Firstly I'm comfortable to admit that I'm not a camera buff so please forgive any questions that are a bit basic.
I feel like I've got to the point where I've got to the limits of my Lumix compact and would like a camera which is a bit more capable. I really enjoy taking photos and it's something that I'd like to do more of. I have looked at DSLRs and was thinking that they were the way to go but now I see that there are hybrid or system cameras which seem to be a bastard child of a compact and a DSLR, is this an accurate description? One of the things that I would like is the ability to take instant photos without the lag that you get with the compacts whilst they do their thing. I would like to be able to focus on what I want. I am also looking to do an evening course to improve my skills. I've seen this; http://www.sony.co.uk/product/dsi-body/nex-5d
Does this offer many of the advantages of a DSLR without the bulk as described?
Any help would be very gratefully received. Thanks.
Chat Forum
Camera experts; advice please?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I think you'll find you need one of these beauties...
On a serious note, I recently bought a Lumix GF1 which is a cracking camera for me, I think the Sonys are supposed to have a fiddly menu system. Look up micro four thirds.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks Torminalis, I think the sony is a micro four thirds job. Is this any good? I've had a read of the camera thread but most of it went over my head.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Does this offer many of the advantages of a DSLR without the bulk as described?
Pretty much.
Lots about Nex here...Very cheap at play.com
Posted 1 year ago # -
Nex are very nice (2 friends have them) although I still prefer my Sony DSLR as I like having the really wide range of glass (old minolta) you can pick up second hand. That said it is a tad unwieldy and its a pain to carry all day with associated kit. Personally I think you get more camera buying a similar price DSLR than a Nex type camera as you are paying for the small form factor but they are damn good cameras and a big step up from a compact type.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The micro 4/3 or the Sony Nex are indeed a halfway house. Most of the image quality of a DSLR, but slightly less quick in use I suppose in some circumstances. I think they can only use a slower autofocus system because of the lack of a mirror, but I'm not sure.
I've played with a Nex and it looked lovely and user friendly for point and shooters, but I didn't see where to access all the settings fully. Seemed pretty quick though, but then cameras usually do in shops.
It's also worth looking at smaller full SLRs like Pentax or Olympus - they have all the features but are not all that much bigger or heavier than a micro 4/3 camera. I think it's the awkward shape of camera + lens that's the issue with both kinds of camera, not the size as such.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's worth noting that the Nex has an aps-c sensor which is larger than the m4/3 (same size as 'normal' dslrs). That gives the NEX the edge on noise and makes a large difference in dynamic range. In short the NEX will give better image quality.
Having said that, I bought an Olympus as absolute image quality isn't my main priority with a pocket camera. But the Nex wasn't cheaper than the Olympus then...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Also worth noting that the difference between 4/3 and aps-c isn't as drastic as some reviewers would have you believe. As I believe I have already pointed out a number of times.. sorry
Posted 1 year ago # -
Depends what matters to you. If it's noise then I agree. But if it's dynamic range then it matters.
Have a look at this...
Look at the dynamic range tab. You have to get up to iso1600 before the Nex produces less DR than the olympus at iso100.
You won't see a difference in noise or resolution unless you really try. That difference in DR is significant. It's certainly the main difference I see comparing my dslr and my m4/3 and it really shows when recovering highlights/shadows in pp.*
Again, I wouldn't choose a camera based on this but it is a real plus point for the aps-c sensor.
*Edit: when I say comparing, I don't mean that. You don't have to compare images to see a difference, it's obvious when you do any PP.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ah.. that makes that Sony look pretty good. Not cheap tho. Do all the Nexes have the same sensor?
Worth pointing out that had the Olympus Pens been cheaper when I was shopping, I'd almost certainly have one
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ah.. that makes that Sony look pretty good. Not cheap tho.
They are now. Dual lens Nex3 for £399. I paid nearly twice that for my dual lens Pen kit.Do all the Nexes have the same sensor?
I believe so, certainly the same specs. The only real difference is the Nex3 has a plastic body and the Nex5 is magnesium.At the same price I'd still favour the e-p1 or e-p2, but at current prices I'd look seriously at the nex. If the nex kit zoom was smaller I wouldn't have to think about it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hmm. If I ever get a second camera it would be a m4/3.. so I can still use my 4/3 lenses if need be. Just need someone to make a weather sealed one for the perfect biking camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Lens compatibility is a nice to have but I take a different view. m4/3 is all about size. As soon as you stick 4/3 lenses (and the adapter) on the body all of a sudden it's huge!
That's why I only have two lenses for my m4/3. The smallest standard zoom available and a nice small prime.
Longer/faster/better lenses come with a size penalty, in which case I may as well use the longer/faster/better lenses I already have on my full-size camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
True.. to be fair I can't imagine a time when I'd bring 4/3 lenses and leave the body at home...
Would an EP2 and an E600 be complimentary cameras tho? Surely the images would be about the same so not much point in even having an E600 at all?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The pen is a horrible little thing to use. All small and fiddly. Its saving grace is good image quality and it fits in my pocket.
So, yes, I'd prefer to use an E600 if it was convenient to carry.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hmm.. maybe it's back to the weatherproof compact idea then for biking.. hmm..
Best weather-proof compact or bridge type camera? That's this afternoon's googling sorted
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've posted this same thing time and time again on here I guess it becomes boring.
I haven't got a m4/3 camera simply because the moment you attach any lens other than a pancake it becomes as awkward to carry as any DSLR even if lighter.
Also the DR and noise of m4/3 is not quite there yet for me, especially on the GF1/2 (the Pen cameras are better but still not quite APS-C).
The NEX addresses the DR/noise issue by using an APS-C sized sensor and are as small as you can get at the moment but the same caveat applies if you want anything other than the 16mm pancake lens you make your camera awkward and bulky.
Finally for me there two more issues with such small cameras, with a huge lens in the front they are not balancing correctly on my hands and tend to be harder to keep steady and none of them has anything resembling a DSLR viewfinder, EVF are expensive add ons and are nowhere near as good.
So currently my setup is a high end compact and a DSLR (LX3 and D40).
For compacts you have more options than when I bought mine, Canon S95, Olympus XZ-1, LX3/5 and a few more that can't think of at the moment. Good cameras with admittedly worse quality than the m4/3s but they are actually pocketable/carry everywhere and that with zoom lenses.
For DSLRs check the D3100, buy it with the kit lens and the 35 f1.8 AF-S. which is very affordable and an amazing 'compact' lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The sensor size issue is overhyped imo.
Both are tiny compared to the full frame sensor in my 5D
The NEX is better at high ISOs, but then so is the GH2 which has the M4/3 sensor.
There are a million threads on this topic, so I won't repeat myself, except for another shameless attempt to drive some traffic to my site.
Almost all the pics taken with M4/3 cameras.
http://www.grahamwynnephoto.com
People saying the IQ of M4/3 isn't up to the job are off the mark imo. Oh, and the GF1 with 14-45 zoom is still way smaller than an equivalent DSLR with zoom. The longer reach M4/3 lenses (45-200 and 100-300) are big-ish, but then they give you the same reach as lenses going up to 600mm on a full frame DSLR, which would be bloody enormous and very expensive.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yeah zoom is a big bucket of win for 4/3 or m4/3 people imo. Very significant for a papparazo or a twitcher probably.
5thElefant's comments about dynamic range are interesting tho.
Grumm, what lens for those macro shots?
Posted 1 year ago # -
People saying the IQ of M4/3 isn't up to the job are off the mark imo.
I don't think anyone has said that here.
The longer reach M4/3 lenses (45-200 and 100-300) are big-ish, but then they give you the same reach as lenses going up to 600mm on a full frame DSLR, which would be bloody enormous and very expensive
That's simply not true.Crop my full-frame images in half and you get the 2x crop factor and are left with the same 12mp resolution of a m4/3, so there is no reach advantage for m4/3.
The same applies to most modern aps-c cameras. The extra resolution over m4/3 cancels out any crop 'advantage'.
EDIT: hang on... I've ballsed up. It's aps-c that has half the area of FF. I should have used crop^2. m4/3 has 1/4 the area so an equivalent FF crop to m4/3 is 1/4 the area, or 6MP.
I take it back...
m4/3 does have a reach advantage, but it's more like 1.4 crop than 2 when you take resolution into account.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Did anyone else spot this freak on ebay recently?
A D40 c/w Katzeye split prism focusing screen!
The Nex does look nice though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I take it back...
You are also comparing to a full frame camera with an unusually large number of MP (5D MK II presumably). Nikon full frame cameras only have 12MP for instance. And the new GH2 has 16MP.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Nikon full frame cameras only have 12MP for instance.
Except the ones that have 24mp of course
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't think comparing a full frame Sony to a m4/3 camera is comparing like with like, to be fair!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Except the ones that have 24mp of course
There isn't one.
There's one that has 24.5 megapixels (
), but it costs £5000 so not really an option for normal people.I am basically right though aren't I. BTW dxomark is a site for 'measurebators' imo.
:nerdfight:
(I bet all this is really helping the OP :/ )
Posted 1 year ago # -
(I bet all this is really helping the OP :/ )
Frazzled. But glad you all seem to be enjoying yourselves
I've seen a cuople of comments to the effect of "the NEXs look pretty good" which is praise enough for me coming from such camera savvy people. Happy to listen to any other suggestions for 4/3 cameras though.Posted 1 year ago # -
The standard advice is go to a shop - have a play with the NEX and some other options (Olympus PEN, Panasonic GF1/2) and see which feels nicest.
'Tis worth trying a small DSLR as well though imo (Nikon D3100 is meant to be very nice).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thank you grumm.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am basically right though aren't I.
No
Most of the new generation of aps-c are 16mp (Sony, Pentax and Nikon). The crop factor from m4/3 to aps-c is 1.3. The crop difference in resolution is 1.15 (crop).
So again half the crop advantage is lost due to the low resolution of m4/3.
You're 0.4 right.
(I bet all this is really helping the OP :/ )
Yeah, the trick is not to ask and buy the one you like the look of or like the price of
It's hard to buy a bad camera...
Posted 1 year ago # -
See if you can find an Olympus E450 to play with too, as an example of the smallest DSLR.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Comparing a four thirds with aps-c by height - the aps-c is only 14% taller. Arguably, it's insignificant.
I also think you're overstating the importance of image resolution when comparing a 16mp aps-c sensor to a 12mp 4/3 sensor.
16MP = 4616 x 3464 in 4:3 aspect ratio
12MP = 4000 x 3000 in 4:3 aspect ratioA 33% increase in sensor size has only increased the linear resolution by only 15.4%.
I've also actually over-calculated for the 16MP as this assume a four thirds sensor size. An aps-c sensor would actually be less.
I think you have to take also take into account sharpness (sharpening algorithms) and colour tonal quality.
Panasonic (Venus engine) and Olympus (True-pic) engines are both excellent and on top of their game.
The biggest drawback for me with the Sony Nex is the very odd flash mount they've chosen. A simple hotshoe would have been better.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Comparing a four thirds with aps-c by height - the aps-c is only 14% taller. Arguably, it's insignificant.
Fair enough. It's just 12MB vs 16MB then
You can't get away from the fact that the crop "advantage" only applies to sensors of the same resolution.
You make an interesting point about jpeg engines. I shoot raw so don't consider it. Not sure how the sony compares. I do know that DXO doesn't support the ep1 which is a PITA for me as the olympus raw processor is a bit noddy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've also actually over-calculated for the 16MP as this assume a four thirds sensor size. An aps-c sensor would actually be less.
Incidently, an
16MP aps-c sensor = 4896 x 32648.8% greater linear resolution over a 12MP four thirds sensor.
So a LOT less than the original calculation.Furthermore, should you edit and crop an image for printing into 4:3 ratio as a lot prints and digital images are these days you're effectively getting just 14.2MP.
I shoot raw so don't consider it
I think you'll find the processing engine does come into play - even for RAW - certainly for Panasonic and for Olympus as well.So 12MP vs 14.2MP then?
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is one of those horses for courses situations - you maybe need a few questions to focus on:
- What sort of photography do you want to do? If contemplative landscape, or trackside sports then a dSLR would be OK. If you are looking to get spontaneous photos of your mates when you are out riding then a waterproof/shockproof compact, with all its shutter lag problems, is a good thing to have in your pocket, not in your Camelbak. Unless your mates are happy for you to go "can you wait while I get my camera out, then ride that rooty section again and go grrrrr".
- What are you planning to do with the output - huge prints, little prints, publish to web?
- Will you go out specifically to take photos, or will your photography be an adjunct to something else? If the former then lugging bodies, lenses, flash, tripod, filters etc is all good, but it's easy to leave the kit behind if it's going to get in the way.
- Will you really want a set of different lenses for different circumstances - zooms for convenience, primes for absolute quality?As others have posted, anything with a lens sticking out of the body can be awkward to carry. If you are looking for good manual control and faster response, but in a pocketable format I would take a look at a high end compact like the Lumix LX5 or Canon S95. See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q42010highendcompactgroup/
I use a dSLR (Canon 5D2 + L lenses, flash triggers) for landscapes, long mountaineering trips overseas, and trackside coverage of club MTB events.
I use a Lumix FT1 waterproof/shockproof compact, with all its lag and image quality problems, on club rides, because I can keep it in my pocket rather than put away safely inside a padded case. If (when) I fall off, it doesn't really matter.
I use a Canon S90 compact on mountaineering trips to the Alps because it has good manual controls, has a reasonable zoom range, but most of all is light and pocketable.
I had a Lumix LX3 in the past, and really liked its quality and controls, but found the zoom a bit short. The newer LX5 looks better with a 24-90mm equivalent.Interesting that someone like Joe Cornish (one of the best-known landscape photographers in UK currently) who is mainly an advocate of large format film and medium format digital, also uses an LX3 from time to time.
Just like you can never have too many bikes, you can never have too many cameras...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hmm, I won't be intending to publish anything on websites or the like, but may want to print some of the better ones to A4 or even A3 size. I'd like something that I could take with me walking, climbing and riding in case the opportunity to photograph something nice arises but would like to be more involved than I feel currently with my compact. I;m happy to put the time in to learn the capabilities of a camera and get the skills to use it. I don't feel like my compact is much cop for anything quick, it's just a camera for pointing and saying "SMILE"!
For reference I have one of these;
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/reviews/compactcameras/469/1/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fx100.html
I do like Lumix, and indeed panasonic. Not sure why, just feels nice. Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
