Moving to mirrorless?

mercphoto

Some of you might remember back in 2011 when I had to give up the camera due to spinal surgery. Much better, but not perfect, and the heavy 40D and the heavy L-lenses are a bit more than I want to lug around any more. While I like our Sony NEX-3 I despise composing on an LCD screen, and hate the shutter lag. But I've been told to investigate the Sony A7 II. LCD screen plus an electronic viewfinder. Good responsiveness to the shutter button. Lightweight. Small lens selection but it has all the important choices.

Will I regret this move? I'd be selling the 40D and four Canon lenses if I made this switch. I don't see myself shooting motorsports again, but in a year or two I will be shooting my little girl in soccer, so I have to keep this in mind.

What I want is a lightweight camera that compares to the 40D in image quality and joy of use, but that the wife also likes.

Thanks!
Bill Jurasz

Seefutlung

I've been using mirrorless for a couple of years. I migrated to mirrorless from FF (1D's). I've held the new Sony A7 series cams but haven't shot them in the wild. They seem like a solid camera and a very little package for a FF sensor. But I think, if you're main criteria is size, that quality lenses for a FF will be quite large. I was shooting MFT and the top of the line Oly's and Panasonics punch way beyond their weight ... but it is still a small sensor. I have migrated to Fuji which is a good compromise, (at least for me), between size and IQ. The Fuji XT1 is about the same size as the Oly EM1, sports an APS-C sensor, Fujinon lenses are absolutely wonderful (the FX line, at a minimum, is equal to Canon L) with IQ to die for.

The A7II has IBIS similar to the Olympus IBIS. The five axle IBIS designed by Olympus is beyond wonderful. Hopefully, the Sony implementation of IBIS is as capable as Olympus. I heard the AF speed has increased.

There is nothing like a dSLR for shooting action. But the latest and greatest AF from Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji, while not as good as an advanced dSLR, does a decent job for the hobbyist.

All shot with the Fuji XT1:









Just remember that mirrorless is different than a dSLR. Not different good or different bad, just different. The AF is very different, with a bit of a learning curve. So don't expect to pick one up a mirrorless and take off where your were with your dSLR.

Good Luck and Good Shooting,
Gary

pathfinder

Bill, my personal carry camera is the Lumix GX-7, ( because of its size, weight, and lens range ) but it is not a sports camera, like the 7DMKii, due to the slower AF. The m4/3 files of the latest m4/3s bodies, will print pretty nice up to 12 x 18 - some will say even bigger.

I suspect the Lumix GH3 or GH4, or the Olympus OMD E-1 are very close to the 40D, or even better in terms of files and in terms of AF speed and accuracy. They will not approach the AF of a 7D MKII though. But the GH4 or the Oly are not as small as the GX7 in terms of size or weight. I think m4/3 files will be almost indistinguishable from APS-C DSLR files most of the time if shot in RAW with technical skill.

The real issue is not the size of the camera, but the size of the optics needed to cover a sensor, and bigger sensors are going to need bigger lenses. Hence, why m4/3 cameras are smaller - their sensor is smaller. This of course raised concerns about noise, and general image quality. I think the APS-C type mirror less are better in terms of image quality than m4/3, but generally the m4/3 lenses will be smaller and lighter for a given focal length and aperture.

There is a lot of nice glass for m4/3 these days Lumix, Oly, Sigma, and Tamron are all making some, even very fast sharp primes now. The Fuji system is getting rave reviews from its users, but I suspect is just a bit larger and heavier than similar m4/3 system lenses.

The 2->1 mag factor for m4/3 means that m4/3 long lenses can be much smaller than their 35mm counterparts, whether full frame or APS-C.

If you check the exif data in my galleries I shot in Iceland - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/In-Iceland-with-Marc-Andy-et/41045993_FfbRDd#!i=3269841711&k=LPP2Ht9 or the Galapagos Island - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/Galapagos-Islands-June-2013/29958938_96tDQP#!i=2574101507&k=X6CFXn8 you will see lots of images shot with a Lumix GX7 or a Lumix GH3 intermixed with images from a 1DX or a 70D ( crop sensor ) so you can compare the files side by side and see if they meet your requirements.

