Torn between MFT camera options to buy as a beginner for casual photography

Alternately, here's an open box m10 iii with the 14-42 pancake for a great price.

https://www.henrys.com/used-olympus-e-m10-iii-black-14-42-ob-9/5637236855.p

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

If you are looking for a deal this week I saw the g7 on amazon on sale for about 499usd.

The g85 is better in general though.

any of the items you mentioned will work for learning photography.

so good luck.

Ordering that G7 on US Amazon from Canada will cost nearly $800 CAD while here the G7 with the kit lens retails for $799 and the G85 with the kit lens retails for just $100 more at $899. I may wait for Black Friday and find out if the G85 will be discounted close to $700. Might not happen but who knows.

Longdolphin01 wrote:

Buy this: https://www.henrys.com/used-olympus-omd-e-m5-silver-8/5637235934.p

Woo! Solved it! Enjoy all the leftover money!

I know you said Henrys is bad, but you didn't explain why. I've had great results buying used from them and they have a two week return window if it's not what you expected.

Reading the low-rated reviews makes it clear that they're hit-and-miss.

Sensenacai wrote:

Longdolphin01 wrote:

Buy this: https://www.henrys.com/used-olympus-omd-e-m5-silver-8/5637235934.p

Woo! Solved it! Enjoy all the leftover money!

I know you said Henrys is bad, but you didn't explain why. I've had great results buying used from them and they have a two week return window if it's not what you expected.

Reading the low-rated reviews makes it clear that they're hit-and-miss.

I've had several good experiences with Henry's.

I generally throw out the worst and the best reviews. Look at the ones in the middle, the ones that have "but" in them. That will tell you a whole lot more than looking at the bottom feeders.

There's always going to be people who aren't happy with anything, people who get their jollies by bad-mouthing everyone.

Max5150 wrote:

If I were looking for a fantastic walk around camera I'd get the EM5.3.

That's the only non-E-M1 that has PDAF.

This means you can make decent use of older 4/3rds lenses, many of which are selling for a song these days, and some of which (the SHG line) are still mostly unmatched in the 4/3rds or µ4/3rds lines.

Jan Steinman wrote:

Sensenacai wrote:

Longdolphin01 wrote:

Buy this: https://www.henrys.com/used-olympus-omd-e-m5-silver-8/5637235934.p

Woo! Solved it! Enjoy all the leftover money!

I know you said Henrys is bad, but you didn't explain why. I've had great results buying used from them and they have a two week return window if it's not what you expected.

Reading the low-rated reviews makes it clear that they're hit-and-miss.

I've had several good experiences with Henry's.

I generally throw out the worst and the best reviews. Look at the ones in the middle, the ones that have "but" in them. That will tell you a whole lot more than looking at the bottom feeders.

There's always going to be people who aren't happy with anything, people who get their jollies by bad-mouthing everyone.

Maybe I'm being overly critical and paranoid then but I still prefer to tread with caution, though maybe too much caution at times.

Sensenacai wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Good plan! B&H is a safe route, with a good return policy (at least on new gear).

My first M43 was the GX7 and I was never disappointed with the results. I found a deal on an E-M10 (original version) and picked it up to try the other M43 "flavor", and used them both side by side for some time. Eventually I decided to remain with the Olympus because, being left eye dominant, I preferred the center EVF.

Either way you will get a good start, and B&H takes a lot of the risk out of the deal.

I was told elsewhere that the GX7 still produces great image quality for today's standards but you did mention a few comments back that the tech in it is quite old.

I think that the newer cameras have much better stabilization, although the Panasonic lens are all stabilized which helps. Sharp images need steady hands ….. or good stabilization.

Also the GX7 was introduced in 2013 and a lot of tech advances have happened over the last 9 years.

AshleyMC wrote:

Regarding camera stores in Canada, online and physical, I personally have had many pleasant and professional transactions with Henry’s, Vistek, Canada Camera, The Camera Store, and some local stores in my city.

While we're listing, I had one good experience (my only experience) with Kerrisdale Cameras in SW BC.

They used to stock Olympus at their Victoria store, but didn't have any there the last time I was in.

AshleyMC wrote:

You should also be cautious about what you say which you have picked up from random hearsays. Many of your statements in this thread sound firm and definitive, even dismissive at times, yet you haven’t had any real practical experience with any of the subjects.

