Need Advice. OMD EM5 or X-E1 as FIRST SERIOUS CAMERA to learn Photography?

tedolf said:

tedolf wrote:

tedolf said:

DR5ZEE wrote:
Ok I posted this in another forum, under the Fuji X- series section and got overwhelming responses and 99% were in favor of the X-E1. I originally had the OMD in mind but then I thought aybe the resin for such a response is because i posted it under the Fuji X- series section and not the OMD one..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50811586

This was my original question:

[snip]

have shortlisted two, The Fujifilm X-E1 and the OMD EM5.

[snip]

Now which of these two excellent cameras will make me a better photographer..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Only learning about photography will make you a better photographer. Not buying a new camera.

It is a huge fallacy, one we see all the time where a begginer believes that getting a new camera will "make them a better photographer".

It is like suggesting that a new driver get a 400 HP Ferrari as their first "serious" car.

Clearly an invitation to disaster.

The two cameras you mentioned are the top end cameras of both manufacturers' range and are intended for experienced amature/professional photographers. They are very complex and frankly will baffle a beginner.

In fact, getting an overly complex camera will impede your ability to learn the basics of photography: DOF control, exposure control over high/low key scenes, control over focal lenght depth compression and expansion, utilization of negative space, etc. In particular, control over depth of field is something you could not have learned with the cameras you are currently using so this will be new to you and mastering it is not simple.

You would be much better served getting an entry level u 4/3 camera (e.g. E-pl2 or G3) for about $300.00 with kit lenses (which are fine-not "junk" as you stated) a moderate zoom (e.g Oly 40-150mm for $99.00) and a fast legacy 50mm manual focus lens with adapter for portraits (about $50.00). Using a manual lens with stop down focusing and a DOF scale on the lens is also the fastest most intuitive means of leanring to control DOF known to Mankind.

Then take a class, read a book or two or both. Then apply what you have learned with a camera that will not overwhelm you with complexity which an OM-d or X-e1 surely will.

You can always buy a top of the line camera later after you have mastered your craft. Your lenses will still be usable and you can sell the old body for close to what you paid for it.

TEdolph
Don't let the fact that this man can't spell 'cat' dissuade you from following his advice. Part of the beauty in tedolph's advice is that when he's wrong, he's DEAD wrong, but when he's right, he's ON THE MONEY, which in this case, he is. Heed this man's advice, grasshopper!

I totally agree with your there

Out of the two though I`d prefer the fuji as the learning tool, its just about as close too a film camera you could ever get in this digital age.

All of the important controls are at your finger tips, a real shutter speed dial and a real aperture ring on each lens along with an exposer comp dial, what more would you need.

On the other hand there are the lovely fuji x100`s, there an absolute joy to use, so simple to use and you are forced to get of the comfort zone and actually work to get the best out of the camera, these have almost halved in price since its launch.


Some of the compacts would be good as well, x10`s have almost halved in price, then there`s the LX7, XZ-2 etc, etc.

DR5ZEE said:

DR5ZEE wrote:
Now which of these two excellent cameras will make me a better photographer is the question I ask. Since Im just starting out, my opinion is the Fuji will make me work harder, encouraging me to shoot more in manual mode and will teach me more about composing and framing than the OMD. The OMD on the other hand will make me shoot more since its zippy and highly customizable. Plus i only plan to get one prime lens to begin with ( the 35mm f1.4 for the Fuji or the pana-leica 25mm f1.4 for the Oly) My Heart is set on the X-E1 but my mind tells me to go for the OMD. Please help!

Click to expand...

Stop right here. Neither of these cameras will make you a better photographer. Many, including myself have spent considerable money chasing that idea and it just doesn't work. You end up spending money on a nice camera just to take the same photos. Neither camera will make you work harder, your phone probably makes you work the hardest out of all the options. Both cameras are easy to shoot in manual mode, or auto. Shooting in manual mode requires discipline, not a camera. If you really want to shoot manual go buy yourself a FM2 or OM1 and learn that way.

Depending on the type of photography you do a fast camera can be useful. A customizable camera makes it easier to setup for the way you think. Neither will make you shoot more photos. The way you shoot more photos is by carrying your camera everyday and not keeping it in the bag. Both these are larger than your phone, so this may be more difficult for you.

Cameras teach you nothing about composition. Composition is all in your eye and learning see. Shooting with a prime for months will help, because you'll learn to see a photo before even looking at what the camera sees. The specific camera is irrelevant though.

How is your current camera holding you back? How will these cameras help over come those limitations. Until you can answer those questions simply I think you are just wasting your money.

As far as the rest of it, you are thinking way too much about the details of the reviews. Both these cameras are a huge step up. Both will make beautiful prints to a fairly large size. The quality differences between the two aren't going to be a factor for you right now, and if/when they become one you'll probably just buy a newer model.

Fuji has a fast telephoto on their roadmap. M43s has a couple options available now. The sensor size won't make a meaningful difference in bokeh between m43s and APSC. Fuji's lenses are pretty good, but I think you should make your buying decisions on what exists now, not what is coming in the future. Quality/price/other issues just aren't known. It may never come into existence.

If you want to learn to use flash you'll quickly find the pop-up flash isn't useful for anything but an emergency. Even at it's best the results are normally mediocre. The Fuji flash looks moderate size. The Oly clip-on flash is small enough you can keep it on your camera. The strong FL300R is slim enough to easily slip inside any bag or pocket.

EDIT: I see tedolph beat me to it. I should of read the whole thread first. Listen the man in this case.

would be to skip the top end models and go for something more basic... perhaps something w less dynamic range than current models (to force you to get the exposure right) w/o stabilization (so you learn how to hold a camera steady.

What comes to my mind first are the E-500 or 510, but I can see where you might not want to put money into a system that might not grow with you (although Oly has hinted at a new body or bodies for 4/3 coming this year) But 4/3 lenses are reasonably priced, and in some cases better quality than their more expensive micro counterparts (no software correction needed)

Of course you won't get live view w either of those, or a tilt/swivel screen, or great high ISO performance, and the 500 lacks IS



Reasons to buy the E-M5 (or X-E1?): Lots of controls you can grow into, you don't want to upgrade down the road, you have money to burn.

Reasons to buy an out dated basic model: Less up front investment, less features to confuse, concentrate on learning the craft rather than the camera, more money for the lens(es) you want.



If you can, get to a camera store w a wide selection and handle several different models. Notice which fit your hand, which controls seem to make sense, which display works for you.

The Fuji will frustrate you with it's autofocus, and it's electronic viewfinder...

The Olympus will frustrate you with it's strange User Interface...

I would get a used Nikon D700 or a used Canon 5Dii (both full frame), and a matching 35mm fast lens (Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is good for either mount), They both have great optical viewfinders, as well as well thought out UI. And, they both can capture the scene with very little shutter lag, and Auto Focus extremely quickly.

Neither the Fuji or the Olympus are a beginner's tool. People pick these mostly for their size.

aimawayfromface said:

aimawayfromface wrote:

If you plan to use only the 35mm on the XE-1, the X100(s) might be the more sensible choice. It's cheap enough that you could get an E-PL5 to go with it.

Click to expand...

The XE-1 with the 35mm is a 50mm FOV in Full frame, so the XE-1 would be wider (the x100 lens is 23mm with the same size sensor).

Go for the EM-5, it's much more versatile in the long run. Smaller, lighter, more customization, tilt screen, so many good lenses to choose from. I bought the XE-1 but didn't like it. Too big, heavy lens, didn't have all the features of the EM-5. I love my Oly, had an EP-3 before. Thought the Fuji would be it, but it just didn't work for me. No camera is perfect.

Your question has two answers. First, you seem to prefer the X-E1, so, from strictly that point of view, that would be the best choice.

HOWEVER...as a first serious camera to learn on, I would agree with Tedolph and say NEITHER.

Many, many years ago, when I was looking for my first SLR camera, after I had been taking photos for a few years (mostly on Instamatics and a borrowed old SLR), I spent a lot of time trying to figure out which camera would be best for me, much as you are doing now. There was no autofocus at the time, but cameras had come out that could do various iterations of aperture priority or shutter priority and/or full manual, they had advanced to the point where they had TTL metering which displayed in the viewfinder (and you did not have to use a separate light meter, which had been a royal pain in the rear end). I picked a camera that was fully manual (Pentax MX), with a DOF preview lever.

With that camera, I learned techniques that became so second nature that I still use them today. Spot metering...meter/recompose/focus/shoot...once you get good at these, it actually sometimes seems to take longer to use the automated versions that are all part of current cameras....

I found that I rarely needed fast shutter speeds for what I liked to shoot, but I very much needed good DOF control, so I essentially became an aperture-priority shooter. I still primarily work in this mode today....but it's different with digital cameras since you have the added ability to change the ISO from one shot to the next (which you could not do with film), in addition to all of the other modes that you can control now, too.

But I digress. The point of all of this is that once you learn on a simpler camera, the basics become second nature, and you carry them with you as you move into more advanced techniques. Starting out with a very complex camera may seem appealing in that you can grow into it, but in reality you will be less likely to learn the basics in the first place with one.

Another advantage to a cheaper body is you can spend some time experimenting with lenses, and figuring out what focal lengths and lens types you prefer to use. Since you will be spending less (perhaps MUCH less) on a body, you can treat yourself to a few lenses instead...and have some fun with it (maybe even a legacy lens or two...they can be cheap and are VERY good to learn the basics with...and some of them are truly excellent to boot).

If you want to go less expensive, you can find E-P3's out there on closeout, or you could go with an EPL2....Or a G3 at truly bargain prices (body for $250)...Any of these would be great to learn on, and require minimal investment. Once you get the feel for what you are doing, you will be in a far better position to decide what body would work for you best.

Oh, and one other thing...as someone else has mentioned in an earlier post: So much of digital photography is not just the files that come straight out of the camera...having good software that enables you to develop them appropriately (the digital darkroom as it were) is really essential. You don't have to spend massive $ on Photoshop, but you do need to find a program or two that will enable you to get the most out of your shots. Lightroom is a good start for most people, but there are other programs that are worthy of consideration, too.

Good luck! Photography is a fantastic hobby, but it can be a major, major cash removing endeavor if you let it. Best to find out your strengths and weaknesses before you drop massive funds on gear that may or may not be the best choice for you.....

-J

The only person who can decide which camera suits you is you. Think about the process before the product. None of those published reviews provides information as to which camera or system is going to suit you. I suggest you step back (metaphorically) from those two cameras and get your hands on a wider range of cameras from different systems. You might be surprised to find that one you thought you would really like does not suit your hands or eyes or whatever. After trying several cams, think about which system appeals to you most and take it from there. If you decide that system is M43 you might be better served initially by an offering in the middle of the price range such as the G5, which offers most of the performance of the EM5 for less money and with a more entry user friendly interface.

DR5ZEE said:

DR5ZEE wrote:
Since Im just starting out, my opinion is the Fuji will make me work harder, encouraging me to shoot more in manual mode and will teach me more about composing and framing than the OMD.

Click to expand...

If anything, it is easier to shoot in M mode with either camera these days because the "WYSIWYG" approach of constant liveview has given us the tools necessary to master exposure without guesstimating or taking some perverse pleasure in masochistic trial-and-error. So far, 1950 of my first 2000 shots with the OMD have been in M mode.


Like you said, the zippiness of the OMD can help you get the shot. Whats more - and this is coming from a DSLR background - the touch-screen with tilt is a transformative feature for people pics. You can now take the camera into extreme angles, out-stretched one handed, and get a perfectly focused image with short DOF (thanks 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8) pressing your thumb on the screen - instantly. Wear a neck strap long, tilt the screen up, and shoot navel-gazing at the OLED; you are transported back to the twin-lens-reflex days! Add a fisheye or UWA to the mix, face-detect AF routines, and a whole different process to photography is possible. If you do candids, street, ect, this effectively doubles the techniques you can use to approach a shot.


I would be right at home with the Fuji, and there is a 1-stop advantage in DOF control. The OMD is a much better all-a-rounder however and will get you more shots... with features that point to the future of photography.

jalywol said:

jalywol wrote:

HOWEVER...as a first serious camera to learn on, I would agree with Tedolph and say NEITHER.

Click to expand...

+1

For learning photography, you are arguably better off with an old manual/semi-manual 35mm film SLR. The basics are exactly the same as any modern camera - Composition and ISO-Aperture-Shutter.

The advantage of a film SLR is that it costs real money per shot and it takes time (days) before you see the result. As such, it really forces you to think about what you are shooting and what you want from the final image. And a $50 film SLR with one or more prime lens will give the same FF image quality and depth of field control as a $2000+ digital SLR - and arguably better on both counts than either camera than was originally noted.

Once you understand what and why you want to shoot and the basics of photography and composition it is much easier to choose what camera you need.

Of course, asking the question on the Fuji forum will leave you with comments favoring the X-E1, while asking there will result in the opposite advice.

Those two cameras are designed around diametrically different concepts :

The Fuji is stripped down to the essential : you find yourself with a camera mimicking the controls of an old range finder film camera : you will have to learn about the famous exposure trilogy (aperture, shutterspeed and ISO) and to learn when to use higher speeds and larger apertures or small apertures and lower speeds. Learn how you combine these three parameters to : freeze action or get motion blurr, get thin DOF to isolate the subject from the background, or get everything in focus from foreground to background in a landscape picture. But in fact this is the easiest part of photography. The toughest part is composition and seeing the light, aka how it will fall on your subject and how the camera will render it , which you can only learn through practice.

The E-M5, although having a retro look, is a very contemporary camera, packed with a lot of customizable features. It is somewhat more difficult to set up, because it offers so many customizable parameters. So you will have to spend some time to set it up at first. But once this is done (there are good ressources on the web on how to set it up and there is even a book to help you), the E-M5 is easy to use too. Further, it can use the same three basic shooting modes as the Fuji : aperture priority, shutter priority and manual modes. Indeed, this is what I'm using too, so this isn't a reason to choose the one over the other.

For me the X-E1 has three draw backs : the special sensor smears colors and no raw converter is able to do it justice. The C1 Pro converter was much expected, but from what DReview states it is improved, but didn't solve the problem entirely. The second drawback is the lack of reactivity. Depending on what you shoot it will limit you. The last drawback is the lens system : not yet as complete as that of MFT. The E-M5 has so many advantages that it would be too long to list them

You can read more concerning the advantages and disadvantages of both cameras at the website of Thom Hogan. He is a Nikon specialist, who has written many Nikon books and recently launched SansMirror.com a website dedicated to all mirrorless cameras. He has reviewed both the E-X1 and the E-M5 and has awarded the E-M5 the title of "Best serious mirrorless camera of 2012 " : follow the links to learn why he thinks the E-M5 is the better camera. He is probably a more impartial photographer than the Fuji or MFT forum members. He recently created a storm among Nikon users, when he publicly stated that he has replaced his D7000 (APSC sensor) with an E-M5. He is still using a FF Nikon of course, but now uses the E-M5 for travel and hiking photography instead of the D7000 : aka whenever he needs to go light. Reading his rationale for choosing may help you weighting what features are important for you.

TORN said:

TORN wrote:

You would profit from either camera since both allow you to to add DOF control to your repertoire. Apart from that it is pretty obvious that in practical terms you are rather inexperienced, no disrespect meant. Quite some of the data from the spec sheets looks quite different in the practical application.

Click to expand...

Reading his full mail, I think he has more knowledge than he states. He is just modest.

Inkheart said:

Inkheart wrote:

Difficult choice. Both cameras will probably be awesome, so you need to make up your mind what is more important for you.

If you really need this a little better IQ at high ISO, and shallower DOF - go with Fuji.

If it's performance, wider selection of lenses (which are cheaper also), and some other features like IBIS, weathersealing or tiltable touch screen that you think you would prefer - it's OM-D.

It would be best if you could check out both at a store - just handling the cameras may help you make the decision.

Also, you say that kit lens of the OM-D is crap, but most reviews i read were very positive, and I like a lot also, so I'm not sure where did you get it from. It's most of all fun.

So - speed and versatility of a robust camera - Olympus. Street photography - Fuji.

--

Click to expand...

Hi.

I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just wondering what the rational is for the ex-1 for street comment.

I had the X100 and the XPro1 and tried both cameras in the street environment and found the AF systems on both cameras where simply not responsive enough. They both performed acceptably for "considered" shots but were too inconsistent/slow for grab shots. By way of comparison, the EM5 (I was testing it today at local camera shop/outdoor mall) was impressively fast and accurate with its' AF. Certainly faster and more accurate than my D7000. Combined with the ability to focus and trigger the shutter via the rear screen, it seems like an excellent street photographers camera. I know Ray Sachs (DPReview member) gets some excellent street results with his EM5.

Ultimately, any camera can be a street camera. I'm currently using the D90/D7000, and while I'm new to street photography (still finding my feet), I'm having no problems doing so. I find it's more about confidence and attitude, being sensitive to the surrounding environment, and not so much about the camera.

Cheers.

Personally would take the X-E1 for it's superior IQ. For some types of photography, an EM-5 might be a better choice, i.e. fast moving subjects or if you need long telephotos, but in general the X-Pro1/X-E1 IQ is the trump card in this dilema. An X-E1 will give you better DOF control, nicer colors, cleaner high ISO (and base ISO) images, and significantly nicer OOC JPEGs. On the flip side, the RAW workflow with the EM-5 should be a bit easier as there is better support in LR4/ACR for Olympus ORF than there is for Fuji X-Trans RAF files.

But for overall nicer looking images, for low-light shooting with cleaner, more detailed high ISO images, I think this dilema is a no brainer with one caveat. If you are interested in fast action sports or birding, you should maybe pass on the X-E1. The EM-5 AF is more robust than the X-E1, but neither camera is any good at AF tracking. If your photography consists of tons of fast moving subjects, you'd be a lot better off with a DSLR like the D7000 which has significantly better AF tracking abilities, superb IQ (DR, high ISO, and color depth) that's about as good as it gets for an APS-C camera (miles better than any m43 camera including the EM-5). I should also point out that with a D7000 (or possibly D5200) you'll have way more choices: inexpensive fast primes like the 35 1.8 DX, 50 1.8G, etc, 85 1.8G, long telephotos, fast standard zooms that aren't $1200 (compare prices of Panasonic 12-35 2.8 with Tamron and Sigma 17-50 2.8), and more choices with ultra-wide angle zooms and primes. But you asked about an MILC, so I assume you are interested in a smallish camera rather than a full-sized DSLR.

But for the more traditional controls of the Fuji X cameras, and the bigger "wow-factor" regarding IQ, I'd choose the X-E1 (unless you have some specific needs that a larger camera like the D7000 can perhaps meet more easily).

Good luck, Markus

marike6 said:

marike6 wrote:

Personally would take the X-E1 for it's superior IQ. For some types of photography, an EM-5 might be a better choice, i.e. fast moving subjects or if you need long telephotos, but in general the X-Pro1/X-E1 IQ is the trump card in this dilema. An X-E1 will give you better DOF control, nicer colors, cleaner high ISO (and base ISO) images, and significantly nicer OOC JPEGs. On the flip side, the RAW workflow with the EM-5 should be a bit easier as there is better support in LR4/ACR for Olympus ORF than there is for Fuji X-Trans RAF files.

But for overall nicer looking images, for low-light shooting with cleaner, more detailed high ISO images, I think this dilema is a no brainer

Click to expand...

The only IQ advantage enjoyed by the X-Pro1/X-E1 that I am aware of is that the Fuji OOC jpeg engine does a better job at higher ISOs. In all other respects, the E-M5 is on a par or ahead. Neither Fuji's own built-in jpeg engine, nor available RAW converters, are able to demosaic the non-Bayer CFA of the Fuji sensor without significant loss of detail, including chroma detail. At present, demosaicing the Fuji images simply means a lot of NR at the expense of detail whether you like it or not. How good the Fuji sensor really is in terms of RAW performance at the pixel level is not really known at present, since neither the X-Pro1 nor the X-E1 has been tested by DxOMark yet.

As to "DoF control", or rather background isolation by means of background blur, what does the Fujis have to offer that beats the following lenses: CV 17/0.95, CV 25/0.95, CV 50/0.95, Panasonic 43/1.2, Olympus 45/1.8, and Olympus 75/1.8?

marike6 said:

with one caveat. If you are interested in fast action sports or birding, you should maybe pass on the X-E1. The EM-5 AF is more robust than the X-E1, but neither camera is any good at AF tracking. If your photography consists of tons of fast moving subjects, you'd be a lot better off with a DSLR like the D7000 which has significantly better AF tracking abilities, superb IQ (DR, high ISO, and color depth) that's about as good as it gets for an APS-C camera (miles better than any m43 camera including the EM-5). I should also point out that with a D7000 (or possibly D5200) you'll have way more choices: inexpensive fast primes like the 35 1.8 DX, 50 1.8G, etc, 85 1.8G, long telephotos, fast standard zooms that aren't $1200 (compare prices of Panasonic 12-35 2.8 with Tamron and Sigma 17-50 2.8), and more choices with ultra-wide angle zooms and primes. But you asked about an MILC, so I assume you are interested in a smallish camera rather than a full-sized DSLR.

But for the more traditional controls of the Fuji X cameras, and the bigger "wow-factor" regarding IQ, I'd choose the X-E1 (unless you have some specific needs that a larger camera like the D7000 can perhaps meet more easily).

Good luck, Markus

Click to expand...

You're right Ted. Working the tech and the art at the same time is daunting.

BUT, which if a camera must be chosen? If you were to recommend a E-PL1 instead I would challenge you that the same interface/setup issues exist.

Perhaps a Minolta x700?

tedolf said:

tedolf wrote:

tedolf said:

Mike Fewster wrote:

tedolf said:

tedolf wrote:

tedolf said:

DR5ZEE wrote:
Ok I posted this in another forum, under the Fuji X- series section and got overwhelming responses and 99% were in favor of the X-E1. I originally had the OMD in mind but then I thought aybe the resin for such a response is because i posted it under the Fuji X- series section and not the OMD one..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50811586

This was my original question:

[snip]

have shortlisted two, The Fujifilm X-E1 and the OMD EM5.

[snip]

Now which of these two excellent cameras will make me a better photographer..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Only learning about photography will make you a better photographer. Not buying a new camera.

It is a huge fallacy, one we see all the time where a begginer believes that getting a new camera will "make them a better photographer".

It is like suggesting that a new driver get a 400 HP Ferrari as their first "serious" car.

Clearly an invitation to disaster.

The two cameras you mentioned are the top end cameras of both manufacturers' range and are intended for experienced amature/professional photographers. They are very complex and frankly will baffle a beginner.

In fact, getting an overly complex camera will impede your ability to learn the basics of photography: DOF control, exposure control over high/low key scenes, control over focal lenght depth compression and expansion, utilization of negative space, etc. In particular, control over depth of field is something you could not have learned with the cameras you are currently using so this will be new to you and mastering it is not simple.

You would be much better served getting an entry level u 4/3 camera (e.g. E-pl2 or G3) for about $300.00 with kit lenses (which are fine-not "junk" as you stated) a moderate zoom (e.g Oly 40-150mm for $99.00) and a fast legacy 50mm manual focus lens with adapter for portraits (about $50.00). Using a manual lens with stop down focusing and a DOF scale on the lens is also the fastest most intuitive means of leanring to control DOF known to Mankind.

Then take a class, read a book or two or both. Then apply what you have learned with a camera that will not overwhelm you with complexity which an OM-d or X-e1 surely will.

You can always buy a top of the line camera later after you have mastered your craft. Your lenses will still be usable and you can sell the old body for close to what you paid for it.

TEdolph
Except that I'd get a basic full size dslr first. If you are starting and are serious you want to master aperture/shutterspeed/iso and ev range and understand how these controls interact. I think this is easier to do on a simple dslr with large dedicated controls rather than a camera which is highly customizable where you set these controls up. The latter is fine once you understand the controls and you know what you want each to do for your particular needs.
I still think a live view camera is better because it accellerates the learning curve.

Most entry level dSLRs don't have a good live view system.

tedolf said:

Once you have the hang of these variables you will be able to move up to tjhe next level armed with knowledge about what you want the more expensive camera to do and you will spend your more serious $ more meaningfully to meet your particular needs.

And I'd add a basic software processing package to my budget. Something like Adobe Elements that has plenty of tutorial help built in. The camera is only part of the process that you are setting out to master.

Click to expand...

Good point.

"Don't get such a complicated camera if you are a beginner and want to learn photography! Better get a menu driven entry level m43 as it also allows better DOF control"

Tell me why a menu driven camera will be better, some menu system are quite complicated.

And why would a menu driven camera give you better control over dof ?

Alumna Gorp said:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

"Don't get such a complicated camera if you are a beginner and want to learn photography! Better get a menu driven entry level m43 as it also allows better DOF control"

Tell me why a menu driven camera will be better, some menu system are quite complicated.

And why would a menu driven camera give you better control over dof ?

Click to expand...

Wow! Is it you Sheldon Cooper?