Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: chbla on August 18, 2019, 12:08:23 pm
-
Hi there,
I'm normally using a Canon 5D IV with various lenses and I really like it.
However, I'm hiking a lot, long distance, and it turned out that the weight (5DIV, RRS Tripod, 2 Lenses)
is really quite a lot sometimes.
I don't want to replace the 5D as I also use it for a 600mm lens, but since mirrorless cameras are catching up
I thought I can replace it at least on longer/sporty multi-day trips with a much lighter body.
Right now I'm thinking about APS-C and a 12-40mm lens or similar.
I like to be able to shoot in manual (raw) and fine tune settings, so it should be a semi/pro camera.
However since I have the 5D, I don't want to buy a second camera at that price point, so the high end or
full frame mirrorless options are out of the game.
I thought about 500-800 EUR for the body and right now I've narrowed it down to the Canon M50.
While many reviews are partially negative with this camera, the more professional reviewers and users
are quite satisfied with it's performance. It would allow to get the weight down to 1/3 of the DSLR combination I have.
A possibly better alternative would maybe be the Sony a6300 I guess, however, I had a Sony NEX once and the interface
was a mess - not sure how the a series are..
I'd like to ask for your opinion on this option, eventual alternatives and an appropriate lens for mostly landscape.
Appreciate your input, thanks in advance!
I want to maximize image quality with the lightweight option of a mirrorless camera. If there is a better option
I will of course accept increased weight, but it should be a noteable difference to my 5D otherwise it's not worth
the cost.
Christoph
-
I switched from Canon APS-C to Olympus micro 4/3. Image quality is fine for my printing up to 17x22. The real size/weight savings is in the lenses. I mostly shoot with the 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens. Excellent Very happy I made the switch.
-
When I don't want to lug my 5Ds around, I use a Sony RX10-iv and am very happy with it.
Jeremy
-
I second the m43 suggestion especially for hiking. The general compactness is noticeable immediately. E-m1 mk2 and the 12-100 f/4 is the ultimate landscape/nature set up in my opinion for going compact.
That will give you a single camera and lens combo that will do a 24-200mm equivalent with excellent results.
Otherwise I recommend the 12-40 pro lens. Depends how wide you need. It’s amazing how much kit can be fit into a small holster, or a single compartment of a bag with nothing else needed.
-
It all depends on how much you are willing to pay and what impact in quality you are comfortable with.
Your choice of M50 is probably good enough, and you are already familiar with Canon.
m43 is another good option although I'm using it less these days, the 12-100 F4 is quite good for this purpose. E-M1 ii is probably the best but too expensive, you can find much better prices on the E-M5ii (or E-M10 ii or iii if you give up WR). A little lighter is the 12-40 F 2.8 but I don't think it's worth the loss in range for landscape/hiking purpose. Pana 12-60 would be more versatile.
On APS-C I use Fuji with pretty good results. Most will give you the same image quality, what you change between different price points is WR and ease of use. Their zooms are all good, even the 15-45. The X-T100 with 15-45 will give you good quality and is around 550$ with lens, you can add the 50-230 for not much weight. The X-T30 is almost as good as anything Fuji has and is likely still within your price point.
Now, all these being said I would think harder about how much you think you'll save. The above options work if you take only a zoom, at most 2. Add more lenses and the weight difference starts to be much less (proportional at least). If you go the mirrorless route you can use a lighter tripod. Take more stuff because they are smaller/lighter (ask me how I know) and in the end you are not that far. Keep in mind you need more batteries too.
PS. I also used the Sony RX-10 iv and it's cheaper and lighter competition, the Panasonic FZ-1000. The range is addictive and in good light you can get very good images. The lens in the Sony is sharper, has some WR and has more range but it's significantly heavier/bigger and more expensive, definitely more than the above options. Now in landscape you want DR and detail. It's all good on non challenging scenes but get to tricky/poor lightning and I wish I had a bigger sensor.
-
Thanks a lot for your input so far, apologies for the lack of information.
I only want to carry a single lens on these trips, usually on the 5D a max of 50mm is fine as I really
mostly take landscape shots. So I would give an equivalent, single lens a try.
Of course there are opportunities where I like the 70-200 but that's my tradeoff.
That said, a body around 400-500g would be nice. I'm not sure about the lenses yet but the recommendations
here look nice.
I learned that there is too much of a difference between APS-C and MFT (don't have any experience with it yet).
I generally shoot in manual and raw so I don't care about JPGs a lot.
I'm also not interested in Video.