Regarding camera stores in Canada, online and physical, I personally have had many pleasant and professional transactions with Henry’s, Vistek, Canada Camera, The Camera Store, and some local stores in my city. I have also ordered from B&H and Adorama. Real people, real money, real gear, real experience.

Your OP’s title and contents stated 3 main things:

• beginner
• casual photography
• CAD 700 budget

Yet the thread goes on and on with suggestions, opinions, discussions, objections, rejections, debates, doubts…

Nothing I can refute there.

I realize I haven't been thankful enough for all the responses and it must be an embarrassing spectacle to see the way I've dragged on the thread up to this point in a mentally challenged manner like the way you described with the last sentence.

gary0319 wrote:

Sensenacai wrote:

I was told elsewhere that the GX7 still produces great image quality for today's standards but you did mention a few comments back that the tech in it is quite old.

I think that the newer cameras have much better stabilization, although the Panasonic lens are all stabilized which helps. Sharp images need steady hands ….. or good stabilization.

I hate to correct, but most of the wider angle Panasonic prime lenses are not stabilized.

Also the GX7 was introduced in 2013 and a lot of tech advances have happened over the last 9 years.

For purely optimizing image quality / price ratio, GX7 is a very good choice.

To put things in perspective, we could make a totally subjective image quality rating from 0-10 for different camera kits (camera + lens; 10 being the best score).

Let's say that a camera of a typical $300€ smartphone would get a score of 2, and a recent high end full frame camera would get a score between 6 - 9.5, depending on the lens. Compared to them, then perhaps latest and greatest Micro Four Thirds camera would get a score between 5 and 8, depending on the lens. GX7 would then get something like from 4.5 to 7, depending on the lens.

The numbers are arbitrary and not important as such, the point is simply to show what matters the most. Perhaps the most important choice is whether to go with a smartphone, a Micro Four Thirds or a full frame camera. Equally or even more important is the lens choice. The choice of camera body is the least important, assuming the body options are all somewhat recent (GX7 qualifies). I think most will agree that in most situations a GX7 with good optics provides better images than a flagship Micro Four Thirds model with a mediocre kit lens.

As mentioned, there are a lot of other features in cameras that matter. It's highly personal if those features are important or not. I consider most of the features as unnecessary luxury, but ergonomics (mostly button layout and the overall user interface) are critically important to me.

pannumon wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Sensenacai wrote:

I was told elsewhere that the GX7 still produces great image quality for today's standards but you did mention a few comments back that the tech in it is quite old.

I think that the newer cameras have much better stabilization, although the Panasonic lens are all stabilized which helps. Sharp images need steady hands ….. or good stabilization.

I hate to correct, but most of the wider angle Panasonic prime lenses are not stabilized.

Also the GX7 was introduced in 2013 and a lot of tech advances have happened over the last 9 years.

For purely optimizing image quality / price ratio, GX7 is a very good choice.

To put things in perspective, we could make a totally subjective image quality rating from 0-10 for different camera kits (camera + lens; 10 being the best score).

Let's say that a camera of a typical $300€ smartphone would get a score of 2, and a recent high end full frame camera would get a score between 6 - 9.5, depending on the lens. Compared to them, then perhaps latest and greatest Micro Four Thirds camera would get a score between 5 and 8, depending on the lens. GX7 would then get something like from 4.5 to 7, depending on the lens.

The numbers are arbitrary and not important as such, the point is simply to show what matters the most. Perhaps the most important choice is whether to go with a smartphone, a Micro Four Thirds or a full frame camera. Equally or even more important is the lens choice. The choice of camera body is the least important, assuming the body options are all somewhat recent (GX7 qualifies). I think most will agree that in most situations a GX7 with good optics provides better images than a flagship Micro Four Thirds model with a mediocre kit lens.

As mentioned, there are a lot of other features in cameras that matter. It's highly personal if those features are important or not. I consider most of the features as unnecessary luxury, but ergonomics (mostly button layout and the overall user interface) are critically important to me.

Actually, the reason I opted not to keep the GX7 was because my nose continually moved the focus point because the left located EVF allowed my nose to activate the touch focusing (left eye shooter). Yes, the touch focusing can be disabled, but then I had to use the 4way and that meant disabling those default functions, if I recall. By the time I got it all sorted I had pretty much crip*led the poor GX7. So I agree the ergonomics were very important.

