[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by amitoj

But at more than $1000 USD just for the body it is out of my budget!

Exactly my thoughts. I am ok with low battery life because i dont expect my usage to be very high.

If you are buying in the US look for OM-D EM5 MKII with 14-150mm lens(24-300 eqiv). This is a super compact setup that can take amazing pics. In my opinion (real world - not reading online reviews) The Olympus is a lot more enjoyable camera than the Sony. The Sony has a better sensor for sure. But the Olympus has a lot more to offer. For landscapes it has the 40MP mode that captures amazing details. The in body IS is simply awesome. The camera has an excellent view finder compared to the tiny one in the A6000. The cheap fast lens collection of the Olympus is its greatest strength according to me.

I have the 45mm f1.8 that I got for 200$ (275$ new)used in like new condition. Amazing lens that will produce some nice bokeh (DSLR Quality). There are many other affordable primes from Olympus and Panasonic that will excite you. Battery wise both Sony and Olympus are good for 400 shots. I have wifi turned off all the time. But these are tiny batteries and you carry extra.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

In my opinion (real world - not reading online reviews).

Good, that’s what counts!

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

Battery wise both Sony and Olympus are good for 400 shots. I have wifi turned off all the time. But these are tiny batteries and you carry extra.

In all honesty, I rarely get 400 shots out of any of my Olympus camera’s (EM5, EM5mkII and Pen F). 300-350 if I’m lucky. These viewfinders and screen still eat a lot of power. But to your point, they are pretty small, easy to carry a couple. Mind you they might be tiny, but their price ain’t!

Jeroen

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Good, that’s what counts!

In all honesty, I rarely get 400 shots out of any of my Olympus camera’s (EM5, EM5mkII and Pen F). 300-350 if I’m lucky. These viewfinders and screen still eat a lot of power. But to your point, they are pretty small, easy to carry a couple. Mind you they might be tiny, but their price ain’t!

Jeroen

I may not be accurate on the count. But yeah..it's in that range. The point I was trying to make is carrying extra batteries is useful adds very little bulk. In High res mode and high speed mode the camera drinks a lot more juice usually drastically reducing the no of shots you can take. In such cases a battery grip might help.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You are jumping to conclusions, the true completely biased mind at full speed getting worked up!

No comments

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Happy shooting!

Jeroen

Happy shooting and good light to you too, Jeroen. I enjoy your street photos, btw.

[SPARKled]

Well this is a never ending story and people will argue for ever whether mine is better or yours. But being a user of both systems i.e. Nikon (FX and DX) and m43 (GX7 and EM-1) each has its strength and weakness.

I tend to agree with Nilanjan when he says that action and wildlife shooters will favour the DSLR mainly due to AF than anything else. Smaller sensors inherently are at a disadvantage due limited DoF control which is more a function of the lens used and sensor size so mirrorless or DSLR does not matter.

If we have to speak about m43 and its use for wildlife, well DSLRs have a huge advantage due to their phase detect AF focus tracking abilities compared to the contrast detect AF of m43 cameras. For static shots or where there is hardly any action m43 is good but I have seen some consumer lenses like the Panasonic 100-300 which has been used for these shots struggles to lock focus a lot of time.





Like I said earlier fast moving action including birds in flight is next to impossible. So I tend to agree with the assessment that m43 is still not there with the big boys for action sports and wild life.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

If we have to speak about m43 and its use for wildlife, well DSLRs have a huge advantage due to their phase detect AF focus tracking abilities compared to the contrast detect .

The new Olympus has 121 cross-point type phase detection points.

Jeroen

[sdp1975]

AF and sensor capabilities are technological aspects. Leaving these aspects aside, if we focus only on the aspects of photographic equivalence in terms of the total amount of light that a lens allows, the large-lens cameras clearly win.

For example, a 24-70mm f2.8 on a FF has apertures of 8.5 - 25 mm on the wide and telephoto ends. A 12-35 mm f2.8 on a MFT system has these values at 4.3mm - 12.5mm. Clearly, the MFT lens allows lesser light , and that translates to using a higher ISO or shutter speed on the MFT. These are the laws of physics that won't change.

To let in the same light, the MFT needs to have a 12-24mm f1.4 lens, and these lenses are simply not made due to the bulk it would add, and go against the portability factor that MFT was designed for.

It's eventually a trade-off that end users must make while choosing a system .

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

Like I said earlier fast moving action including birds in flight is next to impossible. So I tend to agree with the assessment that m43 is still not there with the big boys for action sports and wild life.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/201...e-lens-cameras

2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 1 - Crop-Sensor | What camera should I buy?
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/201...ens-cameras/10

Interesting article

Originally Posted by sdp1975

AF and sensor capabilities are technological aspects. Leaving these aspects aside, if we focus only on the aspects of photographic equivalence in terms of the total amount of light that a lens allows, the large-lens cameras clearly win.

For example, a 24-70mm f2.8 on a FF has apertures of 8.5 - 25 mm on the wide and telephoto ends. A 12-35 mm f2.8 on a MFT system has these values at 4.3mm - 12.5mm. Clearly, the MFT lens allows lesser light , and that translates to using a higher ISO or shutter speed on the MFT. These are the laws of physics that won't change.

To let in the same light, the MFT needs to have a 12-24mm f1.4 lens, and these lenses are simply not made due to the bulk it would add, and go against the portability factor that MFT was designed for.

It's eventually a trade-off that end users must make while choosing a system .

Well, re AF capabilities: there is a big difference between paper specs and real life performance in challenging conditions. Bad light, moving subjects, shooting through undergrowth etc.

Re light hitting the sensor: there is a difference between the total light coming in and light hitting at a per pixel level. WHile total light coming in is less, the sensor size is also smaller, so no significant difference re light per unit area. So no, if one is using a m 4/3 system, one wouldn't have to use higher ISO or shutter speed. But it has a equivalent depth of field of f/5.6. A DX body with a f/2.8 lens would have an equivalent dof of f/4.

[Samurai]

I am a 10 year (soon 11) veteran of 4/3 sensor, used it in dSLR for 6 years and mirrorless format for 5 years. It totally sucks when it comes to action and telephoto applications. The dSLR did have phase detect.

I have tried it and then gave it up. So I stick to landscape and portraits where m4/3 truly excels. Is it better or worse than Canikon FF, I don't care. It exceeds my limit, so I am totally satisfied.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The new Olympus has 121 cross-point type phase detection points.

Jeroen

I think this camera has just been announced and its just too early to say how it actually performs based on specs alone. Anyway with what I have read, its not any better than than the 39 point Nikon AF last seen in the D7000 whereas Nikon has moved to the new 153 point after the 51 point which itself was an upgrade from the 39 point AF. Since I love both my systems a lot and am not a fanboy of any one, I seriously hope that this new AF system really does what it claims and it can finally be usable for serious wildlife and action. Hopefully the technology slowly trickles down to more affordable cameras as currently the $2000 price tag for it is too rich IMHO.

BTW this is not pointed to Jeroen or any body in particular but IQ technically will always be better with a larger sensor. I just don't understand why people claim that m43 or APSC is better than FF or FF is better than MF. For me when I am on vacation or traveling, m43 IQ is more than enough for me. I can have 14-600 mm equivalent reach in a compact shoulder bag and I just cant imagine taking my heavy D800E on a vacation even though IQ is way better. So whether a camera IQ is good enough is for you to judge and not something that can be dictated by any one else.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

but IQ technically will always be better with a larger sensor.

I don’t think that is true. It’s a bit like saying that a car with the bigger engine is better than the car with a smaller engine.

The sensor is just one part. The type of sensor plays a big role too. And so does the rest of the camera in terms of its hardware and software. Even though lots of us like to think that a RAW file is really that, as basic data as you can get, it’s not.

The way it’s put together in camera is a function of, amongst others, the sensor (type) and a lot of software algorithms and other clever stuff.

Jeroen

[nilanjanray]

Olympus uses a Sony sensor. Given the same level (generation) of sensor tech, a bigger sensor will deliver better IQ than a smaller one. In absolute terms.

How much better, and whether that matters for some, that is open to debate.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Olympus uses a Sony sensor. Given the same level (generation) of sensor tech, a bigger sensor will deliver better IQ than a smaller one. In absolute terms.

Not quite true, the EM1 for one doesn’t.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...sonic-not-sony

Not sure what the new camera uses. But more to the point, for real life purpose it doesn’t matter. It’s the total package that determines the overall and detailled performance.

The camera industry is not that different from other industries where one or two manufacturers dominate when it comes to supplying a critical component. Even so, how one makes that critical component work is what matters.

The mobile phone market has always been dominated by one, possibly, two chip manufacturers. Same is true for GPS devices. Big or small chips, the performance of mobile phone brand A versus brand B can be remarkable different. Even when using identical chips (or sometimes bigger chips!)

So only if everything is equal does your statement hold true, in practice that is never the case.

More importantly, as discussed, in practice everybody has their own preference and bias regardless what the facts are. You could find at least a billion posts on what is the nicest, or the worst for that matter, Bokeh effect.

I’m not to worried either way. Somebody on the internet told me there are no bad image quality camera’s anymore. So no worries whatever you buy.

Happened to see an add for the OMD next and the rest is history as they say.

I have become a member of the Royal Photographic Society back here in Europe. My first print for them will be on an exhibition early 2017 in the UK. I have been to several meetings and I’m helping out on this cool project:

http://www.rockinrotterdam.eu

I have yet to hear anybody talk about kit! Very refreshing.
Mind you, for the exhibitions and RPS distinctions most members make their own prints. High