if you have a fixed lens you NEVER need to clean your sensor
OK, you make a fair point, Golfhov. To clarify, I am going for "bang for the buck," here... i.e. the best value system for someone on a restricted budget. I am doing this because the OP mentioned concerns about Fujifilm being "pricey". So he does not seem to have a huge budget to spend.
It is true that the Fujifilm sensor has an advantage in low light at ISOs over 1,600. But this is only for moving subjects. The IBIS of Micro 43 gives it the strong advantage for shooting still subjects like landscapes and cityscapes in low light. So both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
What I am saying is not subjective. It is an objective fact that Micro 43 is the smallest, lightest and most affordable "live" interchangable lens camera system on the market.
That I never argued. It is YOUR perception of value.
Jay dickman knows what he is doing. It proves that the perception of value is in the eye of the beholder. He is also paid by Olympus. So he not only can use the system well he doesn't have to think about the value part of the equation when using the pro 1.2 lenses that turn the value system for many upside down.
And I don't dscount that it may be. So may other things. The Fujis with the kit may represent a better value to some vs the more expensive zooms in 4/3. Or apsc DSLR. Or Sony APSC, or even now FF cameras are somewhat in the dsicussion
Correct. There was also the Pentax Q. Which was small but not seriously supported.
Fujifilm will be better in some respects than Micro 43 (though the IBIS of Micro 43 keeps it very competitive!)...but Micro 43 is still a full and flexible professional level system...and Fujifilm is nowhere near TWICE as good. So as far as "Bang for the buck" value goes, Micro 43 HAS to win this category in mirrorless.Don't you think that the price difference somehow reflects the value difference, too?
I could also reduce the cost of Micro 43 by shopping on the grey market. But the fact is, many people prefer to avoid grey market goods. Many want an official warranty, and would rather avoid the potential hassle of dealing with an overseas vendor.
I believe that some repair shops will not work on grey market cameras once they are out of warranty.
OK, fair enough then...there are likely to be subjective aspects to a term like "value". But I still maintain that OVERALL we can say when something will be widely classed as better value.
You're right, Canon APS-C DSLR can narrowly scrape in a bit cheaper than M43. I should have specified "M43 is the most affordable system in mirrorless". Micro 43 is unquestionably the smallest and lightest camera system, though.
Jay Dickman could afford to shoot with any system he chooses. But he chooses Micro 43 because he says the light weight, live composite, IBIS, etc helps him get shots he would otherwise miss.
As I admitted above, there is very likely an element of subjectivity in choosing gear. And for a few, the £650 EM5-II may represent better value than the £235 EM10-II. But OVERALL, the great majority would agree that the EM10-II was by far the better value at those prices.
And I never claimed that it was!
Well I am not one to tell people how to use their photos.....
It is practically impossible to account for everything. Even that studio scene can be slightly swayed by the lens used and colors
That is weird.......I am on my cell so I am curious about that one
Huh. In "theory" at base they should both be close as they have the same resolution. Where they should start looking dissimilar is when they get away from the base ISO. Jpeg less so than RAW because JPEG will be dependant on Tuesday processing
On cell so I don't see. There are limitations to tiny sensors. Inforget the factor but it so much smaller than a 1" or bigger camera that it really struggles in low light and with fine detailInteresting the sponge, here we see the very sample of what i initially brought up. Look at the sponge taken with the iPhoneX, what on earth is that, some mushy patchwork, clearly and exactly what i meant trees look like in the distance with pretty much all small sensors, just not enough light or whatever on the to small pixels to understand what it is they are looking at, could be a medium baked pancake or the scalp of a poodle or maybe an exotic Asian dish
They use default JPEGs. I don't know if you were looking at RAW. Default there too so some of the engines handle color a little differently. You can correct but they don't.
Those are really small crops. Outside of throwing a hi res sensor like a hi res or medium format camera in the mix there is just a realistic limit to what a standard sensor and lens can do.
I don't use Flickr, sorry. If you are not limited by Flickr only, you can look at photos i.e. here or on my facebook. Recent photos/albums are mostly from X-T20.
X-T20 is very good with XF 23mm f/2 and with Samyang 8mm fisheye, too. With old manual SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 adapted form M42, it makes a very nice portrait combo.
On my own, personal and highly biased opinion, its ancient 9-point AF from 2004 is somehow outdated after 14 years so it should probably be omitted...
No matter what the sensor size is, the general rule says that primes are faster and sharper than zooms (and often faster AF, too). There some known exceptions where the best pro-grade zooms are on par with primes of the corresponding focal range, but that's in the next price league.
The "lightweight" Fuji body (I prefer X-E3 but if the tilt screen matters - X-T20 is identical sensor) and XF 35mm f/2.0 is a perfect kit to start with. If both body and lens are silver, this looks classy.
No, it could not be used on Canon even in theory.
It's a matter of personal sight and habit. My preference is the pair of XF 23mm and XF 50mm, though my XF 50mm is been delayed. Maybe later I will collect all three f/2 "Fujicron" lenses, who knows.
All of Jay Dickman's published photographs have been shot with Micro 43/Olympus since 2003.
M4/3 didn't exist in 2003. 2003 is when Olympus started paying him to shoot with 4/3. 4/3 went extinct and he was dropping the sales pitch to the end
The guy is 70 and spent most of those assignments shooting film. National Geographic even required film submissions during the rise of digital.
