Best small camera with good viewfinder?

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Impulses wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Impulses wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Impulses wrote:

Disdain wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

Disdain wrote:

Is the G85 as good a viewfinder as the FZ1000? I know it's still a big heavy camera.

I have both G80 (G85) and FZ1000*...

The G80 body alone is not so big and heavy compared to the FZ1000?

It's your choice of lens that will determine whether it's bigger/heavier or smaller/lighter overall...

As for the viewfinders, I personally find them very similar. Which I guess is not surprising given their technical specs are pretty much the same? (G80 maybe slightly higher magnification? I dunno, different sites seems to list different values for each)

BTW, G85 is 16MP sensor. If the resolution is important to you, that would be a step back vs the FZ1000's 20MP. Note that the G90 (G95) has 20MP sensor.

*I'm using a G90 instead of the G80 now though, and only using the FZ1000 for its high-speed video these days. (G90 has high speed video but no autofocus for it whatsoever - manual focus only, or use the mode dial to switch to a mode that autofocuses, then switch to movie mode to start recording. That's almost useless for my purposes, where the FZ1000 at least autofocuses until you start recording, then fixed-focus)

Yeah if I use small primes it will keep the G80 down in size, although it might look silly with small lenses attached. Do you find the G90 a big improvement over the G80? I know it's bigger again in size and weight.

In addition to the improvements mentioned by Hatstand, the G95 did incur more of a crop on 4K video than the G85 IIRC, so that might be a potential downside, the Sony 20MP sensor also handles long exposures much better than the previous gen 16MP Pana sensor tho so that's another improvement.

Is the 16 MP sensor in the EM10 II from Sony or Panny? I thought it was from Sony?

It is a Sony, the only 16MP Pana sensor that Oly ever used was a custom one-off in the original E-M1 and that one had some of the same long exposure limitations.

Is the 20 MP sensor from Sony better than that one too for long exposures? In what ways? Thanks!

All of Sony sensors (the various 16MP iterations and the two 20MP in use with very different readout rates) have the same advantage when it comes to long exposures AFAIK (versus the last 16MP Pana made). There's a good example of this in Cameralabs' E-M5 II (not III) review IIRC.

Basically the Pana sensors just show a lot more hot (bright) pixels during a long exposure, to the point where you can shoot the Sony sensor without dark frame NR and still match the results of the Pana with it. That's probably why Pana made a big increase to the max bulb times of their bodies in the GX9 & G95.

Thanks, I had always wondered about that! Do the max bulb times of Panny cameras like the GX9 and G95 now match Oly's? In my camera I think it is 20 minutes?

Not quite sure but I think it's in their respective manuals.

I noticed you also mentioned readout rates and I also wondered why the differences in electronic shutter between Olympus and Panny. Which sensor would you say is the best for using electronic shutter the most?

There might be other differences in e-shutter implemention even when they use the same sensors, since the one sensor can be configured to work a number of ways (IIRC the G9 had some differences vs say the E-M1 II depending on the ISO level)... For using a lot of e-shutter I'd want something with a faster readout regardless of bit depth etc., so the 1/60 sensors in the G9 (GH5?) / E-M5 III / E-M1 II & III, or the much faster one in the OM-1 (~1/125?).

With anything slower you're risking more rolling shutter distortion and/or light banding when using e-shutter for general shooting, which accounts for most other bodies out there without a stacked sensor (a couple Canon RF bodies w/o one can also manage ~1/60).

Thanks, so the E-M5 III has a fast enough readout speed to use electronic shutter even for BIF and fast action?

Sometimes, 1/60 is still not as fast as the stacked sensor bodies (OM-1, A9/1, Z9, R3, X-H2S, etc.) which read it at 1/120-1/250, AFAIK the latter is closer to the actual travel speed of a mechanical shutter (which can also show rolling shutter under extreme enough circumstances, it's just far less likely)... So the E-M5 III and the last two E-M1 are halfway there.

From what I've seen you probably wouldn't get rolling shutter distortion on a lot of gliding or larger birds, or humans moving on their own power; but you might get it on a ball if it's been thrown/passed fast enough, or a car racing thru the frame, or a hummingbird that's flapping it's wings quite quickly (seen it particularly there where the wing can end up looking twisted).

scphoto wrote:

Disdain wrote:

scphoto wrote:

Disdain wrote:

I've just sold my FZ1000 II. The view finder was excellent, but found I wasn't taking it enough to places as it's too big. I don't mind big if I'm going to an airshow or a zoo, but I don't always want it that big and heavy.

I want to return to M43 after trying a Sony A6000, but not really getting on with the handling or EVF. I've previously owned lots of M43 cameras - GX800, GX85, GX7, GX9, OM-D EM10 II, PEN E-PL9. I haven't been convinced by the view finder on any of those, to the point that I never used to use it.

Is the G85 as good a viewfinder as the FZ1000? I know it's still a big heavy camera. Has the viewfinder improved on the EM10 III or IV over the II?

Are the EM5 II, III, or even GX8 or original EM1 I worth looking at?

Disdain -

You say that you want to get a new camera PRIMARILY because your FZ1000ii is too "big and heavy". That camera (with a 24-400 mm lens and a 1 inch sensor) weights 28.5 ounces (808g). One of the smaller m4/3 recommended was the Oly E-M5iii. It weighs 15.9 ounces (450g) WITHOUT the lens. If you attach a Oly 12-200mm F3.5-6.3 lens that ADDS an additional 16 ounces (455g). The total weight of this combo is slightly more than the FZ1000ii which you feel is "too heavy". Also, at the max equiv. zoom (400mm) the FZ1000ii has a much faster lens (but a slightly smaller sensor.

You don't mention what type of photography requires the smaller weight/size. For me personally, the smallest, lightest, and most versatile pocketable camera is the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII which has a 1 inch sensor and a 24-200 zoom at f/2.8-4.5. It takes great shots and I often carry it along with my Oly/Panasonic cameras/lenses. Actually, the price of a new E-M5iii + a reasonable llens may cost more than a new RX100VII

Don't get me wrong ... I think m4/3 offers many great smaller/lighter options and that, in large part, is why I mostly use m4/3 system for my photography. But having a great pocket camera like the Sony RX100 is a very useful and easy to carry companion for my m4/3 equipment.

Just my two cents (0.019 Euros) ...

- Simon

I don't mind the fz1000 size but didn't always want that size if I'm taking it where I don't need a massive zoom range. That's why going back to mirrorless is my best option. Anything pocketable is pointless for me now as phone is my small compact.

Disdain -

I agree that today's smart phones take great shots. They are especially good for closeups and portraits. Very importantly, most of us carry one with all at all times. There's the old saying "The best camera is the one you have with you when you want to take a photo.". This certainly applies to smart phones.

I'm not going to try to do a side by side image comparison of the Sony RX100 with my iPhone. But take a look at the sensor sizes: The largest of the three iPhone 13 sensor has an area about 44mm, while the 1" sensor is 108mm in area. Yes, a larger sensor and more megapixels won't guarantee better photos than a smartphone, but I think it helps.

HOWEVER ... I believe that you won't find a m4/3 or a camera that uses at least a 1" that is both lighter/smaller and takes better photos than the Sony RX100. My RX100VI weights about 11 oz. (300g) which is almost exactly what my iPhone weights. It's about the size of a package of cigarettes. The newer RX100VII has a 24-200mm equiv. zoom with f/2.8-4.5 and flip screen.

Being a m4/3 fan (like me) doesn't mean that one shouldn't consider other brands/formats if they better fit one's needs.

Good luck ...

- Simon

A GM1/5 is actually marginally smaller and lighter than an RX100 body, 'course it's about 2/3rds to 2x thicker once you put even a pancake on it, but it's operating in a different performance/ light-gathering envelope with that fast pancake or other tiny lenses like the 35-100 f4-5.6. At the same time the RX100 has AF & EVF advantages even vs more modern small bodies like a GX850/880.

The RX100 VII's lens is an f3.8-7.6 lens in M4/3 equivalency (or f7.6-15 in FF equivalency), I can see an argument why it's easily the most versatile pocket camera in the market, but for tele needs alongside a M4/3 kit I think I'd rather carry an actual tiny tele rather than a whole other camera... The 35-100 f4-5.6 is 135g, the 42.5/1.7 is 130g, the 35-100/2.8 is around 350g IIRC.

That's just me tho, it's nice to have options, we're spoiled for camera options these days and I'm not sure it'll last so it's definitely worth exploring and enjoying them while it lasts.

Disdain wrote:

scphoto wrote:

Disdain wrote:

scphoto wrote:

Disdain wrote:

I've just sold my FZ1000 II. The view finder was excellent, but found I wasn't taking it enough to places as it's too big. I don't mind big if I'm going to an airshow or a zoo, but I don't always want it that big and heavy.

I want to return to M43 after trying a Sony A6000, but not really getting on with the handling or EVF. I've previously owned lots of M43 cameras - GX800, GX85, GX7, GX9, OM-D EM10 II, PEN E-PL9. I haven't been convinced by the view finder on any of those, to the point that I never used to use it.

Is the G85 as good a viewfinder as the FZ1000? I know it's still a big heavy camera. Has the viewfinder improved on the EM10 III or IV over the II?

Are the EM5 II, III, or even GX8 or original EM1 I worth looking at?

Disdain -

You say that you want to get a new camera PRIMARILY because your FZ1000ii is too "big and heavy". That camera (with a 24-400 mm lens and a 1 inch sensor) weights 28.5 ounces (808g). One of the smaller m4/3 recommended was the Oly E-M5iii. It weighs 15.9 ounces (450g) WITHOUT the lens. If you attach a Oly 12-200mm F3.5-6.3 lens that ADDS an additional 16 ounces (455g). The total weight of this combo is slightly more than the FZ1000ii which you feel is "too heavy". Also, at the max equiv. zoom (400mm) the FZ1000ii has a much faster lens (but a slightly smaller sensor.

You don't mention what type of photography requires the smaller weight/size. For me personally, the smallest, lightest, and most versatile pocketable camera is the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII which has a 1 inch sensor and a 24-200 zoom at f/2.8-4.5. It takes great shots and I often carry it along with my Oly/Panasonic cameras/lenses. Actually, the price of a new E-M5iii + a reasonable llens may cost more than a new RX100VII

Don't get me wrong ... I think m4/3 offers many great smaller/lighter options and that, in large part, is why I mostly use m4/3 system for my photography. But having a great pocket camera like the Sony RX100 is a very useful and easy to carry companion for my m4/3 equipment.

Just my two cents (0.019 Euros) ...

- Simon

I don't mind the fz1000 size but didn't always want that size if I'm taking it where I don't need a massive zoom range. That's why going back to mirrorless is my best option. Anything pocketable is pointless for me now as phone is my small compact.

Disdain -

I agree that today's smart phones take great shots. They are especially good for closeups and portraits. Very importantly, most of us carry one with all at all times. There's the old saying "The best camera is the one you have with you when you want to take a photo.". This certainly applies to smart phones.

I'm not going to try to do a side by side image comparison of the Sony RX100 with my iPhone. But take a look at the sensor sizes: The largest of the three iPhone 13 sensor has an area about 44mm, while the 1" sensor is 108mm in area. Yes, a larger sensor and more megapixels won't guarantee better photos than a smartphone, but I think it helps.

HOWEVER ... I believe that you won't find a m4/3 or a camera that uses at least a 1" that is both lighter/smaller and takes better photos than the Sony RX100. My RX100VI weights about 11 oz. (300g) which is almost exactly what my iPhone weights. It's about the size of a package of cigarettes. The newer RX100VII has a 24-200mm equiv. zoom with f/2.8-4.5 and flip screen.

Being a m4/3 fan (like me) doesn't mean that one shouldn't consider other brands/formats if they better fit one's needs.

Good luck ...

- Simon

Hi Simon. You can't fault the rx100 image quality. It punches above its weight. I found I've never enjoyed using them though. Part of photography for me is the feel the camera gives me.

Disdain -

Everyone is different and your choices seem to make a lot of sense given your needs and preferences.

I use my RX100 primarily for travel. Also, I'll carry my GX9 with some smaller fast lenses for low light shooting (e.g., inside a cathedral), but I don't like to carry it with me at all times, especially in the evening. Unless I'm shooting wildlife, no large lens when I try to travel as light as possible.

My RX100 is the perfect pocketable travel camera for me.

One last suggestion ... keep your FZ1000 for situations that you might feel are hazardous to your more expensive m4/3 bodies/lenses. I recently went on a whale watching trip to the middle of nowhere in Baja Mexico. I had never been there before so I didn't want to bring a few thousand of dollars of camera equipment that I just might drop in the ocean. (Yes, I'm clumsy and uncoordinated.) I brought my old FZ150 and I got some great shots even though the camera is about 10 years old? I really like the Panny superzooms.

Impulses wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Impulses wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Impulses wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Impulses wrote:

Disdain wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

Disdain wrote:

Is the G85 as good a viewfinder as the FZ1000? I know it's still a big heavy camera.

I have both G80 (G85) and FZ1000*...

The G80 body alone is not so big and heavy compared to the FZ1000?

It's your choice of lens that will determine whether it's bigger/heavier or smaller/lighter overall...

As for the viewfinders, I personally find them very similar. Which I guess is not surprising given their technical specs are pretty much the same? (G80 maybe slightly higher magnification? I dunno, different sites seems to list different values for each)

BTW, G85 is 16MP sensor. If the resolution is important to you, that would be a step back vs the FZ1000's 20MP. Note that the G90 (G95) has 20MP sensor.

*I'm using a G90 instead of the G80 now though, and only using the FZ1000 for its high-speed video these days. (G90 has high speed video but no autofocus for it whatsoever - manual focus only, or use the mode dial to switch to a mode that autofocuses, then switch to movie mode to start recording. That's almost useless for my purposes, where the FZ1000 at least autofocuses until you start recording, then fixed-focus)

Yeah if I use small primes it will keep the G80 down in size, although it might look silly with small lenses attached. Do you find the G90 a big improvement over the G80? I know it's bigger again in size and weight.

In addition to the improvements mentioned by Hatstand, the G95 did incur more of a crop on 4K video than the G85 IIRC, so that might be a potential downside, the Sony 20MP sensor also handles long exposures much better than the previous gen 16MP Pana sensor tho so that's another improvement.

Is the 16 MP sensor in the EM10 II from Sony or Panny? I thought it was from Sony?

It is a Sony, the only 16MP Pana sensor that Oly ever used was a custom one-off in the original E-M1 and that one had some of the same long exposure limitations.

Is the 20 MP sensor from Sony better than that one too for long exposures? In what ways? Thanks!

All of Sony sensors (the various 16MP iterations and the two 20MP in use with very different readout rates) have the same advantage when it comes to long exposures AFAIK (versus the last 16MP Pana made). There's a good example of this in Cameralabs' E-M5 II (not III) review IIRC.

Basically the Pana sensors just show a lot more hot (bright) pixels during a long exposure, to the point where you can shoot the Sony sensor without dark frame NR and still match the results of the Pana with it. That's probably why Pana made a big increase to the max bulb times of their bodies in the GX9 & G95.

Thanks, I had always wondered about that! Do the max bulb times of Panny cameras like the GX9 and G95 now match Oly's? In my camera I think it is 20 minutes?

Not quite sure but I think it's in their respective manuals.

I noticed you also mentioned readout rates and I also wondered why the differences in electronic shutter between Olympus and Panny. Which sensor would you say is the best for using electronic shutter the most?

There might be other differences in e-shutter implemention even when they use the same sensors, since the one sensor can be configured to work a number of ways (IIRC the G9 had some differences vs say the E-M1 II depending on the ISO level)... For using a lot of e-shutter I'd want something with a faster readout regardless of bit depth etc., so the 1/60 sensors in the G9 (GH5?) / E-M5 III / E-M1 II & III, or the much faster one in the OM-1 (~1/125?).

With anything slower you're risking more rolling shutter distortion and/or light banding when using e-shutter for general shooting, which accounts for most other bodies out there without a stacked sensor (a couple Canon RF bodies w/o one can also manage ~1/60).

Thanks, so the E-M5 III has a fast enough readout speed to use electronic shutter even for BIF and fast action?

Sometimes, 1/60 is still not as fast as the stacked sensor bodies (OM-1, A9/1, Z9, R3, X-H2S, etc.) which read it at 1/120-1/250, AFAIK the latter is closer to the actual travel speed of a mechanical shutter (which can also show rolling shutter under extreme enough circumstances, it's just far less likely)... So the E-M5 III and the last two E-M1 are halfway there.

From what I've seen you probably wouldn't get rolling shutter distortion on a lot of gliding or larger birds, or humans moving on their own power; but you might get it on a ball if it's been thrown/passed fast enough, or a car racing thru the frame, or a hummingbird that's flapping it's wings quite quickly (seen it particularly there where the wing can end up looking twisted).

I may need to stick to mechanical for hummingbirds then lol, as I have a hummingbird feeder and I want to do tripod photography of them there.  But for the other kind of photography I do, especially astrophotography and other types of birds landing and taking off from a perch or a feeder, I'm fine with the electronic shutter? I also use it because it's noiseless and maximizes the frame rate!

Disdain wrote:

I ended up buying a cheap used Olympus OM-D EM10 iii. Will see how I get on! I'd had another go on someone's EM10 i and found it fine.

keep us posted - would love to hear what you think of it.

Disdain wrote:

scphoto wrote:

wrote:

scphoto wrote:

Disdain wrote:

I've just sold my FZ1000 II. The view finder was excellent, but found I wasn't taking it enough to places as it's too big. I don't mind big if I'm going to an airshow or a zoo, but I don't always want it that big and heavy.

I want to return to M43 after trying a Sony A6000, but not really getting on with the handling or EVF. I've previously owned lots of M43 cameras - GX800, GX85, GX7, GX9, OM-D EM10 II, PEN E-PL9. I haven't been convinced by the view finder on any of those, to the point that I never used to use it.

Is the G85 as good a viewfinder as the FZ1000? I know it's still a big heavy camera. Has the viewfinder improved on the EM10 III or IV over the II?

Are the EM5 II, III, or even GX8 or original EM1 I worth looking at?

Disdain -

You say that you want to get a new camera PRIMARILY because your FZ1000ii is too "big and heavy". That camera (with a 24-400 mm lens and a 1 inch sensor) weights 28.5 ounces (808g). One of the smaller m4/3 recommended was the Oly E-M5iii. It weighs 15.9 ounces (450g) WITHOUT the lens. If you attach a Oly 12-200mm F3.5-6.3 lens that ADDS an additional 16 ounces (455g). The total weight of this combo is slightly more than the FZ1000ii which you feel is "too heavy". Also, at the max equiv. zoom (400mm) the FZ1000ii has a much faster lens (but a slightly smaller sensor.

You don't mention what type of photography requires the smaller weight/size. For me personally, the smallest, lightest, and most versatile pocketable camera is the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII which has a 1 inch sensor and a 24-200 zoom at f/2.8-4.5. It takes great shots and I often carry it along with my Oly/Panasonic cameras/lenses. Actually, the price of a new E-M5iii + a reasonable llens may cost more than a new RX100VII

Don't get me wrong ... I think m4/3 offers many great smaller/lighter options and that, in large part, is why I mostly use m4/3 system for my photography. But having a great pocket camera like the Sony RX100 is a very useful and easy to carry companion for my m4/3 equipment.

Just my two cents (0.019 Euros) ...

- Simon

I don't mind the fz1000 size but didn't always want that size if I'm taking it where I don't need a massive zoom range. That's why going back to mirrorless is my best option. Anything pocketable is pointless for me now as phone is my small compact.

Disdain -

I agree that today's smart phones take great shots. They are especially good for closeups and portraits. Very importantly, most of us carry one with all at all times. There's the old saying "The best camera is the one you have with you when you want to take a photo.". This certainly applies to smart phones.

I'm not going to try to do a side by side image comparison of the Sony RX100 with my iPhone. But take a look at the sensor sizes: The largest of the three iPhone 13 sensor has an area about 44mm, while the 1" sensor is 108mm in area. Yes, a larger sensor and more megapixels won't guarantee better photos than a smartphone, but I think it helps.

HOWEVER ... I believe that you won't find a m4/3 or a camera that uses at least a 1" that is both lighter/smaller and takes better photos than the Sony RX100. My RX100VI weights about 11 oz. (300g) which is almost exactly what my iPhone weights. It's about the size of a package of cigarettes. The newer RX100VII has a 24-200mm equiv. zoom with f/2.8-4.5 and flip screen.

Being a m4/3 fan (like me) doesn't mean that one shouldn't consider other brands/formats if they better fit one's needs.

Good luck ...

- Simon

Hi Simon. You can't fault the rx100 image quality. It punches above its weight. I found I've never enjoyed using them though. Part of photography for me is the feel the camera gives me.

For me, the JPEG output of the RX100m3 is crappy.  However, if I process the RAW files in Lightroom the results are excellent up to ISO800

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

joeletx wrote:

I played with a Sony RX100 version at Best Buy and was amazed by the shear size and usability. I didn't buy it because I didn't need one, but this is what I probably buy when I decide to downsize. I have not owned a GM-1 but I can't imagine it would do better despite sensor size advantages. The RX100 have usable EVF too.

Thats the one with the 24-600mm lens right?

No, the RX100 is the small camera with either a 24-200mm or 24-70mm lens, depending on version, plus a pop-up EVF. The RX10 III & IV have the 24-600mm lens.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Disdain wrote:

I've just sold my FZ1000 II. The view finder was excellent, but found I wasn't taking it enough to places as it's too big. I don't mind big if I'm going to an airshow or a zoo, but I don't always want it that big and heavy.

I want to return to M43 after trying a Sony A6000, but not really getting on with the handling or EVF. I've previously owned lots of M43 cameras - GX800, GX85, GX7, GX9, OM-D EM10 II, PEN E-PL9. I haven't been convinced by the view finder on any of those, to the point that I never used to use it.

Is the G85 as good a viewfinder as the FZ1000? I know it's still a big heavy camera. Has the viewfinder improved on the EM10 III or IV over the II?

Are the EM5 II, III, or even GX8 or original EM1 I worth looking at?

Perhaps looking for something that does not exist. Large viewfinder and small camera body something of an oxymoron I think.

Best go for the G9 and get the best evf and not worry too much about the body size.

Spot on Tom, I went from the FZ1000 to the G9 mainly for the skin tone difference, the G9 is amazing imho, I would love it to be smaller /lighter but I have made weight savings by changing my bag to a lighter  plus I dont carry my Gorilla Pod anymore. Its all a compromise I doubt what the OPs looking for will ever exist with the specs I want.

Disdain wrote:

I ended up buying a cheap used Olympus OM-D EM10 iii. Will see how I get on! I'd had another go on someone's EM10 i and found it fine.

I have the mii; I imagine the miii will bring you joy as well!

Marie