m5ii, the viewfinder of which is meant to be pretty good from what I've read. It's always in the back of my mind to stick with what I know.

I'm just worried about the button layout etc being a bit fiddly. It looks completely alien to me coming from Nikons/Canons - both of which I'm more or less comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Honestly unless you specifically need the flip out screen & slightly better video quality, I'd look at the original E-M1. It's basically the same camera as the E-M5ii (apart from aforementioned specs) and has better ergonomics (IMO).

Also, E-M1 has a drive button which is handy, meaning bracketing is easier to set up.
 
Forkbeard said:
So far I'm *almost* settled on the e-m5ii, the viewfinder of which is meant to be pretty good from what I've read. It's always in the back of my mind to stick with what I know.

I'm just worried about the button layout etc being a bit fiddly. It looks completely alien to me coming from Nikons/Canons - both of which I'm more or less comfortable with.
Click to expand...

If you look into the super control panel the buttons are not needed that much.
 
Forkbeard said:
So far I'm *almost* settled on the e-m5ii, the viewfinder of which is meant to be pretty good from what I've read. It's always in the back of my mind to stick with what I know.

I'm just worried about the button layout etc being a bit fiddly. It looks completely alien to me coming from Nikons/Canons - both of which I'm more or less comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Speaking from experience of going from Canon for years to the same E-M5II I can relate to what you're feeling. Yes the button layout is very alien, the menu is alien, it felt very weird and in some ways I felt like I wasn't sure what I was doing! All it was was me being so used to the Canon layout.

I've had mine since late 2015 and still enjoy using it, still enjoy the photos I can get from it. My processing style had to change a lot and the way I take photos has as well (see above comments for getting a nice bokeh out of the camera) but I cannot recall many times where the camera has ever felt limiting.

The body itself is SOLID. Despite its small size, it feels like you can throw it around and not worry about it. Nice sized buttons, well placed dials (once you're used to the location)

Also, something I am just realising only in the past months. I wish I had read the bloomin manual properly when I got the camera! I am now finding out and using features which I am not sure how I got around being without before! But would have been much better knowing this in the past.

Personally, I have small hands, so the size isn't too much of a bother. But I will be likely investing in the Olympus 2-part battery grip. This gives the main grip more to grab and is said to be very comfortable, and give you vertical shooting options, along with adding a 2nd battery. It being modular allows you to change it around how you please as well, so if you have spade hands, I would recommend looking into this :D
 
Forkbeard said:
So far I'm *almost* settled on the e-m5ii, the viewfinder of which is meant to be pretty good from what I've read. It's always in the back of my mind to stick with what I know.

I'm just worried about the button layout etc being a bit fiddly. It looks completely alien to me coming from Nikons/Canons - both of which I'm more or less comfortable with.
Click to expand...
The EM5-II EVF is very good. Sure it's not as good as some of the newer very expensive competition, but it's still Olympus best one and it is very good. It's a good size too.

As mentioned by myself and Lojikdub don't discount the EM1, especially if you are planning on using the 12-40mm. I prefer the control dial locations on the EM1, and also I found that the front control dial on the EM5-II is a bit too easy to 'knock' and you can change a setting without realising it.

I've never had much issue changing from one system to another tbh, but yes Olympus is very different but no more different than going from Nikon to Canon, or Nikon to Fuji imo.
 
The only thing putting me off the em1 is the price of a used one compared to a new em5ii from Hdew, there's only about 40 quid between them.
 
I went from Canon to EM5MK2 and love it.

I found the change in menus and handling not to be a problem either.

I also bought my kit from HDEW but paid £1049 for the pro kit which is now at a staggering £899.

Just hit the buy button
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top