Best mirrorless body for travel photography + EF lenses

dsugden

New member
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
Hi,

My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.

Which 2ndhand mirrorless bodies should I consider to avoid too much of a compromise for around the £500 mark?
 
My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.
Which "holy trinity" are you talking about and do you want to use them on your mirrorless body?
Which 2ndhand mirrorless bodies should I consider to avoid too much of a compromise for around the £500 mark?
Well, £500 isn't going to get much better than a Sony A7II in a FF mirrorless... which is OK, and will produce better IQ than your 5DIII using the same lenses (adapted). However, that's not really an exciting choice.

Despite being APS-C, the Sony A6000 is competitive with the 5DIII in IQ , with notably better DR, and you can get one used for around $250. It's a nice little camera and, with a focal reducer (which would also fit in your budget) the A6000 is a darn good approximation to a nicely small and light FF body. I don't think you can beat it for your budget. In fact, the now-being-orphaned EOS M models that are as cheap as the A6000 are not even close to competitive with it.
 
Are you trying to only adapt your existing lenses? The Sony A7 only looks to be 200 grams less than your camera, and that's before the adapter.
 
Happy owner of an A6000 with a focal reducer here. Got mine for alittle less than price ProfHankD says, focal reducer for $175/£140. Total cost £310 :-D But I do miss image-stabilized sensor, which shouldn't be an issue with your stabilized EF lenses..
 
A Canon Rebel…lighter. Uses your lenses. Better photos than you might expect. Might even go with kit lens package for very little $$$. Or just take your kit as is….perhaps the weight difference is one boot.
 
Yes I know its not mirrorless, but what the heck, its lighter than yr main camera, and less expensive to replace if stolen.
 
Hi,

My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.

Which 2ndhand mirrorless bodies should I consider to avoid too much of a compromise for around the £500 mark?
Well no matter how many recommend Sony there is only one camera that really fits.

But it might be hard to find as it seem to have been one of the few ML camera bodies to be tightly held and has retained its value. Largely going for what it was its street price when they could still be bought new.

I am talking about the tiny Panasonic GM5 (not the evf-less GM1). This camera provides everything that a systems camera might need. Including its quite usable built in evf. When new they came with a very small clip-on custom flash in the box.

Being a M4/3 mount camera they have unfettered connectabilty to all lenses that can be connected to that mount system. This include very good and usable S-AF with EF mount lenses via Metabones adapters and a somewhat smaller sub-set via Viltrox adapters.

The camera does do video but is better seen as a stills camera. The very intuitive and effective Panasonic touch screen interface is also supplied with the GM series cameras - it is not a gimmick as some early touch screens were. No twee icons but a very mature serious user interface that provides a further five customisable function keys to add to the two mechanical function keys and a clickable rear wheel. The direction pad has another four fixed functions and there are the usual delete, display, playback and menu buttons. The dedicated video button can be disabled but cannot be used for anything else unfortunately (for this person who does not do video).

Panasonic also optionally allows the camera to remember every last used selection in every sub-section of its menu structure. This allows an emergency extra function key - which I have never had to use. Effectively it already has seven configurable function keys and a 15-slot configurable quickmenu accessed via the delete key doing double duty.

I doubt if many larger ML camera bodies have as much control options despite their larger size. It certainly gives my very basic (significantly larger) NEX-6 a technical hurry-up. Of course it has a very effective focus peaking and the menu control is very deep. The touch screen interface makes travelling through the menus very quick.

The GM type must now be at least eight years old and the cameras were on the market for up to four, possibly five years. They used the then 16 mp 4/3 sensor as the other M4/3 camera of the day. They have not been updated and there is nothing quite like it on the market.

Unfortunately many saw them as pocketable backup cameras only suitable for tiny lenses.

This and the fact of 'how do you improve a tiny simple camera optimised for still shooting?' has made them hard to update. They were an expensive camera at initial RRP and only sold well at a reduced price - which now seems to be their second hand price - it one can be found.

What they need is a later sensor - to change anything else is only to go backwards. Perfection in a tiny package. Hard to run an update as it would be an expensive toy and its major market would be existing GM5 owners who would look at the necessary market price and decide that their existing GM5 might last a bit longer. Or those that would look at the same price and decide that they could buy a larger camera with all the user convenience features for much the same price.