In order to justify the camera compared to my 5D it should cost less than 1000 EUR (I'm in Europe), preferrably between 500 and 800.
The E-M1 ii is probably too expensive, but I just read up on the E-M10 ii which seems to be a very good option.
-
For that price, including the lens, I would look at the E-M10 with the 14-42 (28-84) vs the X-T100 with the 15-45 (23-68 equiv).
The Fuji has a better sensor with more megapixels and the lens starts wider. The Oly has more telephoto (although with more MP Fuji is not that far) but starts at 28; might have better build and focus, not sure.
I think handling and the price would probably determine which one to choose.
-
I agree with Jeremy. The Sony RX10 iv is a darn good lightweight, do-everything camera. I spent ten days in Asia recently and was able to produce both a coffee table book and a 15 minute video for my appreciative client.
Having a 24-600 (equivalent) zoom lens is very handy.
The only accessory I took was three spare batteries. Seldom used them.
-
I agree with Jeremy. The Sony RX10 iv is a darn good lightweight, do-everything camera. I spent ten days in Asia recently and was able to produce both a coffee table book and a 15 minute video for my appreciative client.
Having a 24-600 (equivalent) zoom lens is very handy.
The only accessory I took was three spare batteries. Seldom used them.
Too expensive for what the OP asked, and for hiking I think you can get lighter if you don't need the telephoto (the OP said up to 50mm would be ok). It's true though the an m43 with the 12-100 is about the same weight without a major increase in quality.
-
it should cost less than 1000 EUR (I'm in Europe), preferrably between 500 and 800.
with this I was referring to the body only, without lens
@Peter, I don't really have had a good experience with Sony so far, I don't like their interface and controls. That's probably subjective though.
From what I read otherwise people weren't satisfied with their lenses or lens lineup recently... so I'm not sure I want to buy into it again.
Olympus seems to have a great lineup of lenses and also very nice features, the E-M10 ii seems to be an underrated camera.
-
@Peter, I don't really have had a good experience with Sony so far, I don't like their interface and controls. That's probably subjective though.
I heard a lot of bad things about Sony's menu system. It's different from Canon's, but once I'd played with it a bit I found I could do pretty much everything I wanted with ease. I'm almost certainly going to move from Canon to the A7Riv fairly soon, and the menu system certainly isn't a deterrent.
Jeremy
-
No need to go away from Canon really. An EOS M (various models exist) and the excellent 22mm f2 pancake lens will suit the requirements.
-
As mentioned I'm not going away, I'm keeping all my gear and I'm fine to handle 2 manufacturers.
It's just two different purposes/situations.
The Olympus has some nice features like focus stacking, stabilization, etc that might be useful.
-
On longer hikes (the Dolomites last week) I mostly take an EOS R and the 40mm pancake. I use a Peak Design strap cross-body and hardly notice the camera is there until I want it. Before that I used a 5D3 with the 40 and a regular strap, and it was quite a bit more noticeable. On short hikes I usually attach the 24-105 instead, but I feel it.
When I want something lighter, or more flexible in reach, I take a Pen F with a long zoom attached. The m43 works fine for me, though I prefer the Canon.
-
The e-m10 as you mentioned is a great choice. I like the 2 better than the 3...but either is great. If you optimize how you shoot, you will never see a discernible difference between that and aps-c, and hardly a difference to most low megapixel full frame. Especially at low iso with the better Olympus lenses. A great option would be that with the Panasonic 12-35. It is even lighter than the Olympus pro lenses but equally good. I bet if you carried that combo around for a day you would be amazed. If just doesn’t feel like you have a camera on you.
I used to hike with a tech camera because it was lighter than a medium format slr. I then conceded to my canon 5d mk2. I then switched to Leica. I ended up with m43 because it did everything all the other systems did, easier, with more features, and excellent macro and took less volume overall. Not just less weight, but less packing space was huge. The Fuji x100 was a travel buddy too...with a set of filters and such. I really liked that...but it’s macro wasn’t my thing and I started itching to have at least a short telephoto option often times.
-
Depending on how big you want to print, Nikon or Sony full frame mirrorless with carefully selected lenses may also be an option (you can get really excellent sensors in either system). Even with good lens choices, it'll be bigger than what's been mentioned (but can be quite comparable to Fuji APS-C or the sturdier Micro 4/3 bodies). If big prints aren't the goal, you don't need anything that big. Fuji's excellent lenses (pretty much all of them) hand them the "less than full frame" image quality crown.
Nikon's Z system lenses have generally put a premium on compactness, while Sony's broader line requires care in selection. One issue with the Sony lineup is that both the 24-70 f4 "Zeiss" and the 28-70 f3.5-5.6 are from the very beginning of the FE mount, and are two of the weakest lenses in the system. The 24-70 f2.8 G-Master and the 24-105 f4 are much better lenses, but neither is small or light. If you like zooms, that's an unfortunate place to find weak lenses (the Nikon 24-70 f4 is excellent, and it is compact enough that it looks like an APS-C lens). Sony has some nice small primes in that range, and some nice wide zooms. Either one will be heavy as you get beyond ~100 mm.
So far, all bodies and lenses in the Nikon Z line have very good weather sealing, Sony less so (but improving). Both Nikon bodies, and any recent Sony body have in-body image stabilization
One especially nice thing about the Fuji system is the little 18-55 f2.8-4. It's a very small lens, and a very good one. If you're going to be out in inclement weather, remember that that particular lens isn't weather sealed, and only some bodies are (X-T1,X-T2,X-T3, X-H1,X-Pro2).. When Fuji does call something weather sealed, they mean it - I've had their sealed stuff out in pretty nasty conditions. Apart from the X-H1, they rely on in-lens image stabilization, which is often excellent, but it's spotty which lenses are stabilized. Most, but not all of the zooms are, and there are one or two stabilized primes.
-
I'm having a hard time deciding between the Olympus E-M10 ii (12-40/2.8) and the Fuji XT 20 (XF 18-55mm)
How would you decide? There are so many pro/cons for each of those cameras and both seem to
be very capable with the right lenses.
16 MP are enough for me. Image Quality is important. There is better low light handling on the APS-C but stabilization on the Oly..
The Fuji Sensor is better with higher ISO, however, as I only have static subjects (landscape, etc) the Oly combination with the full range
2.8 aperture and the stabilizer is very tempting... In my experience I don't really go above ISO 800 for landscapes and if I expect longer exposures
I take a tripod anyway...
-
I'm having a hard time deciding between the Olympus E-M10 ii (12-40/2.8) and the Fuji XT 20 (XF 18-55mm)
How would you decide? There are so many pro/cons for each of those cameras and both seem to
be very capable with the right lenses.
16 MP are enough for me. Image Quality is important. There is better low light handling on the APS-C but stabilization on the Oly..
The Fuji Sensor is better with higher ISO, however, as I only have static subjects (landscape, etc) the Oly combination with the full range
2.8 aperture and the stabilizer is very tempting... In my experience I don't really go above ISO 800 for landscapes and if I expect longer exposures
I take a tripod anyway...
You are contradicting yourself at some extent.
You either want stabilization or you carry a tripod anyway. As opposed to others I was never in awe with Oly stabilization. Their best is in the flagship not in the E-M10, I would think that for these particular options the stabilization, IBIS vs OIS, is similar.
The lenses are good, the Oly is constant aperture but DOF wise it's no better; it might be a touch sharper, it is WR but the body isn't so there is that. The Oly starts at 24. I read good things about the Fuji 15-45, build quality is inferior though.
Fuji sensor is definitely better.
I would try to put my hands on both and see which I like better.
-
I would rent both to be honest and see which suits you. Button layout and feel in hand are huge.
I was never enamoroured with the Fuji zooms, though I like a good bit of their primes that I’ve used. I also did not like the focusing and just general use of their not xt2, xt3 cameras. Except for the x100. I like that a lot.
The Olympus packs a lot of features and options into a tiny package. Sometimes that is overwhelming for some, but it doesn’t need to be used. The customization lets you really set up a camera to be what you want it to be. I like that and prefer it now.
The xtrans also never won me over, especially for landscape. Some people don’t mind it...I did. The difference between the apsc and m43 is negligible in real world use in my opinion. The sensor wouldnt even be a consideration next to all the other aspects of each.
-
I've got the E-M10ii here now and I've also ordered the XT-20 to compare.
I have to admit from what I tested the Olympus is very nice.
However, I think that aspect ratio and resolution (ability to crop more) will be in favor of the Fuji...
-
This would be the best way to decide.
The difference between the apsc and m43 is negligible in real world use in my opinion.
Not really, we are talking of the 16MP m43 and the 24MP APS-C, there is a clear difference, at least for me, and I have both. Used both in the setting that the OP plans to, hiking.
-
I have to admit this is a very tough choice for me.
Currently, I like the Fuji more, reasons are:
- aspect and resolution, I naturally crop 4:3 images, APS-C is much closer to what I actually use, especially for landscape shots.
This, combined with a larger resolution is a benefit. I noticed that with 16MP I reach the cropping limitations faster (had a Sony Next before with 16MP).
- very nice manual controls, I love those knobs, never had a digital camera with such manual controls and aperture ring
- lighter (minor reason), it feels more compact, on paper it's 110g less with the above combination
Benefits of the Oly are IBIS, fixed aperture 2.8 and wider lens
What I'm wondering is:
The Oly has IBIS which is said to give 4 stops. The Fuji has OIS on the lens, there is a review here:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-18-55mm-f2.8-4-r-lm-ois/image-stabilization-test/
APS-C also allows increasing ISO later than MFT.
I wonder how this difference manifest in practical use? Does anyone have experience with both combinations/features and can maybe share an impression?
-
I personally gravitate to the 4:3 ratio so that’s one reason I lean to m43. However, I resonate the cropping sentiment at 16mp. Once in the 20-24mp range...you just have a little cropping flexibility that 16 always felt a little tight with. That is a sweet spot for a lot of people in terms of printing. Not everyone actually needs 300dpi prints at 60” as much as it sounds like it on the internet.
In terms of iso for landscape...it’s preference. On the m43 system I recommend not going beyond f/7.1 in general cases. That is usually plenty. Similar dof to f/16 roughly. That means often even f/2.8 - 5.6 have plenty of dof for a lot of landscape shot at wider focal lengths. Especially of there is nothing in the very near foreground. This lets you keep the iso lower for longer. I do all my landscape on a tripod, so I never have to go above iso200 anyways.
If you do go handheld and need to increase iso, expose to the right as much as possible and bring the exposure down later. If you turn on highlight warnings, you can go about one stop of orange warning that is fully recoverable in raw without any blowout. So once orange appears...about three clicks of shutter speed for example. The more optimized your data and exposure, the more you can get out of the sensor especially at higher iso. The shots will be far cleaner.
Unintended under exposure that needs fixing is the bane on m43. The biggest thing I see from people that send me shots to see from their m43 cameras that “aren’t delivering” is that exposure was wrong to begin with. I find this with most cameras though. Good in good out.
-
I have the E-M5 ii which should have similar or better stabilization, mostly with the 12-100 though (which had its own stabilization that adds) but enough with the 12-40. The Fuji lens I used with 3 versions cameras.
The Oly might have better stabilization, but I don't think the difference is that much. You can compensate for most via ISO on the Fuji. I see stabilization differently though, if it doesn't give me the vast majority of the shots in focus than I cannot count on it. If for a certain shutter speed one camera gives 50% in focus vs 33% in focus, than I have to take an average of 2 vs 3 shots to get one sharp, a little more time consuming but not that big of a difference.
Oly has nice things but the Fuji requires less work in postprocessing to get it where I want to. For X-T2 in particular, it's just easier to quickly get to the common settings for landscape, still easier than for example a Z7 which I had for 8 months.
Unfortunately you missed the 50% off on the X-T2 with lens.
Choose the one that you feel it's easier to use, you don't want to fight it everyday for some on paper advantage.
-
Unintended under exposure that needs fixing is the bane on m43.
I think that's why I'm using it less. Dark areas that need lifting remain muddy. The E-M5 has a nice thing that I wish all cameras had, that you can set BOTH underexposure and overexposure warnings, so you can get the best possible file. But I still have to work more to get the colors right if the file needs some postprocessing.
The m43 is more tolerant of overexposure, the Fuji APS-C is much more tolerant of underexposure.
-
Choose the one that you feels it's easier to use, you don't want to fight it everyday for some on paper advantage.
This is the most appropriate statement in cameras today. Of course regular use helps make the camera become an extension of your hand and eye...but you can usually tell if a camera works in your hand or not. There are so many different options today that all do well. Really well. That it really does come down to what feels good and meets your core need.
I would tell people... the right car to own is the one you can’t walk away from after parking without turning back to look at it. With cameras it’s the same... It’s the one you want to pick back up immediately after putting it down. Just be careful not to pick up a Leica.
-
I guess it is down to what suits you and we are all different. A friend who has been a life-long good landscape photographer went through this transition some time ago and went m4/3 from full-frame. He loves the weight and size saving, but admits there is an IQ loss. He has learnt to put up with it.
I have a Canon 5D3 and also have Fuji. I hardly ever use the Canon now. Have you thought about a second hand Fuji x-t1 or x-t2? They may be in your price range. As others have said the 18-55 zoom is a great lens, and for travel I take it and the 55-200. Both have IS and so I do not take a tripod (which also avoids a divorce). An X-T2 body and the 2 lenses weigh under 1.5kg (under 3.3lbs) and with spare batteries and polarisers fit in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 25i, making, what is to me, a small light package. My Canon and 24-105 now seem enormous! I print up to A3+ (13" x 19") and the Fuji images, both colour and B&W, are excellent. The film simulations available in LR are great.
In the end it may be a good idea to rent, as others have written, to find what you like.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
The only Fuji with in-body image stabilization so far is the (significantly larger and heavier) X-H1. Most of the zoom lenses have quite good in-lens stabilization - but only a couple of primes are stabilized.
Any E-M series Olympus has in-body stabilization, which will stabilize anything - including an old security camera lens (really - you can put them on Micro 4/3 with an adapter). As you go up the line, the in-body stabilization gets better and better, until the version in the E-M II qualifies as uncanny! Some higher-end Olympus lenses have their own stabilizer as well - with an E-M1 II and the right lens, you can shoot at 1/2 second and sometimes longer with no tripod!
On the other hand, the gap between any relatively recent Fuji APS-C sensor and any current Micro 4/3 sensor is considerable, and it runs in the opposite direction from the stabilization advantage. Even the very old Fuji 16MP sensor (really the Nikon D7000 sensor (and everybody bought it from Sony) - used in Fujifilm cameras from 2012 to 2016) will probably outperform any Micro 4/3 sensor, and the 24 and 26 MP sensors just open the gap.
If you don't care about stabilized primes, I like Jonathan's recommendation a lot - I've taken a lot of pictures on some very long hikes with the X-T2 and the little 18-55. I don't know the 55-200 well - the excellent 10-24 is another real consideration for "light Fuji landscape kit with two zooms..."
-
I've tested both cameras now, and I took the Fuji X-T20 (18-55).
As mentioned before the 24MP APS-C sensor is better in my opinion. The aspect is more useful to me,
low light performance is clearly better and the 24MP give me a slight advantage (8MP are a considerable difference).
The Fuji felt better as well, I very much like the controls it has. The particular combination is also 120g lighter.
I think I made the right choice.
-
It's a good lens. For travel I tend to add a bright prime (usually the 35 1.4) but for hiking something wider would be more appropriate. In a trip I used the 10-24 + 18-55 and worked well but if you want to save weight than the 14 2.8 (very good, wider but more expensive) or the new 16 2.8 (cheaper, WR) will do the trick.
-
The Samyang 12mm/2.0 is quite popular. I ordered it and will give it a try.
-
The Samyang 12mm/2.0 is quite popular. I ordered it and will give it a try.
This will do it too, might be able to get more night photography compared to what I mentioned.
-
I have just bought a used Fuji 14mm in very good condition from London Camera Exchange in UK. I get new kit from them as well. It was about 60% of the new price. So far seems a good lens. Extra cost was a Hoya Fusion UV filter; I'd rather damage or scratch that than the front element of the lens!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
This would be the best way to decide.
Not really, we are talking of the 16MP m43 and the 24MP APS-C, there is a clear difference, at least for me, and I have both. Used both in the setting that the OP plans to, hiking.
Maybe but surely it depends on the final picture and how it's viewed? Screen viewing or prints to A4 of full images to be viewed normally or closely? Heavy or no cropping etc?
I can imagine many uses and viewing circumstances in which there's little real difference between MFT and FF never mind APS-C. In fact I don't have to imagine as I own MFT and FF.
-
If you have difficulty getting your hiking companions to slow down for photography (as I do) having a camera you can carry in your pocket is a good solution. Two weeks ago I hiked a total of 50 miles (day hikes) in the Mammoth area/Yosemite in 5 days with my brothers. Had my Sony RX100 IV in my pocket the whole time and got several of my favorite shots using that camera. After much deliberation I just ordered an APS-C pocket camera--the Ricoh GR III--for the larger sensor and better dynamic range to complement it. For actual photo outings I have Sony A7r2 and Canon 5DSr but for fast hiking those little pocket cameras are great.
-
Extra cost was a Hoya Fusion UV filter; I'd rather damage or scratch that than the front element of the lens!
Cue religious war :-)
-
Coming late to this, but I whole-heartedly second recs for the Sony RX-10. Not a pocket camera, but much smaller and lighter than a FF DSLR (or even a FF mirrorless). Fixed 24-600 mm equiv lens, 1" sensor, 20MP, excellent IQ, and as a bonus they throw in for free Sony's wacky menus <g>.