Moving back down from D7100. Need advice

[neil holmes]

Ok. Time for another choice. I have sold my Nikon D7100 as I found it too heavy and I wasnt taking it out with me. I almost decided to give up all together. Apparently getting optimal iq was so high on my list that I forgot that I wanted to have fun as well. I figure maybe I am looking for something that simply isn't possible...

So I have come to a few conclusions.
1. I would like a system camera that is compact enough to want to take with me. Something like an a6000, X-T1, E-M1 etc would be perfect

Any of those would be good for some thing and maybe not so good for others.

2. I want a decent standard zoom lens, good fast walk around prime (50mm equivalent), good macro lens and a decent tele option up to around 300mm equivalent.
3. I can spend around 1500 euros to get started and will hopefully have another 1000 euros over the next year.
4. I would like a viewfinder, tiltable screen, decent c-af and fps with solid buffer.

I had come to the conclusion that the Fuji X-T1 may be the perfect solution for my needs but I simply can't afford that yet. So maybe it's worth looking at the X-M1 to start with? And getting the X-T1 when money allows. Or is the Sony A6000 a better option?

And the main thing holding me back is the kit lenses. I want to improve myself as a photographer and have fun but part of my motivation is producing images that are good enough to sell on microstock sites. The kit lens with my E-M10 was always refused as not sharp enough. Will the A6000 or X-M1 be better in this department with they're respective kit lenses? Or do I need to fork out a grand for a better standard zoom.

The one I would pick out of those is the A6000.

Here is the Sony lens list. In addition to the E mount lenses, A mount lenses are native via LA-EA# adapters and there are plenty of third party lenses available in E mount (Sigma 60mm 2.8 macro for instance). Canon EF can be used with (slow) AF and stabilization too via adapters and even Contax G lenses can be used with AF.

http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/

Sony E mount lenses are pretty good. There are one or two maybe not so great (though still ok) and some "experts" judge the whole system by that.

M4/3 cameras also have plenty of good lenses to choose from.

Fuji has fewer lenses available but what there is, is nice also.

I would try the cameras and see how they feel to you.

Any would be a good choice.

 

[frankhoekzema]

I spent a fair bit of time with the E-m10 and a6000 today. I am still very confused what to do.

The Olympus feels like a nicer camera. More solid and responsive when using the dials etc. I also find the viewfinder on the Olympus to be a lot more bright and easy to see. The Sony seems to be really awkward to put my eye to in te right way. I also miss the level gauge on the a6000 (can't find one anyway) and feel like the screen is a bit laggy especially with less light.

Then again I love te grip on the a6000 and the autofocus. Continuous autofocus actually seems useable to get around 30-50% sharp shots even for faster moving subjects. So that's a big plus.

I guess by biggest question now is what lenses would be affordable and good. I really want a high quality standard zoom lens. From what I see Olympus only has the 12-40 or Panasonic 12-35. Both are over a grand and out of my reach. Sony doesn't even seem to have a really good fast standard zoom. And if I end up with a bunch of big heavy a-mount lenses that kind of defeats the point of the smaller camera doesn't it.....

So I am at a total loss. Maybe it's a better idea to look at a canon or Sony dslr. At least there are plenty of lenses for them.

O and a little side question. How is the autofocus of the la-ea2 compared to the la-ea4? I can get the 2 a lot cheaper.

 

[zackiedawg]

The Olympus feels like a nicer camera. More solid and responsive when using the dials etc. I also find the viewfinder on the Olympus to be a lot more bright and easy to see. The Sony seems to be really awkward to put my eye to in te right way. I also miss the level gauge on the a6000 (can't find one anyway) and feel like the screen is a bit laggy especially with less light.

The Oly finder I believe is higher resolution than the A6000. If the brightness is an issue, you can actually turn up the brightness on the A6000 finder to tune it to your liking, and there's also two modes - one for exposure simulation and one without, which will affect how it looks or performs in low light. That might help a bit.

Sony doesn't even seem to have a really good fast standard zoom. And if I end up with a bunch of big heavy a-mount lenses that kind of defeats the point of the smaller camera doesn't it.....

What type of standard zoom range are you looking for? Though not the kit lenses, there are lots of higher quality and faster short zooms available in native e-mount. The 16-70mm F4 Zeiss is very nice as a general, all-purpose zoom...and decently fast. The new 16-35mm Zeiss too should be very sharp. The 18-105mm F4 is a bigger lens but with more zoom range and could be a good all-in-one solution. There are also 28-70 and 24-70 options.

So I am at a total loss. Maybe it's a better idea to look at a canon or Sony dslr. At least there are plenty of lenses for them.

Certainly something to consider, if you don't mind the larger bodies. I have been very happy with both a DSLR and an A6000 as nice, complimentary systems - one smaller, one larger, to cover all purposes. I've never bothered to share lenses between my Sony DSLR system and my E-mount systems - I have the lenses needed for each system, and use them for slightly different purposes.

O and a little side question. How is the autofocus of the la-ea2 compared to the la-ea4? I can get the 2 a lot cheaper.

Should be essentially identical. The EA4's purpose was to accommodate the full-frame cameras with Alpha lenses - if you are looking to buy an APS-C camera, then the EA2 will be fine.

 

[frankhoekzema]

Yes I have done that and I eveb brought sd cards to compare on a big monitor at home.

My conclusions so far are

1. Fuji is out. Too expensive and only true macro lens is 920 euros....

I think it might be just a little too much to demand commercial quality (whatever this microstock site requires) from a number of lenses all on a budget.

As for macro, I'd just adapt a manual focus lens (with any of these systems). It's tough to know what to AF on to get the right DOF and racking the focus back & forth manually helps you get the DOF right without having to stop down too much.

2. Sony is awesome camera. If I had to pick a camera it would be this. What worries me is what everyone is saying about the zooms. And there is only a 30mm macro.

Same point with the macro lens. The zooms are nothing to write home about. The 18-55 is ok; better than its reputation IMO, but the 16-50 doesn't impress me from tests I've seen. I have a hard time believing you're going to get substantially better results from it than from an Oly kit zoom.

3. Olympus is nice but I hate having more noise at lowest ISO and I can barely sharpen images from the Olympus (30 Max in lightroom) whereas the sony can be sharpened up more than double before seeing any noticeable artefacts.

That sounds rather arbitrary to me. I've seen plenty of m43 photos with great sharpness in 100% views.

Am I missing something? Either way it looks like I need to fork out a grand for a decent standard zoom or use primes on either system?

I have no idea what this microstock site requires, but if they're demanding, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you have to go beyond consumer zooms to make money doing photography.

Fuji's kit zoom is excellent and more affordable than high end alternatives from the competition. Oly's 12-40 looks great to me, but that's beyond your budget.

Out of curiosity, what lenses did you have for your D7100 ? Or were you not submitting stuff to to the microstock site from that camera ?

- Dennis

 

[Dennis]

I spent a fair bit of time with the E-m10 and a6000 today. I am still very confused what to do.

The ILC systems are less compelling if you don't have the budget to go with the 'best' lenses for them.

I guess by biggest question now is what lenses would be affordable and good. I really want a high quality standard zoom lens.

Is speed a concern ? You might want to look into the kit zooms. Oly & Panny 14-42's are pretty decent. And the Sony 18-55 isn't all that bad; I'm sure you could make very large prints from it, despite the weaknesses reported by tests.

So I am at a total loss. Maybe it's a better idea to look at a canon or Sony dslr. At least there are plenty of lenses for them.

What would you be looking at ? There's the Sigma 17-70 at f/2.8-4. And then 3rd party zooms in the 17-50/55 range at f/2.8. The only downside that comes to mind with these on Canon is the 1.6X crop. You don't see quite as much of the extreme corners that the Nikon & Sony sensors see, but you're also looking at a slightly less wide FOV. (Still a bit wider than 28mm equivalent, though).

Canon offers the SL1, which is pretty compact and feels like a decent camera, compared to many entry level models. AF seemed responsive and the viewfinder was ok. And Canon has introduced the 24mm pancake lens, which is nice if you want to go really small.

Out of curiosity, have you considered the RX10 (up to 200mm equivalent) or FZ1000 (up to 400mm equivalent) ? Sensor IQ is good; a match for a 7-year old APS-C DSLR and you can certainly make large prints from them.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Bhima78]

You may also consider the upcoming Panasonic LX100. It has an even faster zoom than what is available for either the Sony or m43's ILCs. If you feel like you could be served with just that one zoom lens attached, it might be worth considering. It should be out in late October and we will likely have reviews start trickling in within a month.

 

[frankhoekzema]

No I am settled in the fact that I want interchangeable lenses.

I am going to see If I can test one of the adapters tomorrow. I would be happy with a Tamron 90mm macro lens and possibly a 16-50 2.8 in a-mount if they work well via an adapter on the a6000. I could then add a couple of nice primes later to keep me happy. I just wonder how big a 16-50 2.8 will be on such a small camera.

 

[gandalfII]

Thanks for the comments. Now what I really want to know is will an X-M1 with 16-50 or A6000 with 16-50 kit lens produce images that are sharper than an E-M10 with 14-42 EZ or 14-140 Panasonic. Nearly all my images with the E-M10 combo were being rejected on shutterstock due to insufficient sharpness. All my Nikon D71000 with Tamron 17-50 picks were being accepted.

I guess what I am looking for is a kit lens that will be good enough to get on microtock sites.... That is what I am worried about with the Sony and Fuji kit lenses.

Assuming you have your EM10 still, get the original Panasonic 14-45 for about $225 used (US prices, ymmv). If it is sharp enough, problem solved. If not you can sell it for near full price. The next step up is an oly 12-40, about $1000.

I wouldn't be surprised if you altered the EXIF data to show a larger sensor camera, and suddenly your images magically became sharp enough .

 

[aliasfox]

I spent a fair bit of time with the E-m10 and a6000 today. I am still very confused what to do.

The Olympus feels like a nicer camera. More solid and responsive when using the dials etc. I also find the viewfinder on the Olympus to be a lot more bright and easy to see. The Sony seems to be really awkward to put my eye to in te right way. I also miss the level gauge on the a6000 (can't find one anyway) and feel like the screen is a bit laggy especially with less light.

Then again I love te grip on the a6000 and the autofocus. Continuous autofocus actually seems useable to get around 30-50% sharp shots even for faster moving subjects. So that's a big plus.

I guess by biggest question now is what lenses would be affordable and good. I really want a high quality standard zoom lens. From what I see Olympus only has the 12-40 or Panasonic 12-35. Both are over a grand and out of my reach. Sony doesn't even seem to have a really good fast standard zoom. And if I end up with a bunch of big heavy a-mount lenses that kind of defeats the point of the smaller camera doesn't it.....

So I am at a total loss. Maybe it's a better idea to look at a canon or Sony dslr. At least there are plenty of lenses for them.

O and a little side question. How is the autofocus of the la-ea2 compared to the la-ea4? I can get the 2 a lot cheaper.

if you can stretch to the Olympus E-M1, then you can get PDAF and not have to worry too much about tracking. It also means you can choose from a couple of great (and relatively cheap) 4/3 mount zooms. I personally run a 14-54 f2.8-3.5 lens, and those run about $300 here in the US (used). The Olympus 12-60 f2.8-4 ($500 or so used) is said to be essentially the equal of the 12-40 in sharpness, but with extra reach. One benefit of the 14-54 at least is that it has a pseudo macro and you can get magnification up to about 4:1.

Also, don't forget that Panasonic just announced a new macro lens as well, a 30mm.

 

[wombat661]

Ok. Time for another choice. I have sold my Nikon D7100 as I found it too heavy and I wasnt taking it out with me. I almost decided to give up all together. Apparently getting optimal iq was so high on my list that I forgot that I wanted to have fun as well. I figure maybe I am looking for something that simply isn't possible...

So I have come to a few conclusions.
1. I would like a system camera that is compact enough to want to take with me. Something like an a6000, X-T1, E-M1 etc would be perfect
2. I want a decent standard zoom lens, good fast walk around prime (50mm equivalent), good macro lens and a decent tele option up to around 300mm equivalent.
3. I can spend around 1500 euros to get started and will hopefully have another 1000 euros over the next year.
4. I would like a viewfinder, tiltable screen, decent c-af and fps with solid buffer.

I had come to the conclusion that the Fuji X-T1 may be the perfect solution for my needs but I simply can't afford that yet. So maybe it's worth looking at the X-M1 to start with? And getting the X-T1 when money allows. Or is the Sony A6000 a better option?

And the main thing holding me back is the kit lenses. I want to improve myself as a photographer and have fun but part of my motivation is producing images that are good enough to sell on microstock sites. The kit lens with my E-M10 was always refused as not sharp enough. Will the A6000 or X-M1 be better in this department with they're respective kit lenses? Or do I need to fork out a grand for a better standard zoom.

If you find the D7100 to be too heavy, going to another APS-C sensor sized camera would not save that much weight. Has been discussed here before:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3698183

You save a pound off the camera, but lens weight is about the same. For lighter weight, look at micro 4/3 cameras. Smaller body and smaller lens.

 

[frankhoekzema]

Well interestingly I have had the chance to take the a6000 with 16-50 out for a couple of days to compare it to my e-m10 with 14-42 ez. I took a lot of photos with both and every time the Sony came out a lot sharper.

I sent in around 10 pics with both combinations to shutterstock. Just 2 of the Olympus pics were approved. The rest was refused due to poor focus/sharpness. Every single Sony photo was approved.

So that is bugging me. I am finding I prefer the feel of the Olympus, the touchscreen, the better macro options etc. but having to spend a grand on a standard zoom because the kitlens simply doesn't deliver is really proving a deal breaker.