Moving back down from D7100. Need advice

Ok. Time for another choice. I have sold my Nikon D7100 as I found it too heavy and I wasnt taking it out with me. I almost decided to give up all together. Apparently getting optimal iq was so high on my list that I forgot that I wanted to have fun as well. I figure maybe I am looking for something that simply isn't possible...

So I have come to a few conclusions.
1. I would like a system camera that is compact enough to want to take with me. Something like an a6000, X-T1, E-M1 etc would be perfect
2. I want a decent standard zoom lens, good fast walk around prime (50mm equivalent), good macro lens and a decent tele option up to around 300mm equivalent.
3. I can spend around 1500 euros to get started and will hopefully have another 1000 euros over the next year.
4. I would like a viewfinder, tiltable screen, decent c-af and fps with solid buffer.

I had come to the conclusion that the Fuji X-T1 may be the perfect solution for my needs but I simply can't afford that yet. So maybe it's worth looking at the X-M1 to start with? And getting the X-T1 when money allows. Or is the Sony A6000 a better option?

And the main thing holding me back is the kit lenses. I want to improve myself as a photographer and have fun but part of my motivation is producing images that are good enough to sell on microstock sites. The kit lens with my E-M10 was always refused as not sharp enough. Will the A6000 or X-M1 be better in this department with they're respective kit lenses? Or do I need to fork out a grand for a better standard zoom.

Just to add. I mainly shoot macro, nature (landscape and some wildlife), general walk around type stuff and my kids who can be quite active.

Hi, I know your pain... especially around my neck when I was carrying my D700 with me.

I don't know if you handled an X-T1 yet, but compared to the X-E1 it is a heavier camera. I would recommend the X-E2 if you want something lighter and smaller still. Personally, I like using the EVF and would not have a camera with some sort of eye-level viewfinder.

The Fuji kit lens is widely regarded as one of the best kit lenses included with the camera. It's so good that I often use it exclusively when I travel light... the primes stay home and I am never disappointed with the results. Plus the kit lens has VR which compensates somewhat for the smaller aperture. The Sony kit lens suffers from quite a bit of distortion.

The lens selection should be your main consideration when comparing Sony and Fuji cameras. Fuji has a very nice range from 14mm up to 200mm, but lacks longer lenses. There is a mysterious "Super Telephoto Zoom Lens" on the lens roadmap, but that's not slated for delivery until late 2015(?) Sony suffers from a lot of gaps in their lens lineup. I briefly considered resurrecting my Sony NEX-5... but they simply did not have the lens I wanted... well nothing small and under $1000 anyway. Using adapters is not an option I choose.

Good luck with your hunt.

I appreciate the 18-55 kit lens is pretty good however I would probably look to start with an X-M1 (which is great for my wife too) and then get a better body later. So that means I would have the 16-50 and 50-230 kit lenses. Are the also as good as the 18-55?

I also noticed Sony doenst have a lot in the macro department which is pretty important to me. I also don't fancy getting an a mount macro lens so I suppose that alone almost rules out Sony. Shame really as I think the A6000 is exactly what I am looking for in a camera body.

"my kids who can be quite active."

From what I have read, for Fuji, the XT-1 is the only one that has AF fast enough for the kids.

I am in the same situation. Active kids and a variety of cameras, some of which are totally hopeless for keeping up with them (Canon SX260, SX40, Sony RX10, Pentax K01, Fujifilm XS1), and other cameras that have no problem (Olympus EM5, EPL5, Sony A65, Pentax K3, etc.) Some are kind of in the middle (Sony NEX7)

But coming down from a D7100 and thinking of having good AF for active kids? That is a tough one. My D7100 beats everything else I own for fast accurate reliable AF.

I was pretty unhappy with the tracking succes rate on my d7100 to be honest. Maybe that was a lens problem though as the tamron 17-50 wasn't the fastest focussing lens.

It's not like I expect a perfect focus every time but I would like to be able to do some decent tracking with at least some sharp images. On the E-M10 the continuous focus was basically unusable and I resorted to using single focus.

frankhoekzema said:

I have sold my Nikon D7100 as I found it too heavy and I wasnt taking it out with me.

Click to expand...

Some comments:
Fuji, Olympus, and Sony all have good kitzooms (Panasonic too), but none of the entry level models comes with their high end kit zooms as standard.

Also, their best kit zooms are compact compared to a full frame 24-70, but not pocketable compact. If your main reason for switching is compact size then maybe starting out with one of the really compact kit zooms isn't that bad, even if IQ isn't perfect. You can find reviews of all the kit zooms on different lens review sites.

Focus tracking: I've seen some of the recent tests were mirrorless models (X-T1, E-M1 and A6000) do fairly well compared with a dSLR, but I've also seen tests saying the opposite. All seem to agree though that focus tracking on mirrorless models are better than it used to be, and focus times for single focus is extremely fast. Personally, I wouldn't expect any of the mirrorless to keep up with a D7100 for focus tracking, but I haven't tried them all.

MFT give you a lot of options for lenses, you can choose between Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 and Olympus 12-40 F2.8 for high end kitzoom. There are two 25mm lenses, and one 20mm F1.7 for fast prime, and there are lots of telezooms to choose from. Most are typical consumer grade lenses, but you can also get the Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8, and the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 give 300mm equivalent and is expected later this year or early next year. Macro options aren't as good, but Olympus 60mm is nice and Panasonic has a 45mm one.

Sony and Fuji has larger and somewhat better sensors, but that also mean larger lenses. They don't have as wide selection of lenses as MFT yet, but you should be able to find what you want.

It's difficult to reccommend something, particulary since your budget don't allow you to get what you really want. Both Olympus E-M10 and Sony A6000 are fairly reasonable though, and give good AF performance, A6000 also on tracking. X-T1 is also really good on AF, but I'm not sure if you'll be happy with older Fuji models as you mention AF-speed as important.

Thanks for the comments. Now what I really want to know is will an X-M1 with 16-50 or A6000 with 16-50 kit lens produce images that are sharper than an E-M10 with 14-42 EZ or 14-140 Panasonic. Nearly all my images with the E-M10 combo were being rejected on shutterstock due to insufficient sharpness. All my Nikon D71000 with Tamron 17-50 picks were being accepted.

I guess what I am looking for is a kit lens that will be good enough to get on microtock sites.... That is what I am worried about with the Sony and Fuji kit lenses.

frankhoekzema said:

Now what I really want to know is will an X-M1 with 16-50 or A6000 with 16-50 kit lens produce images that are sharper than an E-M10 with 14-42 EZ or 14-140 Panasonic. Nearly all my images with the E-M10 combo were being rejected on shutterstock due to insufficient sharpness.

Click to expand...

Sorry, can't answer that. The Sony lens got the worst kit zoom review on Photozone, but they haven't tested the new Olympus 14-42 EZ. SlrGear did however, and rated it better than the older Olympus 14-42 kit zooms. I've used the Olympus 12-50, 12-40 and older 14-42, but not the newest one, so I have no expericne with that. It's a bit surprising though, I'd expect it to be fairly usable, maybe you could check that the copy've you used is OK?

I've heard the latter 2 lenses have very good optics, but not as well built as the more expensive lenses. I have not seen any negative comments about them, but I have not handled them either.

I'd take Sony off that list. Their zooms aren't really that special, and once you put it on the A6000 it becomes pretty beastly.

Fuji has a solid standard zoom, though when you get into longer focal lengths the size and weight can get up there.

I'd take a longer look at an EM-1 with the 12-40 2.8 zoom as a kit. The m43's system is still king in terms of size of the overall system.

The best advice though that I could give you: Play with all of them at a store. Put on a bunch of different lenses that you may want to purchase and see if the size, weight, ergonomics, features etc. meet your needs.

Yes I have done that and I eveb brought sd cards to compare on a big monitor at home.

My conclusions so far are

1. Fuji is out. Too expensive and only true macro lens is 920 euros....

2. Sony is awesome camera. If I had to pick a camera it would be this. What worries me is what everyone is saying about the zooms. And there is only a 30mm macro.

3. Olympus is nice but I hate having more noise at lowest ISO and I can barely sharpen images from the Olympus (30 Max in lightroom) whereas the sony can be sharpened up more than double before seeing any noticeable artefacts.

4. Neither of the kit zooms seem Al that good. Though to my eyes the Sony 16-50 was a lot sharper than the Olympus 14-42....

Am I missing something? Either way it looks like I need to fork out a grand for a decent standard zoom or use primes on either system?

You aren't missing much here though I would say that none of the Sony Zooms are of the optical quality of the good zooms from Olympus. The Sony ones also tend to be more expensive. So yeah, with mirrorless we really have to choose between paying alot for a few zooms are paying alot for a few good primes. These systems are new and don't have the customer base of Canon and Nikon so there won't be a lot of 3rd party options (though the Sigma 60mm f2.8 for either the Sony or the m43's camera is a very good lens for the money). There is not $500-600 capable f2.8 zoom for these systems (except for the 18-55mm f2.8-4 from Fuji), though if you are fast Oly's outlet has the 12-40mm for $639 right now haha.

frankhoekzema said:

2. Sony is awesome camera. If I had to pick a camera it would be this. What worries me is what everyone is saying about the zooms. And there is only a 30mm macro.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth - I find that Sony has fine zooms - I haven't found the quality to be lacking - not matching up to high-end L/G/etc glass, but definitely solid performance for the money. For the range you're looking for, the cheap 55-210mm stabilized e-mount lens is a solid performer. I use one for birding even, with a 1.7x teleextender attached, and it's not bad at all - my other rig is a DSLR using either a 300mm F4 APO lens or a Tamron 150-600mm lens. I don't get into whether x or y lens is better - just whether x lens is good enough to be worth the money and delivers the goods - the 55-210mm lens does that well for me.

As for the 30mm...are you only looking for that exact focal length? The Sony 35mm F1.8 is a very solid lens - crisp and sharp throughout...a little pricier and slightly longer, but not by much. There's the previously mentioned 30mm F3.5 macro...but there's also a 35mm F2.8 Zeiss and a24mm F1.8 Zeiss, which bookend the 30mm focal you are looking for...and a newly announced 28mm F2, as well as 35mm F1.4 Zeiss, to come early next year. And there's a 30mm F2.8 made by Sigma for e-mount which is also an option, along with the Zeiss Touit 32mm F1.8. There's actually a surprising number of prime options right in that 30mm range.

zackiedawg said:

frankhoekzema said:

2. Sony is awesome camera. If I had to pick a camera it would be this. What worries me is what everyone is saying about the zooms. And there is only a 30mm macro.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth - I find that Sony has fine zooms - I haven't found the quality to be lacking - not matching up to high-end L/G/etc glass, but definitely solid performance for the money. For the range you're looking for, the cheap 55-210mm stabilized e-mount lens is a solid performer. I use one for birding even, with a 1.7x teleextender attached, and it's not bad at all - my other rig is a DSLR using either a 300mm F4 APO lens or a Tamron 150-600mm lens. I don't get into whether x or y lens is better - just whether x lens is good enough to be worth the money and delivers the goods - the 55-210mm lens does that well for me.

As for the 30mm...are you only looking for that exact focal length? The Sony 35mm F1.8 is a very solid lens - crisp and sharp throughout...a little pricier and slightly longer, but not by much. There's the previously mentioned 30mm F3.5 macro...but there's also a 35mm F2.8 Zeiss and a24mm F1.8 Zeiss, which bookend the 30mm focal you are looking for...and a newly announced 28mm F2, as well as 35mm F1.4 Zeiss, to come early next year. And there's a 30mm F2.8 made by Sigma for e-mount which is also an option, along with the Zeiss Touit 32mm F1.8. There's actually a surprising number of prime options right in that 30mm range.

Click to expand...

Everybody knows E mount zooms are a joke, even the people who own them (even if they won't admit it). Then there's the vaporware that is promised in every thread, just wait till next year.... The Sigma options are great, but you are giving up IBIS/OIS with E mount there, whereas something like an EM1 solves that and can use the same Sigmas.

Sony A mount has some great options for DSLR alternatives, E mount is the joke of the mirrorless community. Somebody is making a killing of lens adapters though ;-)

If you insist on small, best bet is to go for MFT and get an EM1 and grab the Sigma 30/60. That will give you very good IQ on the lens side, and IBIS that is king, as well as AF that can keep up with many DSLRs. The Sensor IQ is also closing in on the lower end apsc crowd.

--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

frankhoekzema said:

Yes I have done that and I eveb brought sd cards to compare on a big monitor at home.

My conclusions so far are

1. Fuji is out. Too expensive and only true macro lens is 920 euros....

Click to expand...

I think it might be just a little too much to demand commercial quality (whatever this microstock site requires) from a number of lenses all on a budget.

As for macro, I'd just adapt a manual focus lens (with any of these systems). It's tough to know what to AF on to get the right DOF and racking the focus back & forth manually helps you get the DOF right without having to stop down too much.

frankhoekzema said:

2. Sony is awesome camera. If I had to pick a camera it would be this. What worries me is what everyone is saying about the zooms. And there is only a 30mm macro.

Click to expand...

Same point with the macro lens. The zooms are nothing to write home about. The 18-55 is ok; better than its reputation IMO, but the 16-50 doesn't impress me from tests I've seen. I have a hard time believing you're going to get substantially better results from it than from an Oly kit zoom.

frankhoekzema said:

3. Olympus is nice but I hate having more noise at lowest ISO and I can barely sharpen images from the Olympus (30 Max in lightroom) whereas the sony can be sharpened up more than double before seeing any noticeable artefacts.

Click to expand...

That sounds rather arbitrary to me. I've seen plenty of m43 photos with great sharpness in 100% views.

frankhoekzema said:

Am I missing something? Either way it looks like I need to fork out a grand for a decent standard zoom or use primes on either system?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what this microstock site requires, but if they're demanding, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you have to go beyond consumer zooms to make money doing photography.

Fuji's kit zoom is excellent and more affordable than high end alternatives from the competition. Oly's 12-40 looks great to me, but that's beyond your budget.

Out of curiosity, what lenses did you have for your D7100 ? Or were you not submitting stuff to to the microstock site from that camera ?

- Dennis

i guess you're finding out that dslr's are a bargain. they do everything very well. and since u say "size matters", u need to accept some compromises. forget about tracking AF and start anticipating where the kids will be. pre-focus and burst. u'll get some great shots. i would like a mirrorless as a second camera too, but they cost WAY too much for less. i'm waiting for the day nikon releases a good mirrorless with pdaf that uses all nikkor lenses ever built.

<< Ok. Time for another choice. I have sold my Nikon D7100 as I found it too heavy and I wasnt taking it out with me. I almost decided to give up all together. Apparently getting optimal iq was so high on my list that I forgot that I wanted to have fun as well. I figure maybe I am looking for something that simply isn't possible... >>

I am in a similar situation, I find myself leaving the DSLR at home most of the time. What I want is a fun Camera that delivers excellent IQ and one that I always have with me. But there is no really good solution yet. So what I am going to try out in the meantime is a panasonic lx7, the price has come way down, yet it is still a top performer IQ wise. It may not fullfill all your requirements but it will likely restore the fun to your hobby in the interim.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

Click to expand...

Dennis said:

3. Olympus is nice but I hate having more noise at lowest ISO and I can barely sharpen images from the Olympus (30 Max in lightroom) whereas the sony can be sharpened up more than double before seeing any noticeable artefacts.

Click to expand...

That sounds rather arbitrary to me. I've seen plenty of m43 photos with great sharpness in 100% views.

Click to expand...

It's true that the lower SNR will not process as well but if you start out sharper to begin with, you won't need as much processing. I am currently chasing that bone and thus went to Nikon (my eventual purchase, a D610, is a massive 2.5 stops better than my GX7 at base ISO) but if I didn't have the ability to buy equally good glass, I wouldn't have made the switch.

As most macro is done manually, the A7/r/s may be good with adapted macro lenses, but you are left without AF there. As for MFT, there are plenty of lenses that are available that are very sharp. I owned the Sigma 60, and while it's also available for apsc E mount, it's stabilized with Olympus MFT bodies (and GX7) giving it a huge advantage in that system.

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

Am I missing something? Either way it looks like I need to fork out a grand for a decent standard zoom or use primes on either system?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what this microstock site requires, but if they're demanding, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you have to go beyond consumer zooms to make money doing photography.

Fuji's kit zoom is excellent and more affordable than high end alternatives from the competition. Oly's 12-40 looks great to me, but that's beyond your budget.

Out of curiosity, what lenses did you have for your D7100 ? Or were you not submitting stuff to to the microstock site from that camera ?

Click to expand...

It will always be cheaper to get the same IQ from primes vs zooms. They just tend to be sharper, have less CA, and are usually smaller and lighter to boot. FWIW, one can also use adapted lenses on a camera like an EM1, but do so with the industry's best IBIS.

Here is a sample of what the Sigma 60 can do if used as a portrait. Nothing special but as a sample you can see it's resolving power, even on a smaller sensor like MFT. Razor sharp, nice bokeh, very low price, CA is never present.




For a 120mm equiv portrait lens for barely over $200, and being stabilized with a 5 axis IBIS on EM1, this is a must have if you are on a budget.





--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"