Information Overload Paralysis

[Blue iBalls]

Heyo! New to dpreview... my first post! I'm in the market for a 'real' camera and was hoping for some guidance on purchasing a new system. My iPhone 5 is really quite the little whipper snapper but I think it's time I soothed a mid-life rough patch with some spending action hehe. To be clear, I'm completely new to photography with a camera where 'auto' wasn't the only mode. I am, however, a graphic designer with 13yrs Photoshop experience: I know what quality looks like and I'm picky =]. My budget has expanded from $400 to $2500, so safe to say it's not much of a factor.

So far these are my self-imposed constraints, in order of relative importance (i think):

One reputable body to do it all
- not into buying multiple bodies atm ie. a second for lighter smaller travel
- not brand loyal (yet) but would feel 'safer' in terms of technology stability/life span going with Canon/Nikon and somewhat Sony.

Still images are priority #1
- primarily shooting stills
- therefore 4K not required, 1080p @ 60fps would be nice
- for prints up to 36" x 48" (at )

IQ and low light performance
- I'll be shooting lots of macro and landscapes, I'd really like to try astrophotography, lots of hand held, probably not much sporting or fast action shooting. Mountain top landscape vistas, macro cats and flowers, and everything slow moving in between?

Small(ish)(er)
- Should be small enough to travel. ie mountain hiking, backcountry dual sport motorcycling, skiing(?). I just need to make sure I can actually take it with me everywhere without being too cumbersome. I don't want a monster, but do understand even mirrorless aren't 'small' when lensed.

Weather
- For sure electronics don't like bathing, and I'm not 'planning' on going swimming with my camera... but there shouldn't be any history of a spittle of rain causing issues (a7!). I'm not saying it needs full weather sealing, but I do plan to be out, active, everywhere with the camera and it might get wet (not salt water tho).

While researching I learned as I went, every answer leading to another question and re-evaluation of previous position (and of course the inevitable mental projection of what I 'think' I want and therefore need). Here's the progression and reasoning...

1. Nikon D3100
Why? Because Ken Rockwell said so and I don't know squiddly dot.

2. Canon 70D
Why? Great reviews, still within budget, still one of the 'big two', better specs, weather sealed

3. Canon 6D
Why? Fantastic reviews, still kinda within budget, superior low light perf. and high IQ, Full Frame. For the cost difference from the 70D it felt like an easy decision to have the FF performance/DOF.

4. Sony A7 II
Why? Full Frame, smaller for mobility/travel, 500k shutter count, sounds like superior technology and is not going anywhere. Someone asked, "If mirrorless came out first would DSLR tech even be considered for market?" to which I assumed the answer was a resounding 'NO'. Sounds logical to buy into the incumbent technology, even if it is 20% greater cost of ownership in the long run. Last night I almost bought the Sony A7 II with the kit zoom but decided to first do a Google search for "sony a7 sucks"... and Wow! Lot's of folks claiming small amounts of water having adverse effects, too risky... plus the lenses are expensive and limited.

So anyways, to make a longer story longer... I'm feeling paralyzed after all this. What I realize is I'm letting my perception of quality be guided by spec sheets when in reality I don't know what the real life differences are. When I read posts with comparison photos the differences are plain as day, but would I notice them? The problem is I think I will, and I just don't want to waste my time.

My iPhone has proven "it's the photographer not the camera" through enough conversations that went something like, "Ohhh nice! Which camera are you using?". So yes, I may be splitting hairs, but this is an important decision to get right! Unfortunately the more I read the more swollen my head gets and the further from a confident decision I get.

Do i...

- APS-C for slightly smaller size/weight/lens prices at the cost of FF performance

- full frame for the performance? (which seems to suit my intended subject matter best and what I'm leaning towards) at the cost of ... well cost.

- mirrorless for bandwagon rights, slight space savings, foot on the path with new tech gaining steam?

Just so confused haha. Also unfortunately, there are zero camera stores within 100's of kms of my location so it's not feasible to test or rent. This will be a sight unseen online purchase based on careful consideration. On that note I thank you for the last 1/2 hr of your time and consideration!

 

[RedOctobyr]

I was looking for something capable, but which could also be brought hiking. I'd been looking most closely at the Canon 70D, or perhaps the Nikon D7100 (D7200 was kind of out of my budget). I got a bunch of suggestions for mirrorless, for my purposes.

You want small size for hiking, skiing, etc. The APS-C DSLRs that I looked at, including 70D and D7200, were substantially larger and heavier than the mirrorless bodies I looked at. Nice ergonomics, but quite a bit bigger. Getting to handle them in-person did admittedly help better understand the size difference.

But camerasize.com is a good tool for size comparisons, if you haven't checked it already. This shows the mirrorless Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II (what I bought, which is weathersealed), vs the Canon 70D and Nikon D7200:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#594,469,611,ha,f

Micro Four Thirds mirrorless sensors are smaller than APS-C, and currently 16MP. That may not be enough for your goals. The Fuji mirrorless have APS-C sensors, which might help.

For IQ and low-light performance, the APS-C sensors will be better than Micro Four Thirds. The Nikon sensors have a better reputation for IQ than Canon.

You can get quite-compact ("pancake") lenses for Micro Four Thirds cameras (others too, I'm sure), if being compact is a priority. For when you need better optical performance, you could use a larger, better lens.

Do note that you need a weather-sealed body, and a weather-sealed lens, to get the real benefit of sealing. My body (E-M5 Mark II) is sealed, and I have one weather-sealed lens, so I have a combo that I can use in light rain.

Everything is a compromise. You can't really get tiny/lightweight, and great resolution and low-light performance, all in one package. You may need to give up a little on some criteria.

 

[KCook]

Do i...

- APS-C for slightly smaller size/weight/lens prices at the cost of FF performance

The lens price advantage is greater than "slightly", so long as your are Ok with consumer grade lenses.

- full frame for the performance? (which seems to suit my intended subject matter best and what I'm leaning towards) at the cost of ... well cost.

A very good choice for prime lenses. The weight of the zoom lenses is really significant.

- mirrorless for bandwagon rights, slight space savings, foot on the path with new tech gaining steam?

At least for M4/3, the space savings is greater than "slight". New tech is huge for some folks, means little to some, what devils tempt you?

Just so confused haha. Also unfortunately, there are zero camera stores within 100's of kms of my location so it's not feasible to test or rent. This will be a sight unseen online purchase based on careful consideration.

Then at least buy from a seller with a great reputation for easy returns.

After Information Overload, how about Opinion Overload? Linkys -

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9566705626/buying-a-dslr-or-interchangeable-lens-camera

I can't decide between two cameras, also: mirrorless as an option

Stuck in the middle of DSLR vs mirrorless - Landscapes

Unbiased review on Sony A7 II

Canon 700D vs Olympus E-M10 (vs ?)

Kelly Cook

 

[Ido Scharf]

- not brand loyal (yet) but would feel 'safer' in terms of technology stability/life span going with Canon/Nikon and somewhat Sony.

I'm sure some could argue that the future isn't bright for Canon and Nikon. Either way, you should be more concerned with the present: Find the camera (system) that serves you well right now. If your needs/requirements change in the future, you will hopefully be skilled enough by then to make up for any deficiencies of the equipment.

- for prints up to 36" x 48"

If my math is right, that would require a 155MP resolution for 300 ppi or 100MP for 240 ppi. Even the Nikon D810's 36MP resolution, which was the highest of any camera (barring Medium Format) not too long ago, will only give you about 150 ppi at native resolution. But still, photographers do print at those sizes, and have done so with much lower-resolution cameras in the past. So what gives?

• Not printing at high resolution (ppi). Large prints are often made to be looked at a bit from afar, to see the entire image at once. If you look at a photo from a good distance, you won't see the faults of lower resolution.
• Stitching multiple images (panorama). That's what I do, as I have a couple of 150 x 50 cm (60" x 20") prints hanging on a wall. Only works for mostly static scenes, though.
• Up-scaling using software. With good software and good use of it, you can double or even quadruple the resolution and actually get more perceived detail. If you print via a lab, you should be able to request this treatment for you photo.

IQ and low light performance
I'd really like to try astrophotography, lots of hand held,

I hope you realize that those two don't go hand-in-hand. You literally can't take night-sky photos handheld — there's no way you'll be able to get fast-enough shutter speeds. You have to use a tripod for this one.

probably not much sporting or fast action shooting. Mountain top landscape vistas, macro cats and flowers, and everything slow moving in between?

The current lines of mirrorless cameras should be perfectly fine for your needs.

Small(ish)(er)
- Should be small enough to travel. ie mountain hiking, backcountry dual sport motorcycling, skiing(?). I just need to make sure I can actually take it with me everywhere without being too cumbersome. I don't want a monster, but do understand even mirrorless aren't 'small' when lensed.

That depends on the lens and the sensor size. If you go for a Micro Four Thirds system, you won't have any problem — only the f/2.8 zooms from Olympus are kind of large, at least the 40-150mm f/2.8, but even then they're not so big and heavy.

Nevertheless, many photographers do hike, ski and do all those activities even with full-frame DSLRs. It's not like that's impossible, more a personal preference. I know I'd much rather carry a Micro Four Thirds kit.

1. Nikon D3100
Why? Because Ken Rockwell said so and I don't know squiddly dot.

Well, he has finally updated his list of recommendations, and now the D3300 is his primary suggestion of "the best camera for most things." Well, that depends on what those "things" are.

2. Canon 70D
Why? Great reviews, still within budget, still one of the 'big two', better specs, weather sealed

3. Canon 6D
Why? Fantastic reviews, still kinda within budget, superior low light perf. and high IQ, Full Frame. For the cost difference from the 70D it felt like an easy decision to have the FF performance/DOF.

Only if you can use lenses with the same f-number. With the 70D being $500 cheaper, you could possibly get a lens that is more than 1-stop faster, thus making up for that difference. But then it won't be any lighter.

- mirrorless for … slight space savings, …

Smaller volume won't do you any good. For the gear to be easier to carry around everywhere, it has to be lighter, not smaller. And for the lenses to be lighter, you have to compromise somewhere.

I keep coming back to Micro Four Thirds. If your low light shooting will be mostly of static subjects, definitely consider the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II. This camera has an incredible in-body image stabilization, that can compensate for camera shake and give you sharper results at slow shutter speeds, handheld. Olympus quotes 5 stops — if you had to use a 1/60 sec. shutter speed to get a sharp images without this stabilization, you will now be able to get the same results at 1/2 sec., according to Olympus. Take this with a grain of salt, but still it should be effective for at least 3.5 stops. Combine that with a fast prime, of which there are many options in Micro Four Thirds — and they're small and lightweight — and you can shoot at very dark environments.

This camera also has a nice feature called Hi-Res Mode, which uses that image stabilization system to get a much higher-resolution image — I think it's 64MP for Raw files, and slightly less than 50MP for out-of-camera JPEG. That can certainly help with those large prints you want to make. Keep in mind, though, that this is strictly a tripod-only shooting mode, and it's only useful for absolutely static scenes — even grass that's slightly blowing in the wind won't turn out well.

Just so confused haha. Also unfortunately, there are zero camera stores within 100's of kms of my location so it's not feasible to test or rent. This will be a sight unseen online purchase based on careful consideration.

If you live in the US, you can rent online through companies like Lens Rentals or Borrow Lenses. I'm sure there are similar services in other countries as well.

 

[Blue iBalls]

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. Two votes for the Olympus E-M5 II followed by two days of trying to find a reason not to like the bloody thing... can't do it. Pretty much every review says it's a great camera.

For output intent I should have said 24" x 36" not 48x36, my mistake! (standard poster size)... The following conservatively estimated chart of megapixels required to achieve acceptable ppi's at various print sizes suggests the 16 megapixels of the Olympus just might do it.

https://photographyicon.com/enlarge/

It really does seem like a nice little package. It's reputation in the weather sealing department is reassuring. Relatively small. Feature rich. The price...

In Canada Olympus is selling the body for $850 and there are a couple of lens deals when purchased with the body...

M.Zuiko ED f2.8 PRO
7-14mm = $1150
12-40mm = $800
40-150mm = $1300

I feel as excited about the E-M5 as each of the others I had in the shopping cart but eventually replaced. Just don't trust myself anymore, changed my mind so many times now haha. The Olympus sound like a keeper though... I should sleep on it, and consider lenses.

Cheers!

 

[Krusty79]

Any decent camera should be a substantial upgrade to your iPhone. But, some mirrorless cameras are really small WITH a lens. The Panasomic Lumix GM1/5 bodies are about the size of a deck of cards and their is a pancake 12-32 zoom that goes with them. Way lighter and smaller than carrying around a DSLR and lenses, as the M 4/3 sensors are smaller and the lenses can be made lighter and smaller too.

If you did go the APS-C route, the Sony A6000 is a good all around performer. But, the APS-C lenses are larger and heavier than the M 4/3 ones.

If you do go for weather sealed, the APS-C Fuji X-T1 is alternative to the Oympus, but the system will be heavier again.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/greg79
"You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature" - Larry Andersen

 

[golfhov]

Heyo! New to dpreview... my first post! I'm in the market for a 'real' camera and was hoping for some guidance on purchasing a new system. My iPhone 5 is really quite the little whipper snapper but I think it's time I soothed a mid-life rough patch with some spending action hehe. To be clear, I'm completely new to photography with a camera where 'auto' wasn't the only mode. I am, however, a graphic designer with 13yrs Photoshop experience: I know what quality looks like and I'm picky =]. My budget has expanded from $400 to $2500, so safe to say it's not much of a factor.

$2500 isnt so much when you factor lenses. Since you are new I would maybe get a kit lens and just one prime until you are committed to something

So far these are my self-imposed constraints, in order of relative importance (i think):

One reputable body to do it all
- not into buying multiple bodies atm ie. a second for lighter smaller travel
- not brand loyal (yet) but would feel 'safer' in terms of technology stability/life span going with Canon/Nikon and somewhat Sony.

Then you have to make a decision. If you are truly uncompromising then larger bodies and lenses are what you need. If protability is more important than you can go crop and save size and weight at the costs of IQ

Still images are priority #1
- primarily shooting stills
- therefore 4K not required, 1080p @ 60fps would be nice
- for prints up to 36" x 48" (at )

IQ and low light performance
- I'll be shooting lots of macro and landscapes, I'd really like to try astrophotography, lots of hand held, probably not much sporting or fast action shooting. Mountain top landscape vistas, macro cats and flowers, and everything slow moving in between?

This does not jive with your next pick

Small(ish)(er)
- Should be small enough to travel. ie mountain hiking, backcountry dual sport motorcycling, skiing(?). I just need to make sure I can actually take it with me everywhere without being too cumbersome. I don't want a monster, but do understand even mirrorless aren't 'small' when lensed.

Weather
- For sure electronics don't like bathing, and I'm not 'planning' on going swimming with my camera... but there shouldn't be any history of a spittle of rain causing issues (a7!). I'm not saying it needs full weather sealing, but I do plan to be out, active, everywhere with the camera and it might get wet (not salt water tho).

The A7 messed up by claiming weather sealing when it was not fully weathersealed. I have used mine in "spittle" as have many others with no problems. Spittle means something different to different people. That said if you know you want to shoot in wet weather there is no half measure. Buy weather sealed and sealed lenses

While researching I learned as I went, every answer leading to another question and re-evaluation of previous position (and of course the inevitable mental projection of what I 'think' I want and therefore need). Here's the progression and reasoning...

1. Nikon D3100
Why? Because Ken Rockwell said so and I don't know squiddly dot.

Honestly an inexpensive camera to learn on. You may decide this hobby is not for you

2. Canon 70D
Why? Great reviews, still within budget, still one of the 'big two', better specs, weather sealed

Nice camera but you are spending money on af(not important to you) and weathersealing(important to you)

3. Canon 6D
Why? Fantastic reviews, still kinda within budget, superior low light perf. and high IQ, Full Frame. For the cost difference from the 70D it felt like an easy decision to have the FF performance/DOF.

An IQ winner but not very compact.

4. Sony A7 II
Why? Full Frame, smaller for mobility/travel, 500k shutter count, sounds like superior technology and is not going anywhere. Someone asked, "If mirrorless came out first would DSLR tech even be considered for market?" to which I assumed the answer was a resounding 'NO'. Sounds logical to buy into the incumbent technology, even if it is 20% greater cost of ownership in the long run. Last night I almost bought the Sony A7 II with the kit zoom but decided to first do a Google search for "sony a7 sucks"... and Wow!

Heads up type anything sucks into google and the results will be similar

Lot's of folks claiming small amounts of water having adverse effects, too risky... plus the lenses are expensive and limited.

A7ii is another IQ winner and the limited lenses they have are mostly fantastic. Slightly more portable than the 6d

So anyways, to make a longer story longer... I'm feeling paralyzed after all this. What I realize is I'm letting my perception of quality be guided by spec sheets when in reality I don't know what the real life differences are. When I read posts with comparison photos the differences are plain as day, but would I notice them? The problem is I think I will, and I just don't want to waste my time.

My iPhone has proven "it's the photographer not the camera" through enough conversations that went something like, "Ohhh nice! Which camera are you using?". So yes, I may be splitting hairs, but this is an important decision to get right! Unfortunately the more I read the more swollen my head gets and the further from a confident decision I get.

Do i...

- APS-C for slightly smaller size/weight/lens prices at the cost of FF performance

APSC and MFT can both give you good results. It is just a matter of priorities.

- full frame for the performance? (which seems to suit my intended subject matter best and what I'm leaning towards) at the cost of ... well cost.

Yup. Full frame will set you back one way or the other. The 6d is not terribly expensive but it is one of the biggest heaviest options. The a7ii is the most expensive on your list depending on the lenses used it is still relatively portable.

- mirrorless for bandwagon rights, slight space savings, foot on the path with new tech gaining steam?

Just so confused haha. Also unfortunately, there are zero camera stores within 100's of kms of my location so it's not feasible to test or rent. This will be a sight unseen online purchase based on careful consideration. On that note I thank you for the last 1/2 hr of your time and consideration!

Well since you are new U would actually recommend a d3100 or an omd em 10. Both crop sensor. Both built in flash. Both with kit lenses and maybe add one prime. Th8s is way under your budget but it is a starting point. Than after you have some experience you can pick whether you want something more portable or want more IQ. This varies from user to user. What is to heavy is subjective. What is acceptable IQ is subjective. You have no baseline.

 

[Blue iBalls]

Hmm yes, the a6000 was considered too...

I've been won over by an Olympus E-M5 II with a M.Zuiko ED 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens. After all the reading, assessing, humming and haaing it was our hosts 4up photo comparison tool "Studio Shot" that gave me the perspective I needed. Although the E-M5 had inferior image quality at higher ISO than the others I'd been considering... what it does have going for it made it a winner (size, weather sealing, overall package). I gave my dad a call and told him about it, he said, "you didn't need to do that, I've got an Asahi Pentax MX you can have." Haha so that's why I like the E-M5's 80's styling. =]

Looking quite forward to this package arriving!

 

[Blue iBalls]

eggzackly... agree with everything you said. Maybe by the time I'm needing more image quality the full frame mirrorless market will have rounded out a little more too. I went with the EM-5II over the A7 II because the difference in image quality (for my purposes) didn't outweigh the size and weather sealing benefits of the E-M5II.

 

[golfhov]

Have fun with your em5 ii. It is a great camera. Full frame will always have a disadvantage in size and weight. It is just sheer physics. You may also decide that MFT is perfect for you. At some point everyone says enough is enough.