Small DSLR vs. mirrorless

Started May 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
007peter
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,939Gear list
Like?
some thought from a Canon + m4/3 shooter point-of-view
In reply to flubby, May 12, 2012

I"m a canon + m4/3 dual shooter, I'll shred some light since I almost bought a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G + d60 but elect to go with a Panasonic GF2 instead.

I have a D700 and an assortment of great Nikon glass. It's all relatively big and heavy. When the D3100 came out, I bought it and a 35mm 1.8 DX lens as a smaller alternative. Then I bought a P300 for an even smaller alternative.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX is an amazing lens at amazing price. This is one of the RARE LENS that is missing from canon. I'm envious nikonian can buy such an amazing prime as such a low price. My Canon 35m f/2 is dog, CA horribly with a very loud ancient arc motor that sound like a beehive. D3100 + 35mm f/1.8 should satisfied small camera wishes , I'm surprise to read that it didn't. I almost bought a Nikon D60 + 35mm f/1.8 because I'm envious of this lens for much, and a used d60 are dead cheap.

I have been thinking an awful lot about m4/3 and the Fuji x100 for the small size and pancake primes. There is something attractive about those cameras. I want a camera that is small, high quality, with fast aperture and good ISO performance.....

The size reduction of m4/3 is worth it imho. My panasonic GF2 is really small, just barely larger than my canon sd4000 point/shoot with better high iso to boot.

I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish that Nikon would come out with a small DX sensor camera with a retro leather

That'll never happen. Both canon + nikon need to protect their entry level dslr , so both of them enter the arena half-heavyhearted, each with a severe handicap:

  • Canon went mirror-less with G1X, but price it higher than a Rebel DSLR with a fixed lens

  • Nikon went mirror-less with V1/J1 tiny sensor, again, and price around d3100 that kick its butt

Hence, the only way to get true, non-handicapped mirrorless is with m4/3. Both Panasonic and Olympus give up on DSLR, so their camera + lens are more competitive since their is no dslr market to protect .

I would LOVE a little Nikon camera that looks like the x100 on which you could mount a 24mm 2.8 D lens or a 35mm 2.0 D lens! I have been wishing that Nikon would do something like this for a while. Wouldn't such a camera be the holy grail?

Sort of agree and disagree. The problem here is that a simple Nikon D3100 + 35mm f/1.8 has already fulfill that role, while it may not be a THIN as a m4/3 mirrorless, it is far more capable, faster, and also CHEAPER as well. That removed majority of the NEED for a camera you describe. Yes, it is nice, but not necessary

So I have a question. What does an Olympus OM-D or Olympus EP-3 or Fuji xpro1 or x100 do that I can't do with my D3100 and 35mm 1.8?

Nothing - if performance counts, I advice you to STICK with your DSLR. Don't be one of those fool who buy m4/3 then WHINE about how it cannot perform like this nikon d7000. I bought m4/3 because I want a small camera, not because I expect the same or better performance. I would even went as far as arguing that small entry level dslr (nikon d3100 or canon rebel) have the best compromised between SIZE + PERFORMANCE. Where m43 for me, is the best compromise in SIZE > PERFORMANCE. There is a difference. If you accept this difference, you're be happy with m4/3

Isn't my D3100 al little bit bigger, but has better image quality, and an advantage in capability because of the DSLR viewfinder, focusing, other capabilities and sensor size?

Absolutely, D3100 is better. A 35mm f/1.8 on D3100 would deliver similar bokeh quality to that of a OM-D + Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4, and that lens cost a whopping $550. This is why I'm researching into buying a cheap nikon d60 + 35mm f/1.8 package.

If my D3100 is as good or better, then why am I wishing for something different? I think I just want to handle a small, well-built retro-looking camera that will make me feel like a serious photographer.

" Feel like a serious photographer ", are you serious??? A real photographer have a portfolio of photo to show for, he doesn't walk-around showing of his camera gear , that is for posers If you want people to take you seriously, why not professionally print your best photograph in an album and carry with you? Buying a camera for look is just stupid ( sorry for my honesty )

The D3100 just doesn't make me "feel" that way because of the lens selection and plastic body and handling. I seriously want to know if anyone else has these same thoughts about an entry level DSLR and these new generation of cameras by Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji.

You mean it looks cheap and consumer like. Honestly, a D3100 will produce much better photograph, greater dynamic range, better DOF isolation than any m43/ can. Yes, it look cheap, but the result are fantastic.

What is more important to you:

  • Look like a Photographer? - then buy a retro looking Fuji or Olympus OM-D

  • Shoot like a Photographer? - then your Nikon D3100 + 35mm f/1.8 is far better package

And one other rant I would like to hear other thoughts about - why hasn't Nikon offered small 18mm and 24mm primes for DX camara owners who want to shoot with a compact set of high quality primes?

Like I say before, you can't stop the wishful thinking. Nikon need to protect its sub $1000 DSLR market , as does canon.

The m4/3 market already has a more complete range of smnall, high quality primes than the Nikon DX system and I bought my D70 8 years ago!

Again, because both Panasonic and Olympus have nothing to lose

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow