What cameras are right for me?

pgyselin · Jan 24, 2017

I have read quite a number of treads concerning buying a new camera on this forum but I am more confused than ever because every situation is different.

My situation is the following: I am not a professional photographer but a very enthusiast amateur. My wife likes to take pictures without too much fuzz.

I had a Canon 5D Mk 2 with a 24 - 105 mm L walk around lens, a 17 - 35 mm L wide angle zoom and a 100 - 400 mm L telezoom lens.

My wife had a Sony RX 100 Mk 3 camera. The Canon was used (almost all the time in manual mode) by me for travel and nature photography and pictures of the family. The Sony was used by my wife (most of the time in full automatic mode) in paralel with my pictures and by me (in manual mode) when the Canon was deemed too heavy (even without the extra lenses) for instance on (multiple) day hikes.

All this (and a lot more) was stolen and I therefore have to buy replacement. I am not on an extremely tight budget but I am not looking for the newest Leica either.

To replace the Canon 5D, I am looking for a high quality system containing a camera with an as large as possible sensor in an as small as possible body (I am done with lugging a bag of 5 kg photographic equipment around). As far as lens(es) is (are) concerned. I am looking for a good quality, fast walk around lens (prime or zoom??) and two extra lenses. One for wide angle (architecture for instance) and one for tele (nature for instance) photography.

To replace the Sony RX 100, I am looking for a good pocketable camera with an electronic viewfinder. The Sony meets these criteria and gave full satistaction but is expensive and offers controls that my wife is not really after.

Your suggestions will help me making the right selection and are therefore very much appreciated

Patrick

Cherylynne1 · Jan 24, 2017

You mentioned you've gone through multiple threads, so I imagine you must have some that you've already considered/eliminated already. Could you give us an idea of the cameras you're considering and why? Sometimes we spend twenty minutes writing out an answer just to discover that the OP has already decided against that system for whatever reason.

photosen · Jan 24, 2017

pgyselin said:
I have read quite a number of treads concerning buying a new camera on this forum but I am more confused than ever because every situation is different.

My situation is the following: I am not a professional photographer but a very enthusiast amateur. My wife likes to take pictures without too much fuzz.

I had a Canon 5D Mk 2 with a 24 - 105 mm L walk around lens, a 17 - 35 mm L wide angle zoom and a 100 - 400 mm L telezoom lens.

My wife had a Sony RX 100 Mk 3 camera. The Canon was used (almost all the time in manual mode) by me for travel and nature photography and pictures of the family. The Sony was used by my wife (most of the time in full automatic mode) in paralel with my pictures and by me (in manual mode) when the Canon was deemed too heavy (even without the extra lenses) for instance on (multiple) day hikes.

All this (and a lot more) was stolen and I therefore have to buy replacement. I am not on an extremely tight budget but I am not looking for the newest Leica either.

Sorry to hear that!

pgyselin said:
To replace the Canon 5D, I am looking for a high quality system containing a camera with an as large as possible sensor in an as small as possible body (I am done with lugging a bag of 5 kg photographic equipment around). As far as lens(es) is (are) concerned. I am looking for a good quality, fast walk around lens (prime or zoom??) and two extra lenses. One for wide angle (architecture for instance) and one for tele (nature for instance) photography.

To replace the Sony RX 100, I am looking for a good pocketable camera with an electronic viewfinder. The Sony meets these criteria and gave full satistaction but is expensive and offers controls that my wife is not really after.

Your suggestions will help me making the right selection and are therefore very much appreciated

Patrick

To replace the Canon you could get a 6D, which is slightly smaller and lighter, the only difference is the max shutter speed of 1/4000; you could then get a couple of primes for the focal lengths you use most to reduce overall weight. The 40mm for instance is tiny, nice and cheap. It does look a little strange on bigger cameras.

bmoag · Jan 24, 2017

If you want high image quality with less bullkitude you likely are looking at mirrorless.

If you are used to a traditional optical finder I recommend renting something mirrorless you are interested in to see if you can get used to it or not. It is a different paradigm.

Although I use m43 there are restrictions on image quality but for me the trade off in bulk is worth it when I do not want to lug Nikon full frame gear.

The full frame Sony mirrorless is smaller but quite dense and once you start adding lenses the bulkitude factor ramps up, but you need to evaluate that for yourself. I think the best trade off of image quality and bulk is in mirrorless APS and I presume you have looked at the usual suspects, Fuji, Sony and now Canon. What is best is what works for you.

Doug Pardee · Jan 24, 2017

pgyselin said:
To replace the Canon 5D, I am looking for a high quality system containing a camera with an as large as possible sensor in an as small as possible body (I am done with lugging a bag of 5 kg photographic equipment around). As far as lens(es) is (are) concerned. I am looking for a good quality, fast walk around lens (prime or zoom??) and two extra lenses. One for wide angle (architecture for instance) and one for tele (nature for instance) photography.

You're going to need to decide what you're prepared to compromise on. A long lens for a large sensor is going to be big and heavy, and there's nothing to be done about that. Either you go with a smaller sensor, or you deal with the size and weight. Saving a few ounces on the body isn't going to make much difference.

Here's the DPR Studio Scene Comparison Tool set up with your 5D-II, a Fujifilm X-T2 (APS-C), a Canon EOS M5 (APS-C), and an Olympus EM-1 mk II (micro-4/3). See what you think. Try other cameras, other ISO settings, etc.

...

Personally, I'm a fan of APS-C sensors as being a compromise between size and performance. There are many different APS-C camera models available: DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, and Pentax, and mirrorless from Canon, Sony, and Fujifilm.

I'm a Fuji partisan, and their XF 18-55 f/2.4-4.0 lens is an excellent choice for the fast walk-around zoom. With your Canon background, you might prefer the 80D DSLR or M5 mirrorless bodies, fitted with perhaps a Sigma walk-around zoom.

All of the other manufacturers I named also make excellent APS-C products.

Ido Scharf · Jan 25, 2017

pgyselin said:
To replace the Canon 5D, I am looking for a high quality system containing a camera with an as large as possible sensor in an as small as possible body (I am done with lugging a bag of 5 kg photographic equipment around).

Don't focus too much on the camera body. With some systems, you might have a small and light camera, but the lenses you want to use could be just as big and heavy as the lenses you used with the 5D. So I'd say start from the lenses — pick the small and light lenses you'd like to use, then find a body to mount them on.

pgyselin said:
As far as lens(es) is (are) concerned. I am looking for a good quality, fast walk around lens (prime or zoom??)

What do you regard as a "fast" lens (f/2.8 on FF? f/4 on FF?), and what do you define as a "walk around lens"? (What focal length(s) do you want to have covered?)

If you choose a prime lens, especially in the normal range (where the focal length is close to the diagonal of the sensor), you'll find a small and light one in every system. But if you'd rather have a zoom, pay closer attention.

pgyselin said:
and two extra lenses. One for wide angle (architecture for instance)

Basically all systems have ultra-wide-angle lenses, some have both zooms and primes. The question is, again, mostly on size and weight, but also on optical quality. Check sample images.

Some options in a size comparison.

pgyselin said:
and one for tele (nature for instance) photography.

If you want to match the reach of 400mm on the 5D, you might need to cope with a fairly big and heavy lens. Especially if you want a big aperture at that. Most small and lightweight telephoto zoom lenses get to 300mm equivalent, with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or f/6.3. (Fuji's offering is a little unique — its 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 is 0.5–1-stop faster than the rest.)

pgyselin said:
To replace the Sony RX 100, I am looking for a good pocketable camera with an electronic viewfinder. The Sony meets these criteria and gave full satistaction but is expensive and offers controls that my wife is not really after.

There aren't many compact cameras with an electronic viewfinder. The Canon G5 X is one, but I don't think it's quite as "pocketable" as the Sony RX100 Mark III. The Panasonic ZS100 is another, but it's a somewhat different kind of camera — it has a longer zoom range and smaller maximum aperture. Maybe the best option is actually a used RX100 III, to save some of the cost of buying a brand new one.

osv · Jan 25, 2017

pgyselin said:
with my pictures and by me (in manual mode) when the Canon was deemed too heavy (even without the extra lenses) for instance on (multiple) day hikes.

since you are used to manually focusing a sony mirrorless evf, you'll be able to jump right into another sony evf camera, and understand the advantages.

pgyselin said:
To replace the Canon 5D, I am looking for a high quality system containing a camera with an as large as possible sensor in an as small as possible body

that clearly says sony ff to me, but if 24mp is enough, the a6300/a6500 look like nice cameras as well... here is the breakdown for what you had, and what you could consider:

Loading…

www.photonstophotos.net

pgyselin said:
(I am done with lugging a bag of 5 kg photographic equipment around). As far as lens(es) is (are) concerned. I am looking for a good quality, fast walk around lens (prime or zoom??) and two extra lenses. One for wide angle (architecture for instance) and one for tele (nature for instance) photography.

manual focus primes can be light, with good p.q.... tamron 15-30 with an adapter is one option for the wide end, if you don't need full native functionality, like eye focus, because that may not work.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

pgyselin · Jan 25, 2017

Cherylynne1 said:
You mentioned you've gone through multiple threads, so I imagine you must have some that you've already considered/eliminated already. Could you give us an idea of the cameras you're considering and why? Sometimes we spend twenty minutes writing out an answer just to discover that the OP has already decided against that system for whatever reason.

I am considering Fujifilm X-E2S, Sony A6300 and Canon M5. All three seem camera's that meet my weight and volume criteria.

The Sony seems to have the upper hand in certain areas such as focus points, ISO performance, fps, weather resistant but seems to lack the image stabilisation that the Canon has. The Fuji seems to be the least of the three in terms of specs.

I have no idea which of the three processors performs best in terms of image quality.

The choice of the body will also be influenced by the availability of lenses for each of these three camera's. I would like to have a wide angle (15 to 17 mm at 35 mm equivalent), a walk around lens (50 mm equivalent prime or zoom of 24 - 80 to 100 mm equivalent) and a good tele or telezoom (up to 400 mm equivalent for instance).

Is it more difficult to find a good lens (equivalent to Canon L quality I was used to) that meets my focal length requirements with one rather than with the other body?

Thanks for your help

Patrick

pgyselin · Jan 25, 2017

I would rather look at a (very good) mirrorless camera than at a DSLR. I do quite a bit of hiking (day and multiple day) and weight and possibly even more volume is important when one has to lug stuff around during 30 or more kilometers.

I am considering Fujifilm X-E2S, Sony A6300 and Canon M5. All three seem camera's that meet my weight and volume criteria.

The Sony seems to have the upper hand in certain areas such as focus points, ISO performance, fps, weather resistant but seems to lack the image stabilisation that the Canon has. The Fuji seems to be the least of the three in terms of specs.

I have no idea which of the three processors performs best in terms of image quality.

The choice of the body will also be influenced by the availability of lenses for each of these three camera's. I would like to have a wide angle (15 to 17 mm at 35 mm equivalent), a walk around lens (50 mm equivalent prime or zoom of 24 - 80 to 100 mm equivalent) and a good tele or telezoom (up to 400 mm equivalent for instance).

Is it more difficult to find a good lens (equivalent to Canon L quality I was used to) that meets my focal length requirements with one rather than with the other body?

Thanks for sharing your opinion

Patrick

pgyselin · Jan 25, 2017

bmoag said:
If you want high image quality with less bullkitude you likely are looking at mirrorless.

If you are used to a traditional optical finder I recommend renting something mirrorless you are interested in to see if you can get used to it or not. It is a different paradigm.

Although I use m43 there are restrictions on image quality but for me the trade off in bulk is worth it when I do not want to lug Nikon full frame gear.

The full frame Sony mirrorless is smaller but quite dense and once you start adding lenses the bulkitude factor ramps up, but you need to evaluate that for yourself. I think the best trade off of image quality and bulk is in mirrorless APS and I presume you have looked at the usual suspects, Fuji, Sony and now Canon. What is best is what works for you.

I seems I indeed came to "the usual suspects". I am considering Fujifilm X-E2S, Sony A6300 and Canon M5. All three seem camera's that meet my weight and volume criteria.

The Sony seems to have the upper hand in certain areas such as focus points, ISO performance, fps, weather resistant but seems to lack the image stabilisation that the Canon has. The Fuji seems to be the least of the three in terms of specs.

Do you agree with my evaluation? How important is, in your opinion, the image stabilisation of the Canon in comparison with the Sony?

I have no idea which of the three processors performs best in terms of image quality.

The choice of the body will also be influenced by the availability of lenses for each of these three camera's. I would like to have a wide angle (15 to 17 mm at 35 mm equivalent), a walk around lens (50 mm equivalent prime or zoom of 24 - 80 to 100 mm equivalent) and a good tele or telezoom (up to 400 mm equivalent for instance).

Is it more difficult to find a good lens (equivalent to Canon L quality I was used to) that meets my focal length requirements with one rather than with the other body?

Thanks for your opinion.

Patrick

pgyselin · Jan 25, 2017

Doug Pardee said:
pgyselin said:

To replace the Canon 5D, I am looking for a high quality system containing a camera with an as large as possible sensor in an as small as possible body (I am done with lugging a bag of 5 kg photographic equipment around). As far as lens(es) is (are) concerned. I am looking for a good quality, fast walk around lens (prime or zoom??) and two extra lenses. One for wide angle (architecture for instance) and one for tele (nature for instance) photography.

Click to expand...

You're going to need to decide what you're prepared to compromise on. A long lens for a large sensor is going to be big and heavy, and there's nothing to be done about that. Either you go with a smaller sensor, or you deal with the size and weight. Saving a few ounces on the body isn't going to make much difference.

Here's the DPR Studio Scene Comparison Tool set up with your 5D-II, a Fujifilm X-T2 (APS-C), a Canon EOS M5 (APS-C), and an Olympus EM-1 mk II (micro-4/3). See what you think. Try other cameras, other ISO settings, etc.

...

Personally, I'm a fan of APS-C sensors as being a compromise between size and performance. There are many different APS-C camera models available: DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, and Pentax, and mirrorless from Canon, Sony, and Fujifilm.

I'm a Fuji partisan, and their XF 18-55 f/2.4-4.0 lens is an excellent choice for the fast walk-around zoom. With your Canon background, you might prefer the 80D DSLR or M5 mirrorless bodies, fitted with perhaps a Sigma walk-around zoom.

All of the other manufacturers I named also make excellent APS-C products.

Cherylynne1 · Jan 25, 2017

pgyselin said:
Cherylynne1 said:

You mentioned you've gone through multiple threads, so I imagine you must have some that you've already considered/eliminated already. Could you give us an idea of the cameras you're considering and why? Sometimes we spend twenty minutes writing out an answer just to discover that the OP has already decided against that system for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I am considering Fujifilm X-E2S, Sony A6300 and Canon M5. All three seem camera's that meet my weight and volume criteria.

The Sony seems to have the upper hand in certain areas such as focus points, ISO performance, fps, weather resistant but seems to lack the image stabilisation that the Canon has. The Fuji seems to be the least of the three in terms of specs.

I have no idea which of the three processors performs best in terms of image quality.

The choice of the body will also be influenced by the availability of lenses for each of these three camera's. I would like to have a wide angle (15 to 17 mm at 35 mm equivalent), a walk around lens (50 mm equivalent prime or zoom of 24 - 80 to 100 mm equivalent) and a good tele or telezoom (up to 400 mm equivalent for instance).

Is it more difficult to find a good lens (equivalent to Canon L quality I was used to) that meets my focal length requirements with one rather than with the other body?

Thanks for your help

Patrick

Sounds good! I'll take on the Sony, since that's my forte, and leave others to cover the others.

As far as finding L-type glass...no, it's not hard IF you're willing to pay for it, lol. Sony's strength, however, is definitely primes, not zooms, and most of their highest rated zooms are very large and heavy. If you dislike primes, Fuji will likely be the better choice for you. Sony's professional lenses are the Zeiss and GM lenses. GM in particular is their answer to Canon's L line, and there are currently three lenses available: the 24-70 2.8, 85 1.4, and 70-200 2.8. There are some pretty strong rumors that they're announcing a 16-35 2.8 GM lens in the next couple of weeks as well.

For wide angle: Your best autofocus choice will be the 10-18 f4. It's by far the favorite for landscape photographers. If you want to look at primes, you're likely looking at manual focus lenses. Before you completely dismiss the idea of manual focusing, keep in mind that it's completely different than a DSLR. Focus peaking and magnification is very easy to use, in some cases easier than autofocus.

For everyday: So many choices. Your smallest and lightest choice will be the Sony 35 1.8, which is barely any larger than the pancake kit lens but delivers very good results. However, if you want the absolute best, it would likely be the Zeiss 35 1.4. Stunning lens. It is, however, very large and very expensive. For something smaller but still high quality, you might consider the Zeiss Touit 32, which is also highly regarded.

It's also worth mentioning the Zeiss 24 1.8, which isn't a focal length you mentioned but is considered to be the best prime available for Sony APS-C.

For zooms, it sounds like the Zeiss 16-70 f4 would work for you. There is some controversy about quality control, but those that get a good copy are desperately in love with it and say it's like carrying a bag full of primes. It's a lens that's on my personal wish list. There's also the more economical 18-105, which is much larger but has an internal zoom if you're interested in video. Some say that it's every bit as good as the Zeiss for less money, others say the Zeiss has that characteristic Zeiss "pop." I recommend looking at comparisons to decide for yourself.

The telezoom will be a bit trickier. The only one that goes to that focal length is the 70-300, which is a good lens with quick autofocus, but I'm not sure that I would say it's L quality. There's also the 70-200 f4, which is an excellent lens with great reviews. And most recently, there's the 70-200 2.8, which costs an arm and a leg but was rated even higher than the Canon equivalent by DXOmark. For your purposes, I don't think I would recommend the 55-210 kit lens. A good lens for the price and size, to be sure, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be up to your standards.

If image stabilization is a concern, you might want to consider the a6500. It has IBIS and the same sensor as the a6300. Most (maybe all?) of the Zeiss lenses don't have OSS, so if that's what you feel drawn to the extra money for IBIS might be worth it.

yardcoyote · Jan 25, 2017

The appeal of Fuji is not in spec lists, but in shooting experience and results, particularly JPEGs. I am a big fan, but there are just as many who don't see the point.

KCook · Jan 25, 2017

Links for more opinions -

Pen F, XT10, XT1, Xpro2 or A6300 for landscape?

Help getting into an MILC system

Canon M5 to replace my Fuji X-t1?

Kelly Cook

pgyselin · Jan 26, 2017

yardcoyote said:
The appeal of Fuji is not in spec lists, but in shooting experience and results, particularly JPEGs. I am a big fan, but there are just as many who don't see the point.

Somebody suggested looking at lenses first and then choosing the body that goes with it. I might end up at Fuji that way.

Thanks for the suggestion

pgyselin · Jan 26, 2017

Cherylynne1 said:
pgyselin said:

Cherylynne1 said:

You mentioned you've gone through multiple threads, so I imagine you must have some that you've already considered/eliminated already. Could you give us an idea of the cameras you're considering and why? Sometimes we spend twenty minutes writing out an answer just to discover that the OP has already decided against that system for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I am considering Fujifilm X-E2S, Sony A6300 and Canon M5. All three seem camera's that meet my weight and volume criteria.

The Sony seems to have the upper hand in certain areas such as focus points, ISO performance, fps, weather resistant but seems to lack the image stabilisation that the Canon has. The Fuji seems to be the least of the three in terms of specs.

I have no idea which of the three processors performs best in terms of image quality.

The choice of the body will also be influenced by the availability of lenses for each of these three camera's. I would like to have a wide angle (15 to 17 mm at 35 mm equivalent), a walk around lens (50 mm equivalent prime or zoom of 24 - 80 to 100 mm equivalent) and a good tele or telezoom (up to 400 mm equivalent for instance).

Is it more difficult to find a good lens (equivalent to Canon L quality I was used to) that meets my focal length requirements with one rather than with the other body?

Thanks for your help

Patrick

Click to expand...

Sounds good! I'll take on the Sony, since that's my forte, and leave others to cover the others.

As far as finding L-type glass...no, it's not hard IF you're willing to pay for it, lol. Sony's strength, however, is definitely primes, not zooms, and most of their highest rated zooms are very large and heavy. If you dislike primes, Fuji will likely be the better choice for you. Sony's professional lenses are the Zeiss and GM lenses. GM in particular is their answer to Canon's L line, and there are currently three lenses available: the 24-70 2.8, 85 1.4, and 70-200 2.8. There are some pretty strong rumors that they're announcing a 16-35 2.8 GM lens in the next couple of weeks as well.

These lenses are at 1000 to 2000 Euro very expensive. I will need to look for more "reasonable".

Cherylynne1 said:
For wide angle: Your best autofocus choice will be the 10-18 f4. It's by far the favorite for landscape photographers. If you want to look at primes, you're likely looking at manual focus lenses. Before you completely dismiss the idea of manual focusing, keep in mind that it's completely different than a DSLR. Focus peaking and magnification is very easy to use, in some cases easier than autofocus.

I like to do architecture and pictures of it but this represents only a few pictures per year. A prime lens (even with manual focusing) will do the trick (allow me to make my pictures, keep the weight and volume down and my budget under control). What lens would you recommend? does it fit on the A6xxx? or what body would you recommend

Cherylynne1 said:
For everyday: So many choices. Your smallest and lightest choice will be the Sony 35 1.8, which is barely any larger than the pancake kit lens but delivers very good results. However, if you want the absolute best, it would likely be the Zeiss 35 1.4. Stunning lens. It is, however, very large and very expensive. For something smaller but still high quality, you might consider the Zeiss Touit 32, which is also highly regarded.

It's also worth mentioning the Zeiss 24 1.8, which isn't a focal length you mentioned but is considered to be the best prime available for Sony APS-C.

For every day a zoom seems most practical but a zoom will be heavier and bulkier and more expensive. Maybe I need to consider therefore a prime lense. The 24 mm lens gives me a weak wide angle that I can crop afterwards.

Cherylynne1 said:
For zooms, it sounds like the Zeiss 16-70 f4 would work for you. There is some controversy about quality control, but those that get a good copy are desperately in love with it and say it's like carrying a bag full of primes. It's a lens that's on my personal wish list. There's also the more economical 18-105, which is much larger but has an internal zoom if you're interested in video. Some say that it's every bit as good as the Zeiss for less money, others say the Zeiss has that characteristic Zeiss "pop." I recommend looking at comparisons to decide for yourself.

A zoom for walk around seems to have my preference but maybe that is because it is what I was used to. Both the Zeiss 16 - 70 and the Sony 18 - 105 seem to have an attractive range. Do you feel the Zeiss is worth being double the price of the Sony?

Cherylynne1 said:
The telezoom will be a bit trickier. The only one that goes to that focal length is the 70-300, which is a good lens with quick autofocus, but I'm not sure that I would say it's L quality. There's also the 70-200 f4, which is an excellent lens with great reviews. And most recently, there's the 70-200 2.8, which costs an arm and a leg but was rated even higher than the Canon equivalent by DXOmark. For your purposes, I don't think I would recommend the 55-210 kit lens. A good lens for the price and size, to be sure, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be up to your standards.

I am not willing / able to spend an arm and a leg so the f 2.8 is not an option. The f 4 is still not inexpensive but in addition not light nor small. The 70 - 300 mm would therefore be an option even if not fully up to L quality. Alternatively I could possibly look at a prime lens in the range of 200 to 300 mm. What do you think?

Cherylynne1 said:
If image stabilization is a concern, you might want to consider the a6500. It has IBIS and the same sensor as the a6300. Most (maybe all?) of the Zeiss lenses don't have OSS, so if that's what you feel drawn to the extra money for IBIS might be worth it.

With current high ISO possibilities, image stabilisation might be a cost that I could avoid. I make virtually no video. Do you agree?

pgyselin · Jan 26, 2017

Ido S said:
pgyselin said:

To replace the Canon 5D, I am looking for a high quality system containing a camera with an as large as possible sensor in an as small as possible body (I am done with lugging a bag of 5 kg photographic equipment around).

Click to expand...

Don't focus too much on the camera body. With some systems, you might have a small and light camera, but the lenses you want to use could be just as big and heavy as the lenses you used with the 5D. So I'd say start from the lenses — pick the small and light lenses you'd like to use, then find a body to mount them on.

Thank you very much for suggesting this alternative approach.

Ido Scharf said:
Ido Scharf said:

As far as lens(es) is (are) concerned. I am looking for a good quality, fast walk around lens (prime or zoom??)

Click to expand...

What do you regard as a "fast" lens (f/2.8 on FF? f/4 on FF?), and what do you define as a "walk around lens"? (What focal length(s) do you want to have covered?)

On my full frame Canon I was using the EF 24-105 mm f/4 L lens. This lens gave me in most circumstances what I needed. The smallest / lightest affordable lens with comparable characteristics would be fantastic

Ido Scharf said:
If you choose a prime lens, especially in the normal range (where the focal length is close to the diagonal of the sensor), you'll find a small and light one in every system. But if you'd rather have a zoom, pay closer attention.

Ido Scharf said:

and two extra lenses. One for wide angle (architecture for instance)

Click to expand...

Basically all systems have ultra-wide-angle lenses, some have both zooms and primes. The question is, again, mostly on size and weight, but also on optical quality. Check sample images.

For the wide angle I would be happy enough with a prime lens since this lens will not be used all that often.

Ido Scharf said:
Some options in a size comparison.

A fantastic tool. Thank you for this suggestion.

Ido Scharf said:
Ido Scharf said:

and one for tele (nature for instance) photography.

Click to expand...

If you want to match the reach of 400mm on the 5D, you might need to cope with a fairly big and heavy lens. Especially if you want a big aperture at that. Most small and lightweight telephoto zoom lenses get to 300mm equivalent, with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or f/6.3. (Fuji's offering is a little unique — its 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 is 0.5–1-stop faster than the rest.)

I would be OK settling for 300 mm maximum. It would just mean that I would need to work the picture a bit more on the PC.

Ido Scharf said:
Ido Scharf said:

To replace the Sony RX 100, I am looking for a good pocketable camera with an electronic viewfinder. The Sony meets these criteria and gave full satistaction but is expensive and offers controls that my wife is not really after.

Click to expand...

There aren't many compact cameras with an electronic viewfinder. The Canon G5 X is one, but I don't think it's quite as "pocketable" as the Sony RX100 Mark III. The Panasonic ZS100 is another, but it's a somewhat different kind of camera — it has a longer zoom range and smaller maximum aperture. Maybe the best option is actually a used RX100 III, to save some of the cost of buying a brand new one.

The RX 100 is a very nice little camera. I might indeed need to consider buying a used camera to save a bit on the budget

Thank you so much for your comments.

Can I ask you what you would buy if you were me (having now the extra information above)?

Cherylynne1 · Jan 26, 2017

pgyselin said:
Cherylynne1 said:

pgyselin said:

Cherylynne1 said:

You mentioned you've gone through multiple threads, so I imagine you must have some that you've already considered/eliminated already. Could you give us an idea of the cameras you're considering and why? Sometimes we spend twenty minutes writing out an answer just to discover that the OP has already decided against that system for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I am considering Fujifilm X-E2S, Sony A6300 and Canon M5. All three seem camera's that meet my weight and volume criteria.

The Sony seems to have the upper hand in certain areas such as focus points, ISO performance, fps, weather resistant but seems to lack the image stabilisation that the Canon has. The Fuji seems to be the least of the three in terms of specs.

I have no idea which of the three processors performs best in terms of image quality.

The choice of the body will also be influenced by the availability of lenses for each of these three camera's. I would like to have a wide angle (15 to 17 mm at 35 mm equivalent), a walk around lens (50 mm equivalent prime or zoom of 24 - 80 to 100 mm equivalent) and a good tele or telezoom (up to 400 mm equivalent for instance).

Is it more difficult to find a good lens (equivalent to Canon L quality I was used to) that meets my focal length requirements with one rather than with the other body?

Thanks for your help

Patrick

Click to expand...

Sounds good! I'll take on the Sony, since that's my forte, and leave others to cover the others.

As far as finding L-type glass...no, it's not hard IF you're willing to pay for it, lol. Sony's strength, however, is definitely primes, not zooms, and most of their highest rated zooms are very large and heavy. If you dislike primes, Fuji will likely be the better choice for you. Sony's professional lenses are the Zeiss and GM lenses. GM in particular is their answer to Canon's L line, and there are currently three lenses available: the 24-70 2.8, 85 1.4, and 70-200 2.8. There are some pretty strong rumors that they're announcing a 16-35 2.8 GM lens in the next couple of weeks as well.

Click to expand...

These lenses are at 1000 to 2000 Euro very expensive. I will need to look for more "reasonable".

Haha, I agree. I just always associate L glass with "amazing image quality at ANY price."

pgyselin said:
pgyselin said:

For wide angle: Your best autofocus choice will be the 10-18 f4. It's by far the favorite for landscape photographers. If you want to look at primes, you're likely looking at manual focus lenses. Before you completely dismiss the idea of manual focusing, keep in mind that it's completely different than a DSLR. Focus peaking and magnification is very easy to use, in some cases easier than autofocus.

Click to expand...

I like to do architecture and pictures of it but this represents only a few pictures per year. A prime lens (even with manual focusing) will do the trick (allow me to make my pictures, keep the weight and volume down and my budget under control). What lens would you recommend? does it fit on the A6xxx? or what body would you recommend

The Rokinon/Samyang 12mm is a favorite among landscape photographers. It's manual focus, they have a version for E-mount, and it's less than $350. Or you could use virtually any lens ever made with the right adapter. Dumb adapters (as in, adapters that don't autofocus) can be as cheap as $10, and legacy lenses that were made for film cameras can sometimes be found for $20 or less. For many people, finding these lenses is half the fun. Brian Smith has a great guide on his website for using different adapters, and which one is best for your needs.

pgyselin said:
pgyselin said:

For everyday: So many choices. Your smallest and lightest choice will be the Sony 35 1.8, which is barely any larger than the pancake kit lens but delivers very good results. However, if you want the absolute best, it would likely be the Zeiss 35 1.4. Stunning lens. It is, however, very large and very expensive. For something smaller but still high quality, you might consider the Zeiss Touit 32, which is also highly regarded.

It's also worth mentioning the Zeiss 24 1.8, which isn't a focal length you mentioned but is considered to be the best prime available for Sony APS-C.

Click to expand...

For every day a zoom seems most practical but a zoom will be heavier and bulkier and more expensive. Maybe I need to consider therefore a prime lense. The 24 mm lens gives me a weak wide angle that I can crop afterwards.

The 24mm also has a very close-focusing range, and it's so sharp that many use it as a pseudo-macro lens. Look up the reviews, I really think you'll be impressed. I've seen it used for around $650, so if you can wait for it you can get an incredible deal.

To keep things under budget, you could also consider the Sigma 30 2.8. It's sharp and light and around $200. If you don't need to be able to open up to 1.8 or have OSS, it can be a fantastic alternative.

pgyselin said:
pgyselin said:

For zooms, it sounds like the Zeiss 16-70 f4 would work for you. There is some controversy about quality control, but those that get a good copy are desperately in love with it and say it's like carrying a bag full of primes. It's a lens that's on my personal wish list. There's also the more economical 18-105, which is much larger but has an internal zoom if you're interested in video. Some say that it's every bit as good as the Zeiss for less money, others say the Zeiss has that characteristic Zeiss "pop." I recommend looking at comparisons to decide for yourself.

Click to expand...

A zoom for walk around seems to have my preference but maybe that is because it is what I was used to. Both the Zeiss 16 - 70 and the Sony 18 - 105 seem to have an attractive range. Do you feel the Zeiss is worth being double the price of the Sony?

No. However, you can often find the Zeiss used for around $750-800. The size advantage alone would probably make it worth the extra $150 over the 18-105, unless I felt like I needed the extra range. To be honest, there are still some days when I think I do want the extra range, which is why I haven't pulled the trigger yet.

pgyselin said:
pgyselin said:

The telezoom will be a bit trickier. The only one that goes to that focal length is the 70-300, which is a good lens with quick autofocus, but I'm not sure that I would say it's L quality. There's also the 70-200 f4, which is an excellent lens with great reviews. And most recently, there's the 70-200 2.8, which costs an arm and a leg but was rated even higher than the Canon equivalent by DXOmark. For your purposes, I don't think I would recommend the 55-210 kit lens. A good lens for the price and size, to be sure, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be up to your standards.

Click to expand...

I am not willing / able to spend an arm and a leg so the f 2.8 is not an option. The f 4 is still not inexpensive but in addition not light nor small. The 70 - 300 mm would therefore be an option even if not fully up to L quality. Alternatively I could possibly look at a prime lens in the range of 200 to 300 mm. What do you think?

The 70-300 is definitely above kit lens range, if that's what you're thinking. Many thought it would be the full frame version of a telezoom kit lens and were pleasantly surprised. There are plenty of people using this combo with the a6300 for fast action sports or birds in flight. If you want light and smallish, then you could look at the 55-210. Depending on your usage, it might be good enough for you. I own it and am generally happy with the quality. It's sharp enough once you stop down. As a personal example, this was shot wide open all the way at 210mm, which is probably the weakest spot for the lens:

https://flic.kr/p/GsRbBd

This was taken in very good light, however. In low light, it struggles more. This isn't the best example, because it's essentially a 100% crop from the old Sony NEX-6, but it's the only low light example I could find:

https://flic.kr/p/pimN5N

(This is from a lunar eclipse a few years ago, so the moon was just coming back out from under the shadow.)

pgyselin said:
pgyselin said:

If image stabilization is a concern, you might want to consider the a6500. It has IBIS and the same sensor as the a6300. Most (maybe all?) of the Zeiss lenses don't have OSS, so if that's what you feel drawn to the extra money for IBIS might be worth it.

Click to expand...

With current high ISO possibilities, image stabilisation might be a cost that I could avoid. I make virtually no video. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. It just seemed like a feature you wanted from your comments, but if it's not important to you, don't worry about it. I don't even really keep track of which lenses have it and which don't, because I have generally steady hands and use either fast shutter speeds, flash, or a tripod. Sometimes all three!

Hope this helps!

Ido Scharf · Jan 27, 2017

pgyselin said:
On my full frame Canon I was using the EF 24-105 mm f/4 L lens. This lens gave me in most circumstances what I needed. The smallest / lightest affordable lens with comparable characteristics would be fantastic

To get a meaningfully smaller and lighter lens, you'll probably need to compromise somewhere: either in focal length or in aperture. When I say aperture in this case, I am not talking directly about the f-number, but the "equivalent" f-number; this will give the same depth of field, and the same noise levels if you compensate with the ISO accordingly. This is a great article explaining the concept, with real examples.

The Fujifilm system has a very nice option in the 18-55mm f/2.8-4. It's neither as wide nor as tight, and toward the telephoto end you lose a stop in comparison to a Full Frame + f/4 setup. The 16-55mm f/2.8 matches the lens you had both at the wide end and with the aperture, but it's not as wide, and it's not so small. Only 15 grams lighter than the 24-105mm f/4. The 18-55mm is a lot smaller, though, and weighs less than half as much as the 24-105mm.

Sony E (APS-C) also has a similar lens, the 16-70mm f/4. Here you lose nothing in the zoom range — it's equivalent to 24-105mm on a Full Frame sensor. What you lose, though, is one stop in equivalence.

On Micro Four Thirds, Panasonic has recently launched a 12-60mm f/2.8-4, to be released late February. It matches the wide angle of 24mm, and goes even tighter — equivalent to 120mm. But you lose between a stop and two stops, in comparison to the 24-105mm on a Full Frame camera. It's quite small, though, and weighs only 320 grams. Note that all Panasonic Micro Four Thirds lenses are compatible with Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras, and vice versa.

pgyselin said:
For the wide angle I would be happy enough with a prime lens since this lens will not be used all that often.

All mirrorless systems have those at the moment, though apparently Canon's 11-22mm is the best one for its price. There are inexpensive manual-focus lenses, though, mostly for the APS-C systems.

pgyselin said:
I would be OK settling for 300 mm maximum. It would just mean that I would need to work the picture a bit more on the PC.

So you should have no problem with any system — they all have zooms that reach 300mm equivalent, and they tend to be fairly cheap. Olympus's 40-150mm f/4-5.6 sometimes goes on sale for a ridiculous $100, but even at the current retail price of $200 it's really good.

pgyselin said:
Can I ask you what you would buy if you were me (having now the extra information above)?

That's really hard to answer because, after all, I am not you!

I guess I would go for a Fuji camera, maybe the X-T20, with the 18-55mm f/2.8-4, 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8, and a Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f/2.

Note that Rokinon and Samyang are different brand names for the same lenses. The difference is probably based on region, though both are sold on Amazon U.S. Just buy whichever is cheapest.

If you want to shoot fast moving subjects, I'd tilt more towards the Sony a6500 or a6300. The 16-70mm f/4 for a standard zoom, 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 for the telephoto, and the same Rokinon/Samyang for the wide-angle.

pgyselin · Jan 30, 2017

As your advice gets more precise / detailed my life gets easier.

Thanks for even sharing what you would buy if you would be me.

The Fuji X T20 and the Sony 6300 / 6500 have an APS-C sensor. Would you buy either of these camera's because you feel this sensor is (slightly?) better than the micro four thirds sensor you have in your equipment (Olympus)? or because you feel these two models (and their lenses) have an edge over the rest irrespective their sensor size?

I think the next step is to go and hold the various camera lens combinations in my hands and decide.

Thanks for all your help

Patrick

What cameras are right for me?

Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Member

Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Member

Keyboard shortcuts