So it has become a classic and maybe around the 10 year market Panasonic might have another lash at the type - but maybe not, as more than likely the GM5 will be the last of the tiny capable camera bodies.

I doubt if there are many others on this forum with any experience of the GM5 - let alone those who have become so committed to them as I have.
 
Hi,

My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.

Which 2ndhand mirrorless bodies should I consider to avoid too much of a compromise for around the £500 mark?
Well no matter how many recommend Sony there is only one camera that really fits.
Tom, MFT is NOT always the answer. For what it's worth, this is also a case where my default answer -- the Sony A7RII -- isn't the answer either. ;-)

Before my original post, I checked prices on Canon R and M, Sony FE and E, Nikon Z, and Fuji X bodies and the A6000 is pretty much the only one that easily fits the budget. I was actually quite surprised that there wasn't a viably-priced Fuji (EF adapters for Fuji seem more expensive too?) and similarly surprised that only grossly inferior EOS M models made the price cutoff despite M now becoming "dust in the wind." I guess it makes sense that the A6000 is exceptionally cheap because it was in production a long time with high sales, so there are a lot of them out there and it has a relatively old release date?
I am talking about the tiny Panasonic GM5 (not the evf-less GM1).
No. First off, the GM5 + EF adapter are NOT in the OP's price range. Second, the OP wants it to be smaller while not making "too much of a compromise" -- the GM5 is not even in the same IQ ballpark as the 5DIII or A6000 (only 16MP and DxO overall rating of 66 vs 82 for the 5DIII and A6000). Beyond that, even with a focal reducer, you're still shifting the focal length of the OP's lenses enough to need at least one new lens to cover the wide stuff.

BTW, the A6000 AF is pretty fast with EF lenses.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.

Which 2ndhand mirrorless bodies should I consider to avoid too much of a compromise for around the £500 mark?
Well no matter how many recommend Sony there is only one camera that really fits.
Tom, MFT is NOT always the answer. For what it's worth, this is also a case where my default answer -- the Sony A7RII -- isn't the answer either. ;-)

Before my original post, I checked prices on Canon R and M, Sony FE and E, Nikon Z, and Fuji X bodies and the A6000 is pretty much the only one that easily fits the budget. I was actually quite surprised that there wasn't a viably-priced Fuji (EF adapters for Fuji seem more expensive too?) and similarly surprised that only grossly inferior EOS M models made the price cutoff despite M now becoming "dust in the wind." I guess it makes sense that the A6000 is exceptionally cheap because it was in production a long time with high sales, so there are a lot of them out there and it has a relatively old release date?
I am talking about the tiny Panasonic GM5 (not the evf-less GM1).
No. First off, the GM5 + EF adapter are NOT in the OP's price range. Second, the OP wants it to be smaller while not making "too much of a compromise" -- the GM5 is not even in the same IQ ballpark as the 5DIII or A6000 (only 16MP and DxO overall rating of 66 vs 82 for the 5DIII and A6000). Beyond that, even with a focal reducer, you're still shifting the focal length of the OP's lenses enough to need at least one new lens to cover the wide stuff.

BTW, the A6000 AF is pretty fast with EF lenses.
All fair comment but I am not buying any more Sony bodies no matter how cheap.

I admit to being biased and with 20 or so EF mount lenses a few EF-M4/3 adapters work out quite cheap per lens. I also set good store by wide compatibility and Metabones seems to have done the hard yards there.

I don't know how fast the A6000 pdf is but I tested the GM5 with oem lenses from a motorway overpass where the traffic was averaging the 110kph limit and the focus was instant and sharp as a tack every time. Granted large bodies moving in predetermined paths in good light but they still need the focus to keep up with the shutter speed. This generally is in accord with the fast S-AF that Panasonic does provide with its CDAF.

Unfortunately CDAF has a bad reputation and many like to unnecessarily complain about it.

Price range? Well technically the GM5 should be ten a penny but the fact is that they still sell for in the region of AUD$600 which is presently about US$400.

So yes - if they lost their value like an a6000 then they should be affordable. But there was never anything else that filled its use-slot directly and unlikely the there will be another either - hence the retained value.

But as a compact camera body there is nothing to directly compare the GM5 with.

