Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

Started Jan 10, 2013 | Discussions
ianbrown Senior Member • Posts: 1,969
Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

Going back over 10 years you had to buy a DSLR if you wanted anything like good IQ, however recent improvements in technology has given us the opportunity to gain better performance out of much smaller cameras, but at what cost?

For instance convenience appears to be at the top of many peoples priorities, just look at how many images are taken on the iphone for example. Yes there is nowhere near the IQ but for many an acceptable quality is good enough for the discreet photographer looking for convenience.

Now the edges get very blurred when you come to choosing a new camera in 2013!

The option of going for a small compact system (OMD-EM5 or FujiEX1) for example against say a Canon 6D or similar is still a tough decision for me.

The compact camera systems tend to lack AF speed, high ISO performance and focus tracking etc, but weigh a fraction of the big cameras, whislt the DSLR's give you the ultimate control and performance.

So in an age where we (including me) are obsessed by getting the very very best images out of the smallest system, is it really worth sacrificing 1 pound in weight for lesser quality?

The only camera that comes close to ticking the boxes is the Sony RX1 but then its a fixed lens and optional EVF.

I would be interested to hear from people who have had a dilema about protability and quality and have either:

1. Kept two systems, compact and DSLR and if so is there not a dilelma of which one to take with you?

2. Gone with a compact system and love or regret it?

3. Kept the DSLR because the compact system still not quit as good?

I guess it much depends what type of photography you take and this will most likely determin if you can get away with a smaller package.

For exapmle why use a wired hammer drill for drilling a small hole to hang a picture, I guess you would use a cordless drill!!! different gear for different jobs.

Ian

Canon EOS 6D Sony RX1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ASR45
ASR45 Forum Pro • Posts: 36,739
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

Its always a compromise , as i suffer from a bad back ect, had to let the {sigmonster} aka 300-800 bazooka to go. I have had loads of small cameras to many to mention, some produce excellent IQ.

As you say all depends on needs, even some of the SZ dare i say can produce pleasing results, and have come a long way since the early days.

It would be hard to predict the future with digital cameras, but might be some where along the lines of a SZ type camera where changing lens would be old fashioned and not needed, as one size fits all.

Probably some way off, but they are getting better all the time what with wifi, Gps, on board software gimmicks ect, what next i find myself saying. All good stuff and going in the right direction.

You know i have always fancied spectacles for the future that can double as a camera, you look at a place as far as the eye can see, and say snap, and then hey fiddly dee, ala shazam, your photo is taken and sent to a wifi device or computer for viewing later.

What do you think.  

-- hide signature --

Alan.

 ASR45's gear list:ASR45's gear list
Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Nikon D750 Pentax KP Canon 6D Mark II Nikon AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR +10 more
nneubronner Forum Member • Posts: 89
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

Some people absolutely hate it. The weight drags them down, they don't see the difference between their outputs from a smaller sized ilc compared to their dslr, their intensity of usage of a camera system does not justify a big expenditure into a dslr, etc etc.

That being said, everyone uses their camera for different circumstances and have different levels of expectation surrounding their hobby or profession.

I love my dSLR system. I love the performance, I love the images I can produce, I love how it makes me creative in the way I feel how creativity should be. I don't like that it's heavy. Carrying around my 5d3+ 24-70, 85L and 16-35 + accessories on my recent Tokyo trip left me with a pain on my shoulders that persisted for well over 2 weeks after the trip. But I love the quality despite the "lack" of portability.

However, I am keen on getting a smaller camera, say perhaps the Canon Powershot N because I want to take self potraits with my significant other, and I want a camera which is light and small and wide enough for me to do this easily, or can pass to someone who would be far more relaxed using it to help us take a photo compared to my behemoth with it's myriads of settings, autofocus points and general heaviness. The iPhone just does not cut it because it's not wide enough and not easy enough to press in the desired situation.

Perhaps in pure numerical numbers, this small camera may not have the "quality" of DSLRs, but to me, to see photos of me and my significant other happy together with shots that are usually really hard to take because we both carry heavy DSLRs, well to me, that is pure quality as well.

