Compact system advice.

[Vahtera]

Hi. My beloved K-30 died a horrible Aperture Block death couple of years ago, then real life happened and I had to put photography out of the picture for so long.

Now that I'm once again wanting to take a few photos, my requirements have changed drastically and I have to change systems.

I have a ton of Pentax gear, but as the K-30 is broken (and I have no means to fix it), I'm selling it all. I will still keep my Nikon D300, 18-105mm VR, 55-300mm VR and will be getting a 50mm/1.8 and preferably a 10-20mm for it in the future, keeping the Nikon for my "serious" shooting wants, if those pop up.

However my "daily driver" camera needs to change, a lot. I'm not able to carry around a huge back of DSLR gear and lenses anymore. I want a small, compact camera that fits into a hand bag.

I've always been a fan of the m4/3 system and do own a Lumix G3, but that is too big to fit, otherwise I'd just use that.

So - DMC-GM5 and Oly OM-D E-M10 were my first choices I was looking at. Coupled with the Pana/Oly 14-42mm collapsible zooms the would be quite small. And m4/3 has a couple of really small primes to add.

My requirements are:

1) Must have EVF. I cannot do without a viewfinder, and an optical one is not available in this size, also I prefer EVF because I can use Focus Peaking with it.

2) Must be small enough to fit into a hand bag among other stuff. So any ILCs must have a pancake/collapsing/really small lens attached.

3) Must be adaptable to old lenses, as most shooting I do beside "everyday carry" duties, I shoot with old manual lenses. m4/3 and Sony E are ideal for this.

4) And as mentioned, must have Focus Peaking capability. I really love that feature with old manual lenses. It's the one thing that I really wanted the Lumix G3 to have once I learned about it.

5) Ideally have a in-body image stabilizer, but I could do without, if everything else is better for it.

6) compacts are not totally out of the question. I was seriously considering RX100 III model. It would mean I couldn't use that with any lenses and that I'd need to get another camera for those shootings, but it WOULD mean drastically better portability...

7) Video features are irrelevant, I don't shoot video.

8) Price is a big issue an I'll be looking at any one of these used only.

I was suggested a Sony A6000 and after reading/watching a ton of reviews I can agree, it really looks like a good choice. The lack of in-body image stabilizer is sort of a bummer, but the IQ and size and adaptability would be really good. Also there are a couple small primes in the E-mount system that I could get later. I have a NEX-C3 with a L39 adapter and I keep a Industar-69 28mm/2-8 pancake on it and it is small enough. I just hate not having a viewfinder.

A6000, DMC-GM5, DMC-GX80, OM-D EM-10.. ? Am I missing something? And would you recommend something over the other? GM5 would be really tiny, GX80 and Oly would have image stabilizers in body and A6000 would have much better IQ by reason of its bigger APS-C sized sensor.

EDIT: I forgot Panny's TZ200 from the compacts. It would tick all the boxes that I need for this camera, but run the same disadvantage as the RX100 would, that I'd have to get another system for other shooting. But it would be nigh-perfect for travel for me.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I think that you may have a great deal of trouble finding a used GM5 in many countries. I looked for one a couple of years ago here in the UK and there simply weren’t any.

You need to find a store with a good selection of used cameras and try some out out for size. If your G3 is too big, then most of the others will probably be too big as well.

Will changing lenses help? Panasonic has the tiny 12-32mm pancake zoom and there are some some very good M4/3 small primes like the 20mm f/1.7.

--
Chris R

 

[Vahtera]

The General size of the G3 is not that much too big, but the viewfinder protrusion backwards and upwards makes it feel and take space like a much bigger camera, unfortunately. Add that to the G3's lack of almost all the features that I'd want, such as Focus Peaking and/or inbody stabilizer and I'm hard pressed to decide on keeping that one. Also it really isn't hand bag -sized, largely due to the viewfinder "hunchback".

The general size of the camera is not *that* much different from a NEX-C3, but the NEX feels *tiny* compared to the G3.

EDIT: Yes, GM5s are rather rare. There's is one for sale that I found right now. Fortunately the A6000 seems to be easily available for not that much money. Same for E-M10, except for the money part. Those seem to hold their prices relatively well.

 

[KCook]

1) Must have EVF. I cannot do without a viewfinder, and an optical one is not available in this size, also I prefer EVF because I can use Focus Peaking with it.

Err, is manual focus really a must have for your daily driver??? All of the various pancake ML lenses either have AF, or are fixed focus.

For a pocket carry I would rather forgo the eyepiece protrusion that comes with most EVF designs. Exception for the Sony RX100 series, which is ridiculously fussy.

Kelly Cook

 

[Vahtera]

1) Must have EVF. I cannot do without a viewfinder, and an optical one is not available in this size, also I prefer EVF because I can use Focus Peaking with it.

Err, is manual focus really a must have for your daily driver??? All of the various pancake ML lenses either have AF, or are fixed focus.

Yes, it is. Or, more specifically, it shouldn't be. In an ideal world, I'd have a fullframe DSLR with a few nice heavy big fast lenses and a proper wireless flash setup for all "studio" shots and "serious photography".

Then I'd have a separate mirrorless "hobby" set that I could use my fun and weird and odd lenses that make me smile when use them. A set that would include also current mount-specific AF glass so I could also carry around my mirrorless set if I'd go out primary for photography.

And then I'd have my "daily driver", or "everyday carry", something like a RX100 Mk7 that would be really small, pocketable, but still capable of good IQ and have decent photography features.

Alas, this is not the ideal world and I'm so far from being able to afford that, so I must compromise and have my "hobby" and "daily driver" camera to be just one. So yes, it needs Focus Peaking and fully manual modes and support for manual focus/aperture and shoot without electric contacts in a lens.

All my "better" and "fun" lenses are old MF lenses (Like a Minolta 50mm/1.4 or a couple of old Russian lenses that are really fun to use). I can't afford to have a daily driver that couldn't use those.

For a pocket carry I would rather forgo the eyepiece protrusion that comes with most EVF designs. Exception for the Sony RX100 series, which is ridiculously fussy.

Kelly Cook

You would. I wouldn't. EVF is literally a dealbreaker/maker for me. If a camera doesn't have a viewfinder, I won't use it. Period. I hate taking photos via the LCD. I can't do it. I don't enjoy it. I don't want to "learn" it as it actively makes me hate taking photos. For you it might be a non-issue, for me it is (almost) the most important thing. I'd rather take a bad camera with a horrible lens and a viewfinder, than a perfect camera with a perfect lens and no viewfinder.

 

[KCook]

Ok. That was a very thorough answer.

:-D

 

[beagle1]

1) Must have EVF. I cannot do without a viewfinder, and an optical one is not available in this size, also I prefer EVF because I can use Focus Peaking with it.

Err, is manual focus really a must have for your daily driver??? All of the various pancake ML lenses either have AF, or are fixed focus.

Yes, it is. Or, more specifically, it shouldn't be. In an ideal world, I'd have a fullframe DSLR with a few nice heavy big fast lenses and a proper wireless flash setup for all "studio" shots and "serious photography".

Then I'd have a separate mirrorless "hobby" set that I could use my fun and weird and odd lenses that make me smile when use them. A set that would include also current mount-specific AF glass so I could also carry around my mirrorless set if I'd go out primary for photography.

And then I'd have my "daily driver", or "everyday carry", something like a RX100 Mk7 that would be really small, pocketable, but still capable of good IQ and have decent photography features.

Alas, this is not the ideal world and I'm so far from being able to afford that, so I must compromise and have my "hobby" and "daily driver" camera to be just one. So yes, it needs Focus Peaking and fully manual modes and support for manual focus/aperture and shoot without electric contacts in a lens.

All my "better" and "fun" lenses are old MF lenses (Like a Minolta 50mm/1.4 or a couple of old Russian lenses that are really fun to use). I can't afford to have a daily driver that couldn't use those.

For a pocket carry I would rather forgo the eyepiece protrusion that comes with most EVF designs. Exception for the Sony RX100 series, which is ridiculously fussy.

Kelly Cook

You would. I wouldn't. EVF is literally a dealbreaker/maker for me. If a camera doesn't have a viewfinder, I won't use it. Period. I hate taking photos via the LCD. I can't do it. I don't enjoy it. I don't want to "learn" it as it actively makes me hate taking photos. For you it might be a non-issue, for me it is (almost) the most important thing. I'd rather take a bad camera with a horrible lens and a viewfinder, than a perfect camera with a perfect lens and no viewfinder.

I use a small and light mirrorless camera with an EVF ... a beloved hobby

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Vahtera]

I read my reply again and I apologize if it came out condescending or overtly dismissive/angry, I didn't mean that. Like, I really, really would like to be able to have three systems, but cannot atm afford that, even two is *really* stretching it.

And I don't really know what it is with me and LCDs/viewfinders. I just detest using the back LCDs to shoot so much that I prefer a crappy EVF over a superb back LCD.

 

[KCook]

I read my reply again and I apologize if it came out condescending or overtly dismissive/angry, I didn't mean that. Like, I really, really would like to be able to have three systems, but cannot atm afford that, even two is *really* stretching it.

Nope. Your reply was perfectly reasonable . Just more verbose than I usually get from strangers. Yeah, in my next life I will have a cupboard full of cameras of all sizes.

And I don't really know what it is with me and LCDs/viewfinders. I just detest using the back LCDs to shoot so much that I prefer a crappy EVF over a superb back LCD.

Shoot, I am not a big fan of LCDs. Just equally not a fan of fussy EVFs. But I do find the EVF for my Oly E-M5 to be just fine, except for a pocket carry. Also, I don't shoot every shot from eye level. In a fair number of cases I will hold the camera lower, so any viewfinder is out of play.

carryon

 

[Vahtera]

I read my reply again and I apologize if it came out condescending or overtly dismissive/angry, I didn't mean that. Like, I really, really would like to be able to have three systems, but cannot atm afford that, even two is *really* stretching it.

Nope. Your reply was perfectly reasonable . Just more verbose than I usually get from strangers. Yeah, in my next life I will have a cupboard full of cameras of all sizes.

Don't we all though?

And I don't really know what it is with me and LCDs/viewfinders. I just detest using the back LCDs to shoot so much that I prefer a crappy EVF over a superb back LCD.

Shoot, I am not a big fan of LCDs. Just equally not a fan of fussy EVFs. But I do find the EVF for my Oly E-M5 to be just fine, except for a pocket carry. Also, I don't shoot every shot from eye level. In a fair number of cases I will hold the camera lower, so any viewfinder is out of play.

carryon

I just tend to dive in the mud to take those low-POV shots It's not very lady-like, but I don't really care Higher than average shots are the pain of my existence though. I've climbed to various not-really-climbable objects to take high-POV shots

 

[KCook]

At my age my joints are no longer diving in the mud !

:-O

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Hi. My beloved K-30 died a horrible Aperture Block death couple of years ago, then real life happened and I had to put photography out of the picture for so long.

Now that I'm once again wanting to take a few photos, my requirements have changed drastically and I have to change systems.

I have a ton of Pentax gear, but as the K-30 is broken (and I have no means to fix it), I'm selling it all. I will still keep my Nikon D300, 18-105mm VR, 55-300mm VR and will be getting a 50mm/1.8 and preferably a 10-20mm for it in the future, keeping the Nikon for my "serious" shooting wants, if those pop up.

However my "daily driver" camera needs to change, a lot. I'm not able to carry around a huge back of DSLR gear and lenses anymore. I want a small, compact camera that fits into a hand bag.

I've always been a fan of the m4/3 system and do own a Lumix G3, but that is too big to fit, otherwise I'd just use that.

So - DMC-GM5 and Oly OM-D E-M10 were my first choices I was looking at. Coupled with the Pana/Oly 14-42mm collapsible zooms the would be quite small. And m4/3 has a couple of really small primes to add.

My requirements are:

1) Must have EVF. I cannot do without a viewfinder, and an optical one is not available in this size, also I prefer EVF because I can use Focus Peaking with it.

2) Must be small enough to fit into a hand bag among other stuff. So any ILCs must have a pancake/collapsing/really small lens attached.

3) Must be adaptable to old lenses, as most shooting I do beside "everyday carry" duties, I shoot with old manual lenses. m4/3 and Sony E are ideal for this.

4) And as mentioned, must have Focus Peaking capability. I really love that feature with old manual lenses. It's the one thing that I really wanted the Lumix G3 to have once I learned about it.

5) Ideally have a in-body image stabilizer, but I could do without, if everything else is better for it.

6) compacts are not totally out of the question. I was seriously considering RX100 III model. It would mean I couldn't use that with any lenses and that I'd need to get another camera for those shootings, but it WOULD mean drastically better portability...

Then consider also Panasonic's LX100 MkI or MkII. These are somewhere between the RX100 and GX85 in size. They have an always-ready EVF (not pop-up) and a lot more control points, making them feel more like a "real" camera than a pocket P&S. I have a good pocket camera, but I find that I reach for the LX100 more because of the vastly better handling. Also, the larger sensor gives them a (slight) noise advantage in low light over the RX100 series.

7) Video features are irrelevant, I don't shoot video.

8) Price is a big issue an I'll be looking at any one of these used only.

I saw a deal online on a new Panasonic GX85 with 12-35mm and 45-150mm kit zooms for $438 today.

I was suggested a Sony A6000 and after reading/watching a ton of reviews I can agree, it really looks like a good choice. The lack of in-body image stabilizer is sort of a bummer, but the IQ and size and adaptability would be really good. Also there are a couple small primes in the E-mount system that I could get later. I have a NEX-C3 with a L39 adapter and I keep a Industar-69 28mm/2-8 pancake on it and it is small enough. I just hate not having a viewfinder.

A6000, DMC-GM5, DMC-GX80, OM-D EM-10.. ? Am I missing something? And would you recommend something over the other? GM5 would be really tiny, GX80 and Oly would have image stabilizers in body and A6000 would have much better IQ by reason of its bigger APS-C sized sensor.

About that "much better IQ": 16MP is plenty for really crisp prints at least 16"x24", and the a6000 has a low-light/high-ISO noise advantage of only 2/3 of a stop over Micro Four Thirds (MFT). Yes, the a6000 does "better" in these areas, but I regard the difference as marginal rather than decisive. For decisively better resolution for huge prints and lower noise for shooting in the dark, I added a Sony a7RIII alongside my MFT kit. Stepping up to APS just wouldn't have made enough difference for me.

EDIT: I forgot Panny's TZ200 from the compacts. It would tick all the boxes that I need for this camera, but run the same disadvantage as the RX100 would, that I'd have to get another system for other shooting. But it would be nigh-perfect for travel for me.

The TZ200, like most other large-zoom-range travel zoom cameras, has substantially lower image quality, mainly due to the compromises involved in shoehorning a long zoom into a small package. A camera like the RX100 or Panasonic LX100, with their shorter and brighter zooms, will deliver IQ an order or magnitude better. They'll also gather much more light in dim conditions. If you're sure you'll never print bigger than 12"x18", the TZ200 might be fine. But, if you have ambitions to make bigger prints, or if you expect to shoot in low light without a tripod, I couldn't recommend it.

 

[spoonthegeezer]

consider a pen, epl-7 or 8 with the vf4 , small form factor, flip up or down screen

 

[Astrotripper]

GM5 is an amazing little camera. I recently got an Olympus body cap fish-eye, which makes it a super tiny, passable UWA kit.

However, there are a few buts. The EVF is very small. It's usable, even for someone who constantly needs glasses, like me. But it's still tiny and if you do need to wear glasses, it makes it much less comfortable to use. Also, when using manual lenses (no electronic connection), it can only use electronic shutter. And this being an older Panasonic model, electronic shutter means that it drops to 10-bit. It also does not have a tiltable nor articulating screen. This might not seem like a big deal if you never used a camera that had one. But once you get used to having this, it's very hard to go back to a camera without.

In short. To enjoy GM5, you simply have to accept all the compromises that went into making it so tiny and lightweight.

Otherwise, I would recommend looking at GX80/85 or GX9. Those are not as tiny (a bit larger than A6000), but have a lot more features. And I would recommend this over A6000 simply because there's a larger selection of really small lenses. And IBIS. That's another one of those features you start missing after getting used to having it (so is touchscreen, Panasonic's Touch Pad AF is amazingly convenient when using EVF). GX85 also has a serious price advantage over A6000, as brand new dual zoom kit is just $500. And those are solid zooms, unlike the infamous Sonys.

The obvious disadvantage would be of course sensor size. With Sony, your Pentax lenses will behave as they did on your Pentax body. On Micro 4/3, you would require a focal reducer to get the same. Lens Turbo II is quite good and affordable, but that is an additional expense and complication.

 

[Vahtera]

Then consider also Panasonic's LX100 MkI or MkII. These are somewhere between the RX100 and GX85 in size. They have an always-ready EVF (not pop-up) and a lot more control points, making them feel more like a "real" camera than a pocket P&S. I have a good pocket camera, but I find that I reach for the LX100 more because of the vastly better handling. Also, the larger sensor gives them a (slight) noise advantage in low light over the RX100 series.

That's actually a very nice camera, thanks! I will definitely consider this. I've been watching Chris Niccolls talk about them in length today They really seem strong contenders. I'd lose the interchangeable lenses compared to GM5/OM-D/A6000, but I'd gain more portable body and still wouldn't lose much in IQ. Thanks!

I saw a deal online on a new Panasonic GX85 with 12-35mm and 45-150mm kit zooms for $438 today.

Damn. That's a really nice price for that kit. Unfortunately they are priced much higher here (Saw a used body-only for ~400€) And no LX100 mki/ii anywhere.

About that "much better IQ": 16MP is plenty for really crisp prints at least 16"x24", and the a6000 has a low-light/high-ISO noise advantage of only 2/3 of a stop over Micro Four Thirds (MFT). Yes, the a6000 does "better" in these areas, but I regard the difference as marginal rather than decisive. For decisively better resolution for huge prints and lower noise for shooting in the dark, I added a Sony a7RIII alongside my MFT kit. Stepping up to APS just wouldn't have made enough difference for me.

I don't print really at all. I think I've printed a maximum of 100 photos out of 100k of them, and even those were smaller photobooks as presents for grandparents. What I look at in a larger MPix count is the ability to crop and still retain details. A 24Mpix sensor has a tremendous amount more details than a 16Mpix one at similar view angle. You can crop the 24Mpix image much, much more than a 16Mpix one. I hope this clears a bit why I think a 24Mpix APS-C is superior to a 16Mpix m4/3 even though I don't really print anything, at any size.

The TZ200, like most other large-zoom-range travel zoom cameras, has substantially lower image quality, mainly due to the compromises involved in shoehorning a long zoom into a small package. A camera like the RX100 or Panasonic LX100, with their shorter and brighter zooms, will deliver IQ an order or magnitude better. They'll also gather much more light in dim conditions. If you're sure you'll never print bigger than 12"x18", the TZ200 might be fine. But, if you have ambitions to make bigger prints, or if you expect to shoot in low light without a tripod, I couldn't recommend it.

I know, but that's a compromise I'm willing to at least look into. As I said, because I'm not printing anything the final image MPix count doesn't really matter. But the optical zoom amount in TZ200 would be vastly superior to LX/RX100. It's still a compromise and one that I'm not sure I like, since I do like shallow depth of fields and need sometimes to take pictures in low light. I'm heavily on the RX/LX100 side, but the TZ200/HX90V side is tempting and as said, I might be able to live with those compromises. At least it would allow me to take longer telephoto images without taking the Nikon with me.

 

[Vahtera]

consider a pen, epl-7 or 8 with the vf4 , small form factor, flip up or down screen

I haven't considered those simply because while the VF4 is a very nice viewfinder, it's still bulky or it needs constant putting on and taking off. In addition it's horribly overpowered around here. I can literally buy a Sony A6000 body for the amount I'd have to pay for the VF4 alone. So it's not really an option for me, unfortunately.

 

[Vahtera]

GM5 is an amazing little camera. I recently got an Olympus body cap fish-eye, which makes it a super tiny, passable UWA kit.

This is one of my hopes. I too wanted to get the cap fish-eye and use that as a tiny unit.

However, there are a few buts. The EVF is very small. It's usable, even for someone who constantly needs glasses, like me. But it's still tiny and if you do need to wear glasses, it makes it much less comfortable to use. Also, when using manual lenses (no electronic connection), it can only use electronic shutter. And this being an older Panasonic model, electronic shutter means that it drops to 10-bit. It also does not have a tiltable nor articulating screen. This might not seem like a big deal if you never used a camera that had one. But once you get used to having this, it's very hard to go back to a camera without.

I do wear glasses, so thanks for that. I did know the EVF wasn't the best out there, but I wasn't aware it was that small. That electronic shutter though.. that's a hard thing to swallow. I'd much rather have a proper physical shutter like many other cameras let you do.. Thanks for pointing that out.

I own at least three cameras with tiltable screens. The most I used it on my G3 was to turn it 180 degrees to face the body so it was out of the way and for three months I didn't even notice the NEX-C3 had a tiltable screen. I really don't use the back LCD for anything much, but to check settings. (I love what Pentax does with their LCDs in their DSLR models).

In short. To enjoy GM5, you simply have to accept all the compromises that went into making it so tiny and lightweight.

Otherwise, I would recommend looking at GX80/85 or GX9. Those are not as tiny (a bit larger than A6000), but have a lot more features. And I would recommend this over A6000 simply because there's a larger selection of really small lenses. And IBIS. That's another one of those features you start missing after getting used to having it (so is touchscreen, Panasonic's Touch Pad AF is amazingly convenient when using EVF). GX85 also has a serious price advantage over A6000, as brand new dual zoom kit is just $500. And those are solid zooms, unlike the infamous Sonys.

The obvious disadvantage would be of course sensor size. With Sony, your Pentax lenses will behave as they did on your Pentax body. On Micro 4/3, you would require a focal reducer to get the same. Lens Turbo II is quite good and affordable, but that is an additional expense and complication.

I looked at the GX80/GX85 and they do look good. I'm definitely putting them on the list. IBIS is a really nice feature to have. And the size wasn't really that different.

The sensor size is a disadvantage, but more in the IQ/Low-light than crop factor. I'm selling my Pentax gear anyways to finance this change and I've been using those old lenses with my G3 already so the crop factor is the same. And it's only a small difference anyway and one that I actually prefer to have on the m4/3 side. Makes longer telephotos much smaller and lighter and the heavy telephotos "get more range" (well not really, but you know).

The biggest thing is the larger sensor would be much more efficient in low light situations and could have much thinner depth of field when needed. But I do have the APS-C sized Nikon that I'm not getting rid of, yet.

 

[KCook]

The biggest thing is the larger sensor would be much more efficient in low light situations and could have much thinner depth of field when needed.

That simply has not been my experience, shooting both APS-C and M4/3. For seriously thin DOF you need to go full frame.

Kelly

 

[Vahtera]

The biggest thing is the larger sensor would be much more efficient in low light situations and could have much thinner depth of field when needed.

That simply has not been my experience, shooting both APS-C and M4/3. For seriously thin DOF you need to go full frame.

Kelly

Of course FF offers the thinnest dof, but I said *thinner*. And the low-light situation definitely holds true. My G3's low-light performance is *abyssal* compared to even the NEX-C3, let alone what I've seen of A6000.

 

[KCook]

The biggest thing is the larger sensor would be much more efficient in low light situations and could have much thinner depth of field when needed.

That simply has not been my experience, shooting both APS-C and M4/3. For seriously thin DOF you need to go full frame.

Kelly

Of course FF offers the thinnest dof, but I said *thinner*. And the low-light situation definitely holds true. My G3's low-light performance is *abyssal* compared to even the NEX-C3, let alone what I've seen of A6000.

Right, the M4/3 sensors from the G3 generation were poor in low light. Sorry I wasn't clear, my comment was in reference to the "much thinner" portion of your post.

mybad