I have not given up on a DSLR, but for walk around casual shooting, I carry my GX7. I use my larger gear for things I KNOW will need their capabilities - very high ISO ( >3200 ) fast AF ( think birds in flight ) or extreme contrast ranges - one can shoot HDR with m4/3s, or any of the other mirror less bodies of course. Or where I know I will need the larger file sizes - although I have mulit row panos shot with a m4/3 GX7 that are quite nice too.

Like Gary said, for fast action, nothing really compares to a real pro DSLR - yet - anyway. That MAY change in the next few years - we shall see. When we see mirror less bodies on the sidelines in the NFL games, them we will know the time of the DSLR has truly passed.

Seefutlung

Personally, I say my EM5, EM1, XT1 easily outperforms and deliver better IQ than a 40D. The Fuji's use a non-Bayer sensor which, IMO, is superior to the latest MFT. To my eye, my MFT images look very digital-ish, the Fuji files looks very film-esque and my FF cameras are somewhere in between. But the differences are pretty subtle that I doubt the casual viewer will notice. The MFT system is quite advanced with many very good premium lenses. The Fuji system is still immature and lacking at the long end.

Gary

pathfinder

I think the EM5 , GH3 GX7 files of mine are all better than a 40D too, Gary, but I know that will be a controversial claim with some readers, so I stated it less strongly than you did. Interestingly, I do not see the digitalis quality in most of my mft files that you are describing, if I do my part in shooting and rendering from RAW. Are you describing jpgs, maybe?

One of the things I like about the m4/3 world these days is all the fast, sharp prime lenses that are appearing. I keep waiting for someone to build a fast f2.8 200 mm lens for m4/3 - Just think a 400 equivalent lens at f2.8 - small enough and light enough to really hand hold and should even be affordable. I have given some thought to using my EOS 200mm f2.8 L via an adapter if I could live with manual focus

mercphoto

Thanks guys. I understand these won't stack up to a 7D Mark II, maybe not even a 70D. But I loved the results from the 40D (even in fast paced motorsports), so my bar is at that level.

JC

pathfinder wrote: »

One of the things I like about the m4/3 world these days is all the fast, sharp prime lenses that are appearing. I keep waiting for someone to build a fast f2.8 200 mm lens for m4/3 - Just think a 400 equivalent lens at f2.8 - small enough and light enough to really hand hold and should even be affordable. I have given some thought to using my EOS 200mm f2.8 L via an adapter if I could live with manual focus

For m43, there is the 40-150mm f/2.8 +1.4x extender shipping now, I'd like to try it. And in 2015 the 300mm f/4 prime coming.

Here is a center crop with the old Zuiko 200mm f/4 on the E-m5. The hummingbirds hover long enough that I can manually focus on them with the focus assist zoom engaged, then shoot a burst as I roll the focus forward or back. I wasn't writing down what the aperture was. Having the in body image stabilization engaged for manually focusing (and then shooting) with these old lenses makes them a lot easier to use.



And with the current m.zuiko 75-300mm lens at 300mm at max aperture of 6.7-

I like this shot- what's the best camera system? the one you have with you and the one you point in the right direction


I just can't backpack with the 5D and ff lenses, and I'm fairly happy with the E-m5. Can't print as large as with the files from the 5D, but I can have the camera at hand more often so hopefully get more shots. The E-M5 does have problems with autofocus on moving targets and targets with busy backgrounds, much of which I'm attributing to the f/6.7, as I said, I'd really like to try the new zoom.

I don't have any shots of kids in action, just this guy.



I never quite nailed on focus on him in flight, but since my friend with the same kit has been nailing the focus on osprey and pelicans in flight a lot more than me, I think it's partly user error. Turn off the image review when shooting fast action, and the EVF lag time is fairly trivial. The only time it might be screwing me up is that I'm losing shots of pelicans right as they enter the water by over-leading them, but that might just be user error, not a problem with the system.

The smaller sensors have more noise, supposedly, but I'm getting usable shots at high ISO, and unlike the Canon 5D II, the underexposed noise is *random* (I don't know how they do that) unlike the corduroy pattern from the 5D. Specular highlights look a little digital, but the noise in general doesn't, IMHO, on the E-m5.