The OP’s problem is not being able to get a “feel” for these ergonomic issues before purchase….. tough situation, especially when buying used.

gary0319 wrote:

pannumon wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Sensenacai wrote:

I was told elsewhere that the GX7 still produces great image quality for today's standards but you did mention a few comments back that the tech in it is quite old.

I think that the newer cameras have much better stabilization, although the Panasonic lens are all stabilized which helps. Sharp images need steady hands ….. or good stabilization.

I hate to correct, but most of the wider angle Panasonic prime lenses are not stabilized.

Also the GX7 was introduced in 2013 and a lot of tech advances have happened over the last 9 years.

For purely optimizing image quality / price ratio, GX7 is a very good choice.

To put things in perspective, we could make a totally subjective image quality rating from 0-10 for different camera kits (camera + lens; 10 being the best score).

Let's say that a camera of a typical $300€ smartphone would get a score of 2, and a recent high end full frame camera would get a score between 6 - 9.5, depending on the lens. Compared to them, then perhaps latest and greatest Micro Four Thirds camera would get a score between 5 and 8, depending on the lens. GX7 would then get something like from 4.5 to 7, depending on the lens.

The numbers are arbitrary and not important as such, the point is simply to show what matters the most. Perhaps the most important choice is whether to go with a smartphone, a Micro Four Thirds or a full frame camera. Equally or even more important is the lens choice. The choice of camera body is the least important, assuming the body options are all somewhat recent (GX7 qualifies). I think most will agree that in most situations a GX7 with good optics provides better images than a flagship Micro Four Thirds model with a mediocre kit lens.

As mentioned, there are a lot of other features in cameras that matter. It's highly personal if those features are important or not. I consider most of the features as unnecessary luxury, but ergonomics (mostly button layout and the overall user interface) are critically important to me.

Actually, the reason I opted not to keep the GX7 was because my nose continually moved the focus point because the left located EVF allowed my nose to activate the touch focusing (left eye shooter). Yes, the touch focusing can be disabled, but then I had to use the 4way and that meant disabling those default functions, if I recall. By the time I got it all sorted I had pretty much crip*led the poor GX7. So I agree the ergonomics were very important.

The OP’s problem is not being able to get a “feel” for these ergonomic issues before purchase…..

Let's see. If we give a $400 phone camera an ergonomics score of 1 to 2 (depending if using the stock camera app or an aftermarket camera app), and any modern flagship camera costing more than $2,000 an ergonomics score from 7 to 10, then I think the GX7 deserves at least a 5. That is a huge improvement potential, even without getting a feel before purchase.

tough situation, especially when buying used.

Not really. A used GX7 with kit lens is quite inexpensive compared to better phones and more modern cameras. And it can be easily re-sold should ergonomics feel wanting, so the loss is minimal and many times over worth the learning experience gained.

cba_melbourne wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

pannumon wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Sensenacai wrote:

I was told elsewhere that the GX7 still produces great image quality for today's standards but you did mention a few comments back that the tech in it is quite old.

I think that the newer cameras have much better stabilization, although the Panasonic lens are all stabilized which helps. Sharp images need steady hands ….. or good stabilization.

I hate to correct, but most of the wider angle Panasonic prime lenses are not stabilized.

Also the GX7 was introduced in 2013 and a lot of tech advances have happened over the last 9 years.

For purely optimizing image quality / price ratio, GX7 is a very good choice.

To put things in perspective, we could make a totally subjective image quality rating from 0-10 for different camera kits (camera + lens; 10 being the best score).

Let's say that a camera of a typical $300€ smartphone would get a score of 2, and a recent high end full frame camera would get a score between 6 - 9.5, depending on the lens. Compared to them, then perhaps latest and greatest Micro Four Thirds camera would get a score between 5 and 8, depending on the lens. GX7 would then get something like from 4.5 to 7, depending on the lens.

The numbers are arbitrary and not important as such, the point is simply to show what matters the most. Perhaps the most important choice is whether to go with a smartphone, a Micro Four Thirds or a full frame camera. Equally or even more important is the lens choice. The choice of camera body is the least important, assuming the body options are all somewhat recent (GX7 qualifies). I think most will agree that in most situations a GX7 with good optics provides better images than a flagship Micro Four Thirds model with a mediocre kit lens.

As mentioned, there are a lot of other features in cameras that matter. It's highly personal if those features are important or not. I consider most of the features as unnecessary luxury, but ergonomics (mostly button layout and the overall user interface) are critically important to me.

Actually, the reason I opted not to keep the GX7 was because my nose continually moved the focus point because the left located EVF allowed my nose to activate the touch focusing (left eye shooter). Yes, the touch focusing can be disabled, but then I had to use the 4way and that meant disabling those default functions, if I recall. By the time I got it all sorted I had pretty much crip*led the poor GX7. So I agree the ergonomics were very important.

The OP’s problem is not being able to get a “feel” for these ergonomic issues before purchase…..

Let's see. If we give a $400 phone camera an ergonomics score of 1 to 2 (depending if using the stock camera app or an aftermarket camera app), and any modern flagship camera costing more than $2,000 an ergonomics score from 7 to 10, then I think the GX7 deserves at least a 5. That is a huge improvement potential, even without getting a feel before purchase.

tough situation, especially when buying used.

Not really. A used GX7 with kit lens is quite inexpensive compared to better phones and more modern cameras. And it can be easily re-sold should ergonomics feel wanting, so the loss is minimal and many times over worth the learning experience gained.

I would tend to agree with you. But, where you or I would think little of finding a good deal on a used camera to simply give it a try and if it was not to our liking put it up for sale, and move on, the OP doesn't seem to have that same adventurous spirit.

This deliberation has now gone on for 3 days. I spent less time than that deciding to marry my first wife. Of course that didn't work out particularly well, and I had to move on. Unfortunately, much more expensive than a try out of a GX7

gary0319 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

pannumon wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Sensenacai wrote:

I was told elsewhere that the GX7 still produces great image quality for today's standards but you did mention a few comments back that the tech in it is quite old.

I think that the newer cameras have much better stabilization, although the Panasonic lens are all stabilized which helps. Sharp images need steady hands ….. or good stabilization.

I hate to correct, but most of the wider angle Panasonic prime lenses are not stabilized.

Also the GX7 was introduced in 2013 and a lot of tech advances have happened over the last 9 years.

For purely optimizing image quality / price ratio, GX7 is a very good choice.

To put things in perspective, we could make a totally subjective image quality rating from 0-10 for different camera kits (camera + lens; 10 being the best score).

Let's say that a camera of a typical $300€ smartphone would get a score of 2, and a recent high end full frame camera would get a score between 6 - 9.5, depending on the lens. Compared to them, then perhaps latest and greatest Micro Four Thirds camera would get a score between 5 and 8, depending on the lens. GX7 would then get something like from 4.5 to 7, depending on the lens.

The numbers are arbitrary and not important as such, the point is simply to show what matters the most. Perhaps the most important choice is whether to go with a smartphone, a Micro Four Thirds or a full frame camera. Equally or even more important is the lens choice. The choice of camera body is the least important, assuming the body options are all somewhat recent (GX7 qualifies). I think most will agree that in most situations a GX7 with good optics provides better images than a flagship Micro Four Thirds model with a mediocre kit lens.

As mentioned, there are a lot of other features in cameras that matter. It's highly personal if those features are important or not. I consider most of the features as unnecessary luxury, but ergonomics (mostly button layout and the overall user interface) are critically important to me.

Actually, the reason I opted not to keep the GX7 was because my nose continually moved the focus point because the left located EVF allowed my nose to activate the touch focusing (left eye shooter). Yes, the touch focusing can be disabled, but then I had to use the 4way and that meant disabling those default functions, if I recall. By the time I got it all sorted I had pretty much crip*led the poor GX7. So I agree the ergonomics were very important.

The OP’s problem is not being able to get a “feel” for these ergonomic issues before purchase…..

Let's see. If we give a $400 phone camera an ergonomics score of 1 to 2 (depending if using the stock camera app or an aftermarket camera app), and any modern flagship camera costing more than $2,000 an ergonomics score from 7 to 10, then I think the GX7 deserves at least a 5. That is a huge improvement potential, even without getting a feel before purchase.

tough situation, especially when buying used.

Not really. A used GX7 with kit lens is quite inexpensive compared to better phones and more modern cameras. And it can be easily re-sold should ergonomics feel wanting, so the loss is minimal and many times over worth the learning experience gained.

I would tend to agree with you. But, where you or I would think little of finding a good deal on a used camera to simply give it a try and if it was not to our liking put it up for sale, and move on, the OP doesn't seem to have that same adventurous spirit.

The OP already shows a very healthy portion of adventurous spirit. 98% of phone owners would never even consider owning an ILC camera.

cba_melbourne wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

pannumon wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Sensenacai wrote:

I was told elsewhere that the GX7 still produces great image quality for today's standards but you did mention a few comments back that the tech in it is quite old.

I think that the newer cameras have much better stabilization, although the Panasonic lens are all stabilized which helps. Sharp images need steady hands ….. or good stabilization.

I hate to correct, but most of the wider angle Panasonic prime lenses are not stabilized.

Also the GX7 was introduced in 2013 and a lot of tech advances have happened over the last 9 years.

For purely optimizing image quality / price ratio, GX7 is a very good choice.

To put things in perspective, we could make a totally subjective image quality rating from 0-10 for different camera kits (camera + lens; 10 being the best score).

Let's say that a camera of a typical $300€ smartphone would get a score of 2, and a recent high end full frame camera would get a score between 6 - 9.5, depending on the lens. Compared to them, then perhaps latest and greatest Micro Four Thirds camera would get a score between 5 and 8, depending on the lens. GX7 would then get something like from 4.5 to 7, depending on the lens.

The numbers are arbitrary and not important as such, the point is simply to show what matters the most. Perhaps the most important choice is whether to go with a smartphone, a Micro Four Thirds or a full frame camera. Equally or even more important is the lens choice. The choice of camera body is the least important, assuming the body options are all somewhat recent (GX7 qualifies). I think most will agree that in most situations a GX7 with good optics provides better images than a flagship Micro Four Thirds model with a mediocre kit lens.

As mentioned, there are a lot of other features in cameras that matter. It's highly personal if those features are important or not. I consider most of the features as unnecessary luxury, but ergonomics (mostly button layout and the overall user interface) are critically important to me.

Actually, the reason I opted not to keep the GX7 was because my nose continually moved the focus point because the left located EVF allowed my nose to activate the touch focusing (left eye shooter). Yes, the touch focusing can be disabled, but then I had to use the 4way and that meant disabling those default functions, if I recall. By the time I got it all sorted I had pretty much crip*led the poor GX7. So I agree the ergonomics were very important.

The OP’s problem is not being able to get a “feel” for these ergonomic issues before purchase…..

Let's see. If we give a $400 phone camera an ergonomics score of 1 to 2 (depending if using the stock camera app or an aftermarket camera app), and any modern flagship camera costing more than $2,000 an ergonomics score from 7 to 10, then I think the GX7 deserves at least a 5. That is a huge improvement potential, even without getting a feel before purchase.

tough situation, especially when buying used.

Not really. A used GX7 with kit lens is quite inexpensive compared to better phones and more modern cameras. And it can be easily re-sold should ergonomics feel wanting, so the loss is minimal and many times over worth the learning experience gained.

I would tend to agree with you. But, where you or I would think little of finding a good deal on a used camera to simply give it a try and if it was not to our liking put it up for sale, and move on, the OP doesn't seem to have that same adventurous spirit.

The OP already shows a very healthy portion of adventurous spirit. 98% of phone owners would never even consider owning an ILC camera.

Good point.

gary0319 wrote:

I spent less time than that deciding to marry my first wife. Of course that didn't work out particularly well, and I had to move on. Unfortunately, much more expensive than a try out of a GX7

You're not making your case very well, there.

gary0319 wrote:

This deliberation has now gone on for 3 days. I spent less time than that deciding to marry my first wife.

I'll take my L and leave lol

Max5150 wrote:

I had the G85, GX9, and EM1.2. Currently have the EM1.3 and EM5.3. The G85 is a great ergonomic camera with a good menu system, but you can do better for not much more money. I did not really like the GX9. It was a bit too small and the buttons had no tactile feel. The viewfinder was just too cramped for me. I did not have probs with tearing. The EM1.2 was a good camera - weather resistant too! I like the EM1.3 better. My favorite is that EM5.3. I just love that camera. It's small, compact, with great functionality and it's weather resistant. If I were going to use bigger lenses (the 12-100 and up), I'd get the 1.2 or 1.3 body. If I were looking for a fantastic walk around camera I'd get the EM5.3.

I agree with you.

I had have GX9. It is a cooling looking retro RF style camera, but the bottom is too tactile (I've no problem with the EVF). The overall touching feeling is not great at all.

And E-M5 iii has much more function that GX9.