In the end, only you can decide on which sized system is best for you. You have to head to your local camera store and try out the range of cameras and think to yourself, "does this suit what I believe to be portable/quality? Does it meet my personal criteria for my own intended usage?"

Rick Knepper
Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 15,686
My issue with size/weight has nothing to do with compacts.

Let me say first off so that I begin on-topic that I do not see a Manufacterer releasing a compact in my lifetime with the IQ and features I have come to enjoy and I am not willing to compromise.

Secondly, I consider the 5 series cameras to be my "compacts". Being 61, I find the 5D2 with several lenses to be easy to carry/haul in my backpack in the backcountry.

I am absolutely frightened that Canon will make the huge mistake of releasing their high res camera in a 1 series body. I now carry a 5D2 & a 3Dx, the 3Dx being the equivalent of a 1 series body. It is ridiculous how unnecessarily heavy and bulky this thing is and when faced with taking just one camera, usually because I am about to undertake a rugged hike, I always reach for the 5D2 in spite of the fact that the 3Dx is the superior camera operationally and in IQ.

I think the 5 series cameras have the perfect size/weight ratio for the feature/IQ ratio. Period.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Pentax smc D FA 645 55mm F2.8 AL (IF) SDM AW Pentax DA645 28-45mm F4.5 +8 more
Rock and Rollei Contributing Member • Posts: 791
Re: My issue with size/weight has nothing to do with compacts.

For some years now I've used a 5D or Mk II as my main camera when shooting seriously, with originally an xxD as backup, and a compact - S70 for some time. It got to be the Mk II, 7D as backup, and S90, but with my lens kit, that was just getting too much. So first I got a 600D sa backup, and that was a lot better weightwise, but still heavier than ideal. The 5D II itself has always been too big and heavy, so the Mk III hasn't really tempted me... and then December happened. Now I've got the 6D and an M - what a huge difference in weight, and the cameras suit my shooting.

 Rock and Rollei's gear list:Rock and Rollei's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS M Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II +21 more
Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

I shoot with a 1dsmk2 and (just purchased a used 5dmk2) and also shoot with a OMD5. There is NO lack of AF speed in S-AF with the OMD5 but C-AF/focus tracking is next to useless! I don`t think you will complain of the OMD5`s IQ to iso 800, Get the Olympus 45mmf1.8 (very sharp lens) and you will have some control over the DOF/subject isolation....even more so with the 75mm f1.8. The one thing that stands out is the OMD`s Image stabilization...very ,very good with any lens you adapt to the OMD...amazing.The EVF is very good for manual focusing legacy lenses and the camera has very good build quality and is small

But anything that moves faster than a slow walk you will need a DSLR

OMD5 w/Olympus 45mm f1.8

Boris

OMD5 w/Leica M 90mmf2 summicron

OMD5 w/Olympus 45mmf1.8

OMD5 w/Olympus 45mmf1.8

http://BorisLeak.smugmug.com
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II +40 more
kevindar
kevindar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,451
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

In a sense those of us who dont shoot with a large format camera are making compromises in image quality.  its always a ballance, and you have to look at intended need of the photograph, other than zooming in 100%.

I have 3 "systems".  a 5d3 with about 15 lenses, mostly L, an nex 5N with 3-4 lenses and an ovf, and a pansonic lx-5.  I use all 3 on a regular basis, albeit, the panasonic gets the least use, and I think all 3 excel at what they are meant to do.

If I were to go to a dedicated landscape shooting trip, I would always take my 5d.  If I am going to a wedding or party, I usually take the nex 5N with 18-55 and 50 1.8. the 50 fits in cargo pants or even suit pant pocket for me.  I went to a wedding of a cousin with this combo, and loved it.

If I am just going out for a walk, with my two little daughters, or dont want to fuss with equipment, and light is good, take my panasonic.

around the house, I exclusively shoot my 5d3, however my wife still prefers the nex5n.  she takes more videos, and I mount the sigma 30 2.8 lens for her, and then she loves the size and takes a lot of pictures of our children, one handed.  she would never use my 5d3 nearly as much.

I have images produced by all 3 of those systems that I love and cherish.

 kevindar's gear list:kevindar's gear list
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Sony Alpha a7R II Sony a6300 +25 more
GMussio Regular Member • Posts: 193
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

As far as image quality or high ISO quality go, the ILCs today are on par with the current APSC DLSR offerings.  You will never notice the difference between the two.  You really would have to make the jump to FF to notice a difference and even then its not much of a difference.  In some way, ILCs have better features then DSLRs.  Most can easily shoot video with continuous AF.  Most have amazing articulated screens.  Most now come with wifi and/or gps.  Most come with all the knobs and buttons you need, some even better laid out then a DSLR.  About the only thing amiss with ILCs is the AF.  No replacement for the mirror yet I'm afraid, but its not really all that bad.

The only reason why I dont pick up an ILC system is simple, lens selection blows.  Only m4/3 cameras have a decent offering and even then it does not rival the vast array of lenses you can get with a DSLR.

Sean O'Connor Regular Member • Posts: 369
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

Boris, I completely agree with your assessment. I have the 5D3 for action shots and when I don't mind the size and the EM-5 for portability. Currently I feel if the budget allows, having both is a great combo.

Sean

 Sean O'Connor's gear list:Sean O'Connor's gear list
Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Zeiss Batis 135mm F2.8 +3 more
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,847
What you are waiting for is...

ianbrown wrote:

Going back over 10 years you had to buy a DSLR if you wanted anything like good IQ, however recent improvements in technology has given us the opportunity to gain better performance out of much smaller cameras, but at what cost?

For instance convenience appears to be at the top of many peoples priorities, just look at how many images are taken on the iphone for example. Yes there is nowhere near the IQ but for many an acceptable quality is good enough for the discreet photographer looking for convenience.

Now the edges get very blurred when you come to choosing a new camera in 2013!

The option of going for a small compact system (OMD-EM5 or FujiEX1) for example against say a Canon 6D or similar is still a tough decision for me.

The compact camera systems tend to lack AF speed, high ISO performance and focus tracking etc, but weigh a fraction of the big cameras, whislt the DSLR's give you the ultimate control and performance.

So in an age where we (including me) are obsessed by getting the very very best images out of the smallest system, is it really worth sacrificing 1 pound in weight for lesser quality?

The only camera that comes close to ticking the boxes is the Sony RX1 but then its a fixed lens and optional EVF.

I would be interested to hear from people who have had a dilema about protability and quality and have either:

1. Kept two systems, compact and DSLR and if so is there not a dilelma of which one to take with you?

2. Gone with a compact system and love or regret it?

3. Kept the DSLR because the compact system still not quit as good?

I guess it much depends what type of photography you take and this will most likely determin if you can get away with a smaller package.

For exapmle why use a wired hammer drill for drilling a small hole to hang a picture, I guess you would use a cordless drill!!! different gear for different jobs.

...FF mirrorless.  The RX1 is priced right in the current market (RX1 = $2800, 6D + 35 / 2 IS = $2950), but it's an ILS (interchangeable lens system), which is a huge, huge, huge minus when you're dropping that kind of money.

New on-sensor PDAF will likely give mirrorless the same CAF of DSLRs, and the next-gen EVFs might just be good enough to persuade people to leave OVFs.

The main problem with FF mirrorless is that you will need a new suite of lenses to take advantage of the smaller size.  So, when FF ILS mirrorless debuts, they need to have full compatibility with current lenses, on-sensor PDAF, and a few lenses ready to go that shows they're serious about supporting the system (e.g. 17 / 1.8, 24 / 1.4, 35 / 1.4, 50 / 1.4).

The reason I list all wides is because a huge advantage of mirrorless FF is the lenses do not have to be retrofocal, which means they will be substantially smaller for wide lenses (think rangefingers).

Myself, I think it will take two generations.  That is, I just got a 6D, which I expect to last me 5 years.  In that time, I'm not convinced FF mirrorless will be up and running, so I'll get either the 6D2 or 5D4.  However, after that, FF mirrorless will be way to go.

Of course, for some, size is a "testament" to skill and quality, so DSLRs will still be around.  Indeed, many professionals may feel that they need the larger DSLRs to get paid ("You're going to do the shoot with that tiny thing?  How much are you charging?").

However, while the image of professionals drives the market, the purchases of consumers is what fuels it.  So long as FF mirrorless is compatible with current FF lenses, so that the photographer can ease into the new system, assuming on-sensor PDAF works as advertised, and assuming EVFs are "good enough" (or even preferable), FF mirrorless is the future of the system.

Ed Rizk Senior Member • Posts: 2,113
Size does matter, but....

...IQ matters also.  Having stuck myself in the middle with a 60D, I am bouncing back and forth between this forum and the NEX forum, trying to decide which way to go.  If I were feeling more prosperous, I would get both.

Considering reality, I will probably go for the 6D this year and maybe a mirrorless next or possibly an RX100 to carry when it's not all about the photography.  When it's all about the photography, the DSLR is still the only way to go.  The on chip PDAF, better lens selection, and better EVF will hopefully change that some day soon, but mirrorless falls short for now.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +4 more
Jim Cassatt Veteran Member • Posts: 4,863
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

I have owned all of the 5D series and now use the 5D MKIII. It is a great camera in all respects except for size and weight.

Last November I bought a Fuji X10.  Despite some quirks, I get pictures with that camera that I cannon get with my 5D MKIII because the little X10 fits in my coat pocket.  What attracted me to the X10 was the manual zoom, respectable high ISO performance, and  usable OVF.  That little camera also has really good optics.  I have taken 8x10 inch prints taken with a variety of cameras, including full frame cameras, under different lighting conditions to a photography class I teach and asked them to pick out the prints taken with my X10.  No way they could do it.  Sure under pixel peeping conditions you can see some differences, but not in reasonable sized prints.

Just before Christmas I bought the new Fuji X-E1 with kit (18-35) f2.8-4 and 35 mm f1.4 lenses.  As soon as the 55-200 comes out, I will order that also.  Fuji has really taken the bull by the horns.  They are using the one advantage that an APS-C sensor offers--smaller lenses.  So what you have in the X-E1 is a camera with the best APS-C sensor on the market, no AA filter, excellent high ISO performance (according to DPReview on a par with the Canon 5D MKII) coupled with really good L quality lenses in a small package.

Two big drawbacks--Adobe does not have a robust decoder for the RAW files (I think there is hope on the horizon) and bigger, the AF is way too slow for action.

So I am afraid that if size and weight are important, there is no one system that can satisfy all of our needs.

-- hide signature --
 Jim Cassatt's gear list:Jim Cassatt's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 300D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-E1 +24 more
Forrest Forum Pro • Posts: 14,666
Try riding a road bike. And try some night shots, too. (pics)
1
I would be interested to hear from people who have had a dilema about protability and quality and have either:

1. Kept two systems, compact and DSLR and if so is there not a dilelma of which one to take with you?

2. Gone with a compact system and love or regret it?

3. Kept the DSLR because the compact system still not quit as good?

I guess it much depends what type of photography you take and this will most likely determin if you can get away with a smaller package.

For exapmle why use a wired hammer drill for drilling a small hole to hang a picture, I guess you would use a cordless drill!!! different gear for different jobs.

Ian

I have a Sony P&S that fits in my pocket, and I have a 5D mark 3.  The Sony died in a storm at Sahale Glacier Camp this year, and I replaced it right away.  I waited quite a while to replace my 5D when it died.

I do a lot of backpacking.  And I do a lot of cycling on an ultralight road bike, up mountains throughout the Cascade Range.  I'm not going to use such an expensive bike to lug ballast around.  The Sony is perfect for this type of photography.  It's also good enough for a lot of hiking photography.  The tonal range is disappointing, but most people don't notice that.  But sleeping in the wilderness means star gazing that just isn't possible in the city, and the Sony falls down here.

The SLR and one lens come with me on hikes and snowshoe trips if I expect to use it.  It will always come on backpacking trips.  The P&S comes along regardless.

Here's some biketography, ideally suited to point and shoots.

North Cascades Highway, March 2012.

The "sweep pano" feature is fun!  This is Diablo Lake.

Icicle Creek Road.

Tumwater Canyon.

Lake Wenatchee.

Chinook Pass, Mt Rainier.

Some hiketography, also from the Sony P&S.

This mountain goat spent ten minutes with me at Iron Peak.

Ruth and Shuksan from just below Hannegan Peak.

Sunset from Sahale Glacier Camp.

Leory and Doubtful Lake.

But some photos require more specialized gear.  Both of these are from a 5D mark 3 and a 24 mm f/1.4 mark 2.

Near the sno-park at Wonderland.

Golden Gardens, Seattle.

jsmiller Contributing Member • Posts: 825
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

ianbrown wrote:

I guess it much depends what type of photography you take and this will most likely determin if you can get away with a smaller package.

Exactly! What is final use intended for your images? Very good prints up to 16x20 can be easily obtained with images from very small cameras, but if you stare at big enlargements on a monitor, you will likely find faults in the images. So what, unless that is ultimate goal. I have recently gone a bit overboard and bought three new cameras: a 5D Mk III, a OM-D, and a Sony RX-100. They give me three levels of portability and capability. Image quality must always be judged in terms of the end use, and for many a phone camera meeets their needs. The Sony RX-100 meets at least 60% of my needs. Its IQ when exposed correctly is fine for prints up to 16x20, and I believe I could go twice as big if I needed to. It fits in my shirt pocket. But in very low light or when a long FL lens is needed, it fall short. The OM-D is still a relatively compact camera with higher IQ than the Sony, but for me its chief adanvatages are working at higher ISOs and long focal lengths with a camera that easy to carry around. It coiuld meet as much as 80% of my needs. The 5D III is a stunning camera, with capabilities I haven'y even begun to tap. It can produce extremely high quality images in challenging situations with ease, but for me it is a camera for use or outings when photography is the central goal. I don't just carry it around on casual outings.

Having been at this for more than 45 years, I am used to working with the limitations of any camera. All three of the cameras listed above are capable of giving superb results if they are used with understanding. If I had to pick only one, it would be the OM-D, as it combines considerable flexibility, excellent IQ up to ISO 1600 (and higher if your uses don't require the ultimate IQ), and great portability. But I find owning all three a real advantage for my uses. It is often overlooked that for prints up 14x17, just about any recent camera can give very fine results in capable hands. My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix 950, with 2 MP, and I have several nice 11x14 prints hanging on my walls that were from images taken with it.

So, yes, the type of photography and the final display mode of your images should be two of the main considerations in picking a camera. I know several people who just liked the idea of of owning a DSLR camera, but who use it in a way that a much smaller camera would have done just as well for them. My approach has been to pick a camera that I think is all I need, but if and when I find its limitations prevent me from getting a significant number of images that I had wanted, I consider an upgrade. With the 5D III I may have gone too far, but it sure is a pleasure to work with such an advanced and capable piece of equipment. That can be part of the motivation as well.

Joe

 jsmiller's gear list:jsmiller's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS
Ed Rizk Senior Member • Posts: 2,113
Re: Try riding a road bike. And try some night shots, too. (pics)

I think Sony is the best option for smaller cameras. The sweep panorama and handheld twilight modes have no competition.  I still sometimes use my old HX1 for the panoramas.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +4 more
SLLDPR Forum Member • Posts: 63
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

In 1976, after taking a half-dozen Canon F-1 bodies, many lenses, and lots of film on an assignment overseas, I returned home and sold the F-1 bodies and bought Canon's new A-series bodies. I tired of being a pack mule; I wanted to enjoy photography. I continued with Canon FD-mount bodies until I bought into the EF-mount system. I now have a 5D and a 6D and five lenses.

About three years, I once again tired of carrying heavy, bulky bodies and lenses, however excellent. Because I had been pleased with my Ricoh GR 35mm camera and my Ricoh GR-D II camera, bought a Ricoh GRX system, which I still enjoy.

Last month on a project I used my new 6D and my 15-year old TS-E 24mm to my delight. The quality of the FF images was superb and the 6D's LiveView and WiFi made the job so much easier than the 5D.

I've found that there is no compromise. Sometimes I like the GRX and sometimes I like the 6D—the 5D is rarely used now other than as a back up body—especially with the EF 40mm pancake lens.

Modern photo gear is so good today that I don't miss at all the heavy iron of yesteryear.

I don't know that I'd take the 6D, 24-105, 70-200 F4 IS, 50mm f/1.4, and 40mm f/2.8 on a trip overseas; I'd likely take the GRX outfit of A50, A28, and P10 and the GR-D II along with its 21mm lens adapter. Perhaps my iPhone 5 is all I'd need on a trip overseas.

Some day, like Goldilocks, we'll find photo gear that's not too big, not too small, but is just right.

keithinmelbourne
keithinmelbourne Contributing Member • Posts: 885
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

I have a Canon system, but only one body, a 1DsMkIII.  This year bought into an OMD and 3 primes. I intend to get a 6D, mainly because of size and weight. All 3 bodies and both systems have relative advantages and disadvantages for me. So, I'm prepared to pay a bit extra to have all the advantages of the 3 bodies and 2 systems. That's not for some. It's something for me. I really don't care if others think I'm crazy, because I probably am:)

 keithinmelbourne's gear list:keithinmelbourne's gear list
Olympus TG-5 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 +12 more
RS_RS Senior Member • Posts: 1,788
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

ianbrown wrote:

different gear for different jobs.

Ian

Makes sense in general, and as the gear continues to improve no doubt our ideas about what best suits what job will continue to change. For example, non-enthusiast photographers are well known to be adopting smartphones as their cameras of choice, at the expense of the P&S market. For enthusiasts, the real sticking point at the moment appears to be AF performance, where the DSLR with phase-detect AF is still the king. The basic SLR design has been with us for so long that it is easy to forget what a Heath-Robinson arrangement it is in many ways, and the time may not be too far distant when it is driven back into a much more specialist role by progressive immprovement in sensor-based AF and EVFs.

Personally I would welcome lighter and more compact kit if it offered the capabilities of what I use now, a dual-format (5DIII+7D) DSLR kit. That is certainly my upper limit - after film-era experience with a PB-E2 on my EOS-1V, I was never tempted by the 1D-series (quite apart from the cost issue!), although I always hankered after the capabilities of the 1V in a digital body without a compulsory vertical grip. The 5DIII with its promised new firmware probably achieves that and, in mahy respects, more.

DidierV Contributing Member • Posts: 782
You are missing 1 parameter in your equation !

To me it is no longer only an issue between size and quality.

As others have mentioned, the new ILC'S (I have an OMD) have closed the quality gap. For most of my shots I would be incapable of seeing the quality difference between my 5D and my OMD.

My OMD has a faster AF than my 5D, a higher FPS, better high ISO performance and a 4 stop IS.

So why do I keep the 5D ? ERGONOMICS !

For me this is the biggest difference now between the 2 systems. I spent 3 weeks in the Himalayas this summer with my 5D and my OMD and I found myself reaching most of the time for the FF. Why, because it felt right, comfortable, I never had to fumble with the small buttons of the OMD. I love the viewfinder bright and clear, it is just a more user friendly tool, that allows you to concentrate on the shot not the camera.

I love my Olympus but I will not get rid of my FF. I have to admit that I have seriously reduced the size of my DSLR quiver since I got the Olympus, but I will not get a full M4/3 system just yet.

Both have their place in my photography, but one is not going to replace the other for the time being.

-- hide signature --

Didier
www.pbase.com/didierv

gavin Veteran Member • Posts: 5,803
Re: Portability v Quality are we obsessed by size?

Here is what I ended up doing for now. My target is getting a camera inside my pocket.

- serious photos or known photo event - 5DII

- General photos - Sony RX100 as it fits inside my pocket. NEX5/67 etc are too big to be pocketed. I am quite happy with it as alternative to 5DII.

- Carry everywhere and must take a photo any moment - Cellphone Samsung Galaxy S2 (for now)

-- hide signature --

What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

 gavin's gear list:gavin's gear list
Sony RX100 III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads