Choosing the Right Camera System

[Nick Walt]

allegretto, I was converting roughly to full-frame equivalent - so actually, according to your calculation, that would be 840mm equivalent with the TC. Not bad hey.

[allegretto]

allegretto, I was converting roughly to full-frame equivalent - so actually, according to your calculation, that would be 840mm equivalent with the TC. Not bad hey.

Hey, all good

format-shifting has it's benefits...!

[Fine_Art]

The problem is you could end up with a camera that is not quite right for any scenario.  Truth is - different cameras for different jobs.  So possibly having several systems can work - but of course it is expensive.  But then you can buy some very good gear used.  So a used Canon 5D would make a good landscape camera - along with a one good zoom or a couple of mid-range primes - the 50mm 1.4, 85 1.8 etc.   Buy a different camera for street photography etc.  Currently I have several systems - some acquired over many years - but each has their strengths.

My old Canon 1ds3 - portrait shoots and maybe landscape from the back of a car or involving short walks.

Olympus E-M1 (formerly Panasonic GH2) for weddings and general personal shoots - walking in the forest etc.

Ricoh GR - for unobtrusive street shooting, cycling trips, and just taking anywhere I might suddenly need a good quality picture but don't want to take more gear.

The quest for the perfect compromise will always feel like - a compromise.  The lenses are the key things - you may keep them for many years, the bodies you may well change.

Jim

Quite the opposite. Most current models are quite good for many types of photography. They are not ideal. That weakness should show up in your model.

What you say is a theoretical possibility that is far more true for products at the beginning of their life cycle. At the current stage of DSLRs, most top photographers would still publish their work if they were using an entry level camera.

[Jim Pascoe]

Quite the opposite. Most current models are quite good for many types of photography. They are not ideal. That weakness should show up in your model.

I agree but Nick has already tried and rejected the perfectly good Olympus - so he is looking for small differences in usability and performance.  When you do that all cameras become a compromise.  In my post above for instance my Ricoh GR which produces superb image quality would not be good for sports photography, and the 1Ds would be far too heavy and bulky for cycle-touring or mountain climbing.
Not many can afford extensive multiple kits, but if you are willing to keep the cameras for a bit longer and only buy lenses that are specific to your needs the cost need not be that great.
A full frame DSLR has to be the best compromise all-round type of camera - if you accept the compromises.

Jim

[Nick Walt]

Thanks, Jim. I agree that the full-frame DSLR is the most flexible camera system right now if you want the best image quality with good all-round usability. If the A7 had more lenses and far better AF and had a body like the E-M1 that could handle larger lenses it would be a contender, too.

I'm becoming weary of looking at cameras and ultimately this just means nothing is jumping out at me. I wanted to commit to a system before I headed off to India but it is looking less and less like there is going to be a camera in my bag.

I'll probably be returning to Thailand in January so will see if anything has changed.

[NancyP]

Have you considered getting an older used camera, either a bridge, a compact, or a entry level camera with kit lens, just to have something to shoot while you are in India? You can get some decent cameras for 200 to 400 bucks. I personally might be tempted by a Sony RX100 II for 400.00 with lens, 9 oz. or so (KEH). The little Canon Rebel T2i at work is a terrific little copy camera with its 60mm macro. There was a nice weatherproof Pentax K30 DSLR with weatherproof kit lens on offer for about 400 bucks. A two to five year old entry level camera is still a pretty good camera, and if this is a once in a lifetime trip I would try to get something, and sell it later if needed.

[Nick Walt]

Hi Nancy,

That is a great idea and I had considered a GR, used E-M5, 6D, or D610. I have been looking for a used 6D ideally. I've also been considering a used Fuji X-M1, A1 or E2.

[MoreOrLess]

In terms of ergonomic design the big negative with m43 for me has always been the lack of a top plate LCD, having to look at the back screen or raise the camera to your eye to see the setting x 10,000 becomes rather tedious.

[Nick Walt]

Hi More,

In the time that I had the E-M1 I didn't need to set exposure using the rear screen much and typically would just raise the camera to my eye and adjust according to the scene.

Some people really liked the X-T1 because they could just glance at the configuration of the dials. I guess this is a habit of experienced photographers, who shoot by the numbers and typically dial them in ready to raise the camera and press the shutter straight away. Is that accurate?

I'm not experienced and so like to adjust setting from both the numbers and the preview in the EVF.

How do you ETTR without adjusting for each scene by looking through the OVF to avoid blowing out the highlights?

[allegretto]

Will typically set ISO or leave on auto. Stay in A-mode and control shutter with aperture. Also need to know where Exp Comp can be quickly adjusted. Once you're there, you're about set.

But of course others have other ways

6D is very intuitive for this and can be set up quickly. 6D also fits my hand perfectly with and without RRS L-bracket. On the A7s I'm "interviewing" my pinkie just kind of hangs in space. Not used to that but do like it's compact profile and EVF...!

[jjj]

I'll use the E-M1 as an example: when you bring up the grid to change the focus point - you can either use the four-way directional pad, or you can use the front and back wheels (dials) to move it vertically or horizontally, or you can touch the screen anywhere and it will go there. The other method was you can look at the point you want to focus on and then blink to release the shutter... oh, wait, that is in the next version, haha.

My old Canon EOS 3 film camera had eye control autofocus. Which is still the only AF system I've ever really liked. I find it really annoying that later cameras never had this incredibly useful feature and instead use faffy methods like you describe.

[Nick Walt]

allegretto, I mostly used aperture priority on the Olympus and set the ISO manually. The exposure compensation dial adjusted the shutter speed. When shooting high contrast scenes I would change to manual mode and set everything.

When handling the 6D and exploring the features I did also find the camera to be very intuitive. Much more so than the Nikon, which was disappointing. I expected more from Nikon on the usability side of things, but then I realised how much they don't put in because, I imagine, of marketing and creating demand and movement of customers upward within their model hierarchy.

Seeing this comes back to the whole reason for this thread. Looking at not only the camera and system, but the commitment to bringing good design to customers that exists in the company ethos, or not - as in the case of Nikon to some degree.

jjj, that is pretty cool that Canon had something like eye tracking for AF point placement. I don't see why they couldn't bring it back when they finally go mirrorless: hold down the AF button to engage eye tracking and bring up the focus point that moves to where you are looking. The camera focuses and then you press the shutter button to take the image.

[duane_bolland]

I think before changing systems you need to carefully evaluate exactly what you don't like about your current system.  As others have said, changing systems very often just leads to a new set of complaints. 

I immensely enjoy an optical viewfinder and FF image quality, but it comes at the cost of added weight and bulk.  I have a 5D3 and love it, however I think the simplified controls on the 6D would drive me crazy. 

The best solution might be to have two systems.  I'm looking at complementing my Canon with Fuji. 

[jjj]

jjj, that is pretty cool that Canon had something like eye tracking for AF point placement. I don't see why they couldn't bring it back when they finally go mirrorless: hold down the AF button to engage eye tracking and bring up the focus point that moves to where you are looking. The camera focuses and then you press the shutter button to take the image.

Eye tracking was much easier to use than what you described. I simply looked at what I wanted in focus and pressed shutter.

[Nick Walt]

duane, I think having two systems is, for now, probably the best way to go - until DSLRs transition into smaller more feature packed devices that can replace a two system setup.

Getting back to the original post of my thoughts about looking at the company behind the system, Thom Hogan has provided some interesting thoughts about this year's Annual Report released by Nikon:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikons-annual-report.html

I think the report shows very clearly the lack of nuanced thought going into the usability of their cameras, at least in the low-to-mid range cameras (not including their professional line, for which they probably pull out all stops).

Now, compare that attitude to the innovation going on at Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, and to some extent, Canon. Thank you, Thom, you have helped to confirm my perception about Nikon and that I don't want to commit thousands to a company that isn't interested in creating products with deeply nuanced feature sets and control systems.

EDIT: Okay, I'm done complaining - I've resolved my conflict over the D750. I wanted all that great tech, but couldn't get past the way it handled and lacked features - fantastic grip, though!

[jjj]

Nick, there are lots of small cameras that produce really good quality images with decent sized sensors and yet still easily fit in your trouser pocket.
Something like that will easily do a lot of what many people require and you can have a hulking DSLR for when you need it. So how about one of them instead of a second system?
Better for street work than a DSLR by a long way for example.

I finally got my hands on a RX100 III after quite a wait and it's a very impressive camera. Good enough to do some pro work with and yet really tiny.
But possibly what I liked most was that I could customise just about every button/dial to do what I wanted. This is how all equipment/software should be designed.

[Nick Walt]

jjj, I agree, there are lots of small cameras that would make for an excellent secondary. I've been mulling over the Ricoh GR for a while.

I'll end up giving something up to get a system I can get results I'm happy with and in the mean time the market will evolve towards mirrorless. By that time I'll have a lot more experience to consider the next upgrade into a mirrorless DSLR. Haha, maybe I'll be wanting to keep my OVF by then

[jjj]

I have a Ricoh GX 200 now retired, but one thing I particularly loved about it was that in manual mode [my prefered set up], I could push a button and it would auto expose and update your manual settings according to where you pointed it. Best of both worlds and if the auto guess was off you tweak manually. Far easier than faffing with auto and exposure compensation.  
Best exposure system I've ever used and excellent for street type photography, it's main use.
Hopefully the GR has kept that feature.

[allegretto]

1) I think the eye tracker would work off the mirror as well IIRC. So it would have to be different in a mirror less design

2) Using the exposure compensation dial to set shutter speed is very different than using the aperture dial if ISO is in "manual" mode. It is literally a different exposure (EV in film terms) with different gain.

allegretto, I mostly used aperture priority on the Olympus and set the ISO manually. The exposure compensation dial adjusted the shutter speed. When shooting high contrast scenes I would change to manual mode and set everything.

When handling the 6D and exploring the features I did also find the camera to be very intuitive. Much more so than the Nikon, which was disappointing. I expected more from Nikon on the usability side of things, but then I realised how much they don't put in because, I imagine, of marketing and creating demand and movement of customers upward within their model hierarchy.

Seeing this comes back to the whole reason for this thread. Looking at not only the camera and system, but the commitment to bringing good design to customers that exists in the company ethos, or not - as in the case of Nikon to some degree.

jjj, that is pretty cool that Canon had something like eye tracking for AF point placement. I don't see why they couldn't bring it back when they finally go mirrorless: hold down the AF button to engage eye tracking and bring up the focus point that moves to where you are looking. The camera focuses and then you press the shutter button to take the image.

[jjj]

1) I think the eye tracker would work off the mirror as well IIRC. So it would have to be different in a mirror less design

Nope. 
"An infrared transmitter and receiver mounted around the eyepiece monitored the position of the iris, thus "knowing" where the photographer was looking and focusing on that point."