Then tiny Nikon 1" never had the range of oem lenses no EF adapter, and sold in apparently much lower quantities. The Pentax Q had a tiny sensors and a very low resolution lcd + no evf.

So I was speaking to the compact requirement and not to the price.

Just as the car salesman will leverage up a client above their budget by offering something irresistible that costs a bit more. (I say this in jest of course). If you want the best then you have to pay more based on its availability.

Have you ever used a GM5? At least I had a NEX6 - I still use it occasionally and I have found it a pleasant camera to use but very basic indeed in concept to the GM5. It takes reasonable images but the soft coating on the lcd wears off and starts to look ugly. I think that Sony started all over again with the a6000, but I have never seen one let alone tried one. That said I have never seen anyone else using a GM5 either.
 
Have you ever used a GM5? At least I had a NEX6 - I still use it occasionally and I have found it a pleasant camera to use but very basic indeed in concept to the GM5. It takes reasonable images but the soft coating on the lcd wears off and starts to look ugly. I think that Sony started all over again with the a6000, but I have never seen one let alone tried one. That said I have never seen anyone else using a GM5 either.
My experience with MFT bodies is pretty minimal. I hate the crop -- I'm a wide angle guy. The only compelling feature for me was the before-full-press capture buffering, so that you could get frames captured both before and after full press of the shutter. It's a feature Sony pushed in their sensors long ago, and Casio was actually the first to use this feature in a production camera, but somehow people didn't seem to understand how significant this feature is. Unfortunately, I found the image quality of the MFT implementation unacceptable: you actually could get slightly better quality extracting from a 4K video. I guess you could take the positive spin that the MFT bodies have good video modes (the old Casio only did something like QCIF video, so the quality of the buffered still images was obviously way better than video)?

The only MFT body I actually own is a Lumix GX850, which is cute, but suffers from a ton of really bad choices. Aside from the disappointing feature I mentioned above, it only has half a mechanical shutter (which is also why I will not get a Sony A7C), which could be OK, but for manual lenses it only allows reasonably high shutter speeds using full electronic shutter -- which is incredibly slow (something like 1/15s) resulting in weird distortions in still photos. I also found the menus even more ponderous than Sony. However, the #1 issue was the dramatically poorer IQ as compared to even significantly older APS-C bodies. To be completely honest, the $100 Canon PowerShots that I have fleets of (we reprogram them using CHDK) actually produce disturbingly comparable IQ; the main problem was DR not being better than the way-smaller (CCD, not CMOS) sensors in the Canon PowerShots. More recent MFT bodies have bumped the DR into a happier range, but still are not great.

As for the AF performance with EF lenses, I've never tried that on an MFT body. However, I have done direct comparisons between various Sonys with a Metabones adapter against my Canon 5DIV. The Sony A7RII beats the 5DIV, the A7II and A6000 are comparable to the 5DIV but less reliable. Older models, well, just don't do much of anything with an EF lens because Metabones didn't bother interfacing to the older lens protocol sequences. Sony's had a LOT of different lens focus protocols, and reverse-engineering them is a pain (and the protocols are NOT included in what Sony said they'd make freely available as specs). MFT, on the other hand, does benefit from having an Olympus-run consortium keeping their standard somewhat available... to consortium members. So, the advantage MFT has is getting the full benefit of the less-than-great AF in the cameras, while Sonys have more sophisticated AF that works better BUT isn't fully implemented in reverse-engineered EF adapters.
 
My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.
Which "holy trinity" are you talking about and do you want to use them on your mirrorless body?
The OP hasn't returned to clarify, but this phrase is often used to represent the trio of complementary EF fast zooms - 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8.

Canon itself uses the term for the newer RF equivalents:

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/trinity-rf-lenses/
 
I will accept that as a 'not for me' :)

The GX850 actually has the same works as the GM5 only with a bit more sophisticated firmware and a downgraded target audience as 'entry level'. It also has a tilt up lcd instead of the evf, a larger plastic body, etc and generally built down to the price that the market would pay and where Panasonic could make the margins that they wish to make.

Considering that the camera type which was launched as the GM1 has been around for at least 8 years and some water has gone under the bridge here are some 20mp M4/3 images with high quality M4/3 oem lenses.

Of course that GX850 was till using the exactly same sensor most likely 10+ years after the GM1 launch. As befits is new role as an entry level box.

 
My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.
Which "holy trinity" are you talking about and do you want to use them on your mirrorless body?
The OP hasn't returned to clarify, but this phrase is often used to represent the trio of complementary EF fast zooms - 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8.

Canon itself uses the term for the newer RF equivalents:

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/trinity-rf-lenses/
Yick. In ye good olde days it used to commonly mean 35 + 50 + 135... but I don't recall any manufacturer being quite so bold in their advertising as to refer to them that way. I will admit that the RF 15-200mm all at f/2.8 is pretty appealing (and the 70-200mm is small, although the 15-35mm really isn't).
 
Hi,

My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.

Which 2ndhand mirrorless bodies should I consider to avoid too much of a compromise for around the £500 mark?
The best cameras for Canon EF-mount is one of the Canon R ones with their native adapter. Those cameras talk EF-protocol natively and the adapter is just a signal pass through. No other brand can beat that since they all translate the AF-protocol in the adapter.

I would avoid the first two Canon mirrorless bodys, the R and RF. So so AF and so so sensors.

The R5, R6 and R3 on the other hand are all pretty good both AF and sensor wise. The R6 has to few Mpix (20) for my taste and the R3 is too big and heavy. But the R5 is nice unless you do a lot of video since it overheats fairly easy.

Yes, the R5 is not a 500 UKP camera. I would suggest to look to find a used R5 and sell the 5D3 to part finance it.

The other route I would take is to sell all Canon gear and get a (used) Sony A7III (or other Sony body) and the light holy trinity from Tamron (they are officially licensed for E-mount). That would make an even lighter kit since on the Canon alternative, your EF-lenses are still rather heavy so reducing only the body weight is kinda sub optimal.
 
My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.
Which "holy trinity" are you talking about and do you want to use them on your mirrorless body?
The OP hasn't returned to clarify, but this phrase is often used to represent the trio of complementary EF fast zooms - 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8.

Canon itself uses the term for the newer RF equivalents:

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/trinity-rf-lenses/
Yick. In ye good olde days it used to commonly mean 35 + 50 + 135... but I don't recall any manufacturer being quite so bold in their advertising as to refer to them that way. I will admit that the RF 15-200mm all at f/2.8 is pretty appealing (and the 70-200mm is small, although the 15-35mm really isn't).
Trinities come in all revelations :)

My most recent ones were the ability to get a brand new MF set from 7Artisans:

25/0.95

35/0.95

50/0.95

Quite acceptable lenses, well priced, good build, well packaged. 15/0.95 at some stage and make it a quartinery?

These are aps-c lenses - mine in M4/3 mount (not adapted).

I have never managed to make myself find the money to buy one. The Canon 50/1.2 in LTM was close and looks a million dollars adapted on a black Panasonic GM5 camera body.

If only looks could take images. But it is not a bad performer - but I have enough lenses to keep me amused without needing to settle on a permanent kit.
 
My main camera is a 5d3 + the holy trinity & some macros, but I'm spending more time abroad + hiking where lugging such kit isn't ideal.
Which "holy trinity" are you talking about and do you want to use them on your mirrorless body?
The OP hasn't returned to clarify, but this phrase is often used to represent the trio of complementary EF fast zooms - 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8.

Canon itself uses the term for the newer RF equivalents:

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/trinity-rf-lenses/
Yick. In ye good olde days it used to commonly mean 35 + 50 + 135... but I don't recall any manufacturer being quite so bold in their advertising as to refer to them that way. I will admit that the RF 15-200mm all at f/2.8 is pretty appealing (and the 70-200mm is small, although the 15-35mm really isn't).
Trinities come in all revelations :)

My most recent ones were the ability to get a brand new MF set from 7Artisans:

25/0.95

35/0.95

50/0.95

Quite acceptable lenses, well priced, good build, well packaged. 15/0.95 at some stage and make it a quartinery?
I think you know I generally cycle through lots of different lenses as fit the situations, usually carrying about 5-6 adapted, mostly manual, lenses from about 10mm-200mm.

However, a few weeks ago, I went to Alaska (as I discussed in the Sony FF forum ), and I knew that would demand good AF and long lenses. So, here's what I used most:
  • Tamron FE 150-500mm on A6500
  • Tamron FE 28-200mm on A7RII
  • Sigma A 12-24mm with LA-EA4 on A7II (it doesn't out-resolve 24MP FF)
Yup, 3 bodies and 3 lenses covering from 12-750mm FF equivalent. That set easily all fit in a little backpack. I occasionally swapped the lenses between the A6500 and A7RII, because I really like the 150-500mm better on the A7RII, but that lens is one of the rare ones that has the sharpness to actually outresolve the 18MP APS-C crop of the A7RII, so the A6500 gave more resolution for the equivalent of a 750mm FF view.

FWIW, even 750mm often felt short for Alaska wildlife, but the need to often shoot through a window was really the primary limit on IQ for a long lens, and even atmospheric effects would have cancelled the benefit from anything much longer than 750mm most of the time.

Both those Tamrons are really excellent lenses, and the 150-500mm is about the same size as most 100-400mm... surprisingly hand-holdable. The 150-500mm is lot smaller than the Sigma 150-600mm or Sony 200-600mm and, honestly, it has the best MTF charts I've seen -- it's actually sharper cropping to a 600mm view than either the Sigma or Sony lenses. The 150-500mm also feels surprisingly secure on my Sonys, so it was just the weight that made it annoying to be hand-held shooting for hours in a row.

Anyway, 12-750mm -- a 62.5X total zoom range -- is pretty nice to have crisply covered at 24MP by just three lenses. I liked that and bringing a body per lens definitely was the right call to minimize lens swaps. The thing I liked least was trying to focus-by-wire on the Tamrons when the AF choose poorly (e.g., focus on the dirty window rather than the scene outside); old manual lenses are so much more pleasant to focus manually.
These are aps-c lenses - mine in M4/3 mount (not adapted).

I have never managed to make myself find the money to buy one. The Canon 50/1.2 in LTM was close and looks a million dollars adapted on a black Panasonic GM5 camera body.

If only looks could take images. But it is not a bad performer - but I have enough lenses to keep me amused without needing to settle on a permanent kit.
6MP of oversampled resolution is enough for most work. Once you accept that most FF or APS-C lenses will only project around 6MP of resolution on an MFT-size sensor (or a little more with a focal reducer), I think it's actually a rather freeing revelation. Sort-of like how the 12MP FF Sonys get outresolved by most lenses, so nearly all FF lenses look great on those bodies.
 
Its a bit like my original "set" for theatre when I decided that long telephoto from the back of the hall was the best way to travel and no expense spared to get the kit that I needed. I should be a highly demanded boutique theatre photographer by now - like have 'gins' will travel. By theatre types don't have money to splash about and the big city theatres have not heard of me nor have I had the compulsion to self promote myself - which of course is more important.

So I end up just trying to do my best for a small theatre company in a small rural city.

But my set was at least three Canon dslr bodies in play - 2x aps-c and 1x FF body. A Canon EF 400/2.8 and a 200/2.0 with on heavy fixed tripods with gimball heads to allow free movement of the lenses. My third lens veered by show but I found the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 on one body hand held where I could move about during the run of the show and get most versatile. Like one session where the actor laughed into a frenetic song and dance act a la Marilyn Monroe which I had not seen in the rehearsals. Luckily I was able to re-position myself wth the mobile gear in time as my fixed setup was not going to cover it.

These images don't get a run her because the images were not adapted, and it has been a long time since I had anything useful to say on the Canon dslr forum.

But I might pop a couple of illustrative images up with the indulgence of the moderator :)

Your shooting through a window exercise brought back memories of quite a few years ago now when in Milford Sound on the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand - typical NZ location description which I will add the "Fjord Country" of the almost impossible to access area except by ship. But Milford Sound has a long reasonably precarious way in and this includes a long one-way tunnel.

A trip of a lifetime and Milford Sound lived up to its reputation of often being very wet. So the enclosed cabin windows of the tour boat were steamed up and it was pretty wet outside - more just very wet than cold. I had a selection of lenses with me and one GM1 body. But it was so wet outside and from inside all that was seen was through condensation covered windows. So I took to the open upper deck with my cheap kit zoom - my reasoning was that it was a once only trip and if I destroyed my kit then so be it. So it was super wetland very exposed, not helped by the captains wish to show off the waterfall by passing right under them. Few of the passengers were admiring the open view outside.

I was wiping the water off the lens constantly trying to get a half decent image.

In the end weather-sealing? .... hah! It was almost like dropping the camera into a bucket of water. On the way back to our accommodation at Te Anau (a son was driving) I constantly worked the zoom action in and out drying the drops of moisture that were being dragged out. Obviously I had dried the outside as soon as I could and parked the camera under my cold weather gear for the advantage of body heat. Back where we were staying the camera was left overnight near a heater - but I made sure that it was indirect heat.

I did not remove the lens or open the battery door - I thought that this might be too much like tempting fate. I took a lot more images with the camera before our trip was finished.

It must be eight years now and neither camera nor lens has shown any sign of ill effect.

But I would not have liked to make a regular practice out of this type of treatment.
 
Your shooting through a window exercise brought back memories of quite a few years ago now when in Milford Sound on the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand - typical NZ location description which I will add the "Fjord Country" of the almost impossible to access area except by ship. But Milford Sound has a long reasonably precarious way in and this includes a long one-way tunnel.
Yeah, in Alaska it was two long train rides that forced thru-window shooting. On one I was actually able to shoot a bit in the open from the rear of the train, but the other, longer, ride was in the second-floor viewing seating of the train.
A trip of a lifetime and Milford Sound lived up to its reputation of often being very wet. So the enclosed cabin windows of the tour boat were steamed up and it was pretty wet outside - more just very wet than cold. I had a selection of lenses with me and one GM1 body. But it was so wet outside and from inside all that was seen was through condensation covered windows. So I took to the open upper deck with my cheap kit zoom - my reasoning was that it was a once only trip and if I destroyed my kit then so be it. So it was super wetland very exposed, not helped by the captains wish to show off the waterfall by passing right under them. Few of the passengers were admiring the open view outside.
Didn't really have problems with that, although reflections were also an issue. Close enough to not get reflections => bad distortion from the wavy glass; far enough to get resolution => bad reflections.
I was wiping the water off the lens constantly trying to get a half decent image.

In the end weather-sealing? .... hah! It was almost like dropping the camera into a bucket of water.
Worse, actually. I've found that it's really easy to shoot in reasonably clear weather (even light rain with a hood on the lens), equally easy to shoot underwater (in a housing, bag, or with a waterproof camera), but an incredibly annoying pain to shoot in a part wet, part dry mix. Worst was the cave of the mists at Niagara Falls. I couldn't keep rivultes of water off a lens for more than a second or two at a time.
On the way back to our accommodation at Te Anau (a son was driving) I constantly worked the zoom action in and out drying the drops of moisture that were being dragged out. Obviously I had dried the outside as soon as I could and parked the camera under my cold weather gear for the advantage of body heat. Back where we were staying the camera was left overnight near a heater - but I made sure that it was indirect heat.

I did not remove the lens or open the battery door - I thought that this might be too much like tempting fate. I took a lot more images with the camera before our trip was finished.
Actually, I haven't had that much trouble with water, Sum total:
  • Casio Qv100 rear LCD killed by canoe capsizing. It bobbed in its case for about a minute before being retrieved, but that was enough. Incidentally, that was the ONLY indicator on the camera, but it actually still works shooting completely blind.
  • Condensation in Florida. Heavy air conditioning meets humid heat. Had to carefully let the camera dry for an hour or more every time I saw fogging start.
  • Similar in Mexico, except there the condensation actually made my A7RII fail for about an hour even after being apparently completely dry again. No lasting damage.
  • Foolish mistake of opening an underwater housing in a place with some humidity. No water got in, but temp underwater was well below the dew point for the moisture in the air trapped inside. Didn't like seeing water sloshing around the under my A55, but it fortunately didn't get deep enough to get inside the camera nor lens.
 
Years ago a cheap lens from a Moscow winter arrived in a local summer heatwave bouncing off 40C and it had been very dry.

Inside the lens it was a bit like a swimming pool with condensation.

Quick fix - I figured out that if the condensation could seep inside it could come out again.

So I put it in a sealed plastic bag with a sachet of silica gel and left it on a table n our verandah (in shade and not direct heat).

A few hours later the condensation was gone.

I might have had a similar result by just leaving it exposed on the table but I wanted to try and mop up the condensation as it evaporated.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top