100% center crop, E-m5 with 12mm prime, ISO 1250- startrails in the middle of the San Gabriels (ie, light pollution all around), granted, I've raised the black point to make the trails very contrasty and get rid of some of the urban sky glow, but even in the branches, not a lot of noise.



No experience with the Sony system, it didn't have the right components for doing startrails when I was shopping, so I went with the Olympus E-M5 and I'm really happy with it. I'll be able to hike farther and faster with it, so hopefully get more shots.

pathfinder

I hadn't noticed the 40-150 f2.8 Olympus lens - and even the price is reasonable compared to the cost of a typical 300mm f2.8 lens for Canon or Nikon.

A 300mm f4 for the m4/3 world would be the equivalent of a 600mm f4 - that's pretty intriguing indeed.

My Lumix GX7 does have IBIS as well, although most Panasonic bodies do not.

The osprey and the hummingbird shots look pretty good to me.

StueveShots

I have given up my Canon gear (a classic 5D and a multitude of heavy lenses) for an OM-D E-M1 and I am in love. So far I have used it during a recent shoot at a theatrical production, during a trip to the UK, capturing a volleyball game and to do my son's senior pictures. I have a beautiful set of lenses (ranging from 12mm to 300mm) that easily fit with the body into a small messenger-style bag--although my favorites, by far, are the Panasonic 20mm and the Oly 45mm. You will not regret the move from a 40D at all. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it is a fun process and you will discover that the mirrorless systems are very flexible and can produce professional quality shots.

jonh68

I've gone from a D700/D3s to a fuji x100s and fuji x-t1/56 1.2 and I am very happy with the combo. The AFS isn't up there with DSLR but I can't tell much of a difference in IQ.

bfjr

been using a nikon 1 for all my work paid and personal.
manily street / doc and table top jewlery but with the 70 - 300 1 lens out (200 - 600+ in 35mm) I may do some fresh wildlife.
So yeah I like mirrorless !

mercphoto

Thanks everyone. I traded my 70-200/2.8L/IS lens in for an Olympus OM-D E-M10 with two lenses this afternoon. Great deal and looks like a great camera. I deemed the Sony A7 still to be too big for what I want. The m4/3 camera is much smaller, and I still get an electronic viewfinder and a built-in flash. Excited! Might be selling my remaining Canon gear on my own soon.

StueveShots

Wonderful! Enjoy! (Which two lenses did you get?)

mercphoto

I got the 14-42 and the 80-150.

bfjr

congrats enjoy

Seefutlung

Best of luck with your new mirrorless.

Gary

mercphoto

Got some test shots in. Of cars of course. All from an indoor car dealership, so lighting is poor in quantity and in white balance. I shot large-fine JPG, in the "vivid" setting, auto-WB, auto ISO, auto flash. Aperture priority wide open. Straight from camera, zero post processing.

Full gallery:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/sets/72157649612147041/

1.


2.


3.


4.

pathfinder

I can't get jpgs like that from a 40D SOOC.

Nice images, I couldn't check the ISO but they almost have to be 800-1600+ from what you said about the lighting. Well done!

mercphoto

pathfinder wrote: »

I can't get jpgs like that from a 40D SOOC.

Neither can I.

Matthew Saville

pathfinder wrote: »

I can't get jpgs like that from a 40D SOOC.

Nice images, I couldn't check the ISO but they almost have to be 800-1600+ from what you said about the lighting. Well done!

mercphoto wrote: »

Neither can I.

That might be because you've never bothered to actually play around with the Picture Styles that DSLRs have been offering in excellent quality for many years now? Not to sound provocative, but I personally have put a lot of time into toying around with Picture controls / picture styles for my Nikon / Canon cameras, and with the right in-camera settings images like that are nothing special. Maybe a 40D is getting a little old WRT in-camera processing, but any DSLR made in the last few years has quite a variety of in-camera processing settings that work very well in making your images pop, or have nice skin tones, or greater dynamic range, etc. etc...

=Matt=

mercphoto

Matthew, its not a matter of picture styles, its mostly a matter of getting correct white balance in situations like that out of my 40D, and often one of proper exposure as well. In shots like that I would not be able to trust auto white balance and would probably have to tweak the exposure as well. With this Olympus, I shot it auto-everything in "P" mode. That is what impressed me.

Frogfish

I've just made the switch, from a Nikon D3 and D2x (the D2X used only for underwater, Subal housing) to an Oly E-M1, for both conventional and underwater (Nauticam housing).

I'm keeping the D3, which I love to shoot but hate to carry, particularly if more than one or two additional lenses are involved. Perhaps I should act on the reality that I always seem to pick up the E-M1 and never the D3 these days and try to sell the Nikon body and lenses while I can.

Wide-angle underwater with the E-M1 is compelling with either the Lumix 7-14mm or the Oly 7 mm fisheye, though these require different dome ports. However, the E-M1 viewscreen is quite challenging to use with a macro lens (Oly 60 mm) underwater, particularly with the 45° external viewfinder on the housing and a SMC (Super Macro Converter) swung in line, but after struggling for 10-20 dives I'm finally figuring out how to set up the menu options for underwater and how to use this new rig.

Robert

bike21

Found this thread after my D750 vs. X-T1 posting. I'll report back in the next few weeks as my X-T1 arrives on Wednesday and I'm looking forward to getting started with it. No more DSLR for me at least in the next couple of years.

NikonsandVstroms

@StueveShots said:
I have given up my Canon gear (a classic 5D and a multitude of heavy lenses) for an OM-D E-M1 and I am in love. So far I have used it during a recent shoot at a theatrical production, during a trip to the UK, capturing a volleyball game and to do my son's senior pictures. I have a beautiful set of lenses (ranging from 12mm to 300mm) that easily fit with the body into a small messenger-style bag--although my favorites, by far, are the Panasonic 20mm and the Oly 45mm. You will not regret the move from a 40D at all. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it is a fun process and you will discover that the mirrorless systems are very flexible and can produce professional quality shots.

I know this is from a few years back but I was wondering how you liked the tracking on the E-M1 and what your keeper rate was? The Oly 45 will be a mainstay on this body so your experience with that lens specifically would be a lot of help.

As I've been moving more and more of my work to m4/3 from my Nikons I now have a pretty full system in place with bright primes but better tracking AF compared to my current E-M5 & 10 mkI's would be great and open up even more uses for it.

For anyone else seeing this I'd be going for the E-M1 mkI since this is my secondary system so cost is still a big factor.

StueveShots

@NikonsandVstroms said:

I know this is from a few years back but I was wondering how you liked the tracking on the E-M1 and what your keeper rate was? The Oly 45 will be a mainstay on this body so your experience with that lens specifically would be a lot of help.

As I've been moving more and more of my work to m4/3 from my Nikons I now have a pretty full system in place with bright primes but better tracking AF compared to my current E-M5 & 10 mkI's would be great and open up even more uses for it.

I don't know if I'll be much help to you. The tracking with my E-M1 (mk1) is certainly better than the E-M5, but it is not ideal as a sports or action camera if you rely on tracking. That was not my prime consideration--my sons have graduated high school and I won't be shooting sports any more. I'm a theatre director and traveler, so that is my main focus. Futhermore, I often don't use tracking when I'm shooting sports--my sons competed in equestrian and I could anticipate the best moments and spots and prepare for that. That's how I learned to shoot soccer for my university many decades ago on a Canon AE1.

Having said that, I'll share a couple action shots from the last basketball game I shot for a friend. I'd say my keeper rate was about 25%, but that's due as much to the fact that I do not understand basketball at all as to the tracking I tried to use--I kept missing moments because I didn't understand the pattern and rhythm of play. (The one big sport I just don't get.) The first was shot with the 45mm, the second with the 20mm.

Hope that helps--let me know if you need any more info! I still love my camera.

NikonsandVstroms

@StueveShots said:

@NikonsandVstroms said:

I know this is from a few years back but I was wondering how you liked the tracking on the E-M1 and what your keeper rate was? The Oly 45 will be a mainstay on this body so your experience with that lens specifically would be a lot of help.

As I've been moving more and more of my work to m4/3 from my Nikons I now have a pretty full system in place with bright primes but better tracking AF compared to my current E-M5 & 10 mkI's would be great and open up even more uses for it.

I don't know if I'll be much help to you. The tracking with my E-M1 (mk1) is certainly better than the E-M5, but it is not ideal as a sports or action camera if you rely on tracking. That was not my prime consideration--my sons have graduated high school and I won't be shooting sports any more. I'm a theatre director and traveler, so that is my main focus. Futhermore, I often don't use tracking when I'm shooting sports--my sons competed in equestrian and I could anticipate the best moments and spots and prepare for that. That's how I learned to shoot soccer for my university many decades ago on a Canon AE1.

Having said that, I'll share a couple action shots from the last basketball game I shot for a friend. I'd say my keeper rate was about 25%, but that's due as much to the fact that I do not understand basketball at all as to the tracking I tried to use--I kept missing moments because I didn't understand the pattern and rhythm of play. (The one big sport I just don't get.) The first was shot with the 45mm, the second with the 20mm.

Hope that helps--let me know if you need any more info! I still love my camera.

Thanks for the reply.

I actually lucked out and while away from home called up a nearby shop and they happened to have EM-1 mkI & II's. The in store tests/comparisons lined up pretty closely to what you said so that's good to know. It definitely was better at tracking/staying in focus than the EM-5 but it was still closer to that than my D750. The mkII on the other hand did seem pretty solid in its' tracking, so I'll probably wait a few years for those to come down in price since this still is a secondary system for me.

Brett1000

@NikonsandVstroms said:

@StueveShots said:

@NikonsandVstroms said:

I know this is from a few years back but I was wondering how you liked the tracking on the E-M1 and what your keeper rate was? The Oly 45 will be a mainstay on this body so your experience with that lens specifically would be a lot of help.

As I've been moving more and more of my work to m4/3 from my Nikons I now have a pretty full system in place with bright primes but better tracking AF compared to my current E-M5 & 10 mkI's would be great and open up even more uses for it.

I don't know if I'll be much help to you. The tracking with my E-M1 (mk1) is certainly better than the E-M5, but it is not ideal as a sports or action camera if you rely on tracking. That was not my prime consideration--my sons have graduated high school and I won't be shooting sports any more. I'm a theatre director and traveler, so that is my main focus. Futhermore, I often don't use tracking when I'm shooting sports--my sons competed in equestrian and I could anticipate the best moments and spots and prepare for that. That's how I learned to shoot soccer for my university many decades ago on a Canon AE1.

Having said that, I'll share a couple action shots from the last basketball game I shot for a friend. I'd say my keeper rate was about 25%, but that's due as much to the fact that I do not understand basketball at all as to the tracking I tried to use--I kept missing moments because I didn't understand the pattern and rhythm of play. (The one big sport I just don't get.) The first was shot with the 45mm, the second with the 20mm.

Hope that helps--let me know if you need any more info! I still love my camera.

Thanks for the reply.

I actually lucked out and while away from home called up a nearby shop and they happened to have EM-1 mkI & II's. The in store tests/comparisons lined up pretty closely to what you said so that's good to know. It definitely was better at tracking/staying in focus than the EM-5 but it was still closer to that than my D750. The mkII on the other hand did seem pretty solid in its' tracking, so I'll probably wait a few years for those to come down in price since this still is a secondary system for me.

mirrorless is still not quite as good as the best DSLR'S for sports but it's very close.
I shoot daytime college sports with an M5

flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

mercphoto

Sorry I did not see the questions regarding tracking until today. Bad of me.

First off, let me state that my camera salesperson, who used to shoot University of Texas football and Round Rock baseball with top-line Nikon gear, is now using the Oly 4/3 system (an EM-1 I believe) with their Pro lenses. He no longer sees any reason to switch back to the dSLR. Not even for UT football.

Now, my experience with the EM-10 and using the inexpensive "kit" 40-150 lens, which is far from ideal for tracking. I can use it with a really good success rate on youth soccer, but you have to set up the camera properly to do this. I've also shot car racing at Circuit of the Americas (sports cars and vintage racing). So it CAN be done. I've found, however, its essential to do a few things to make the camera's work easier. First off is to turn off face recognition. Secondly I limit it to a single focus point, dead center. And I turn on C-AF tracking mode.

To say I'm impressed with this camera and its relatively cheap lenses is an understatement.

mercphoto

Here's a shot:

And the galleries:
In color: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/albums/72157676629430665/page1
In black and white, straight from the camera: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/albums/72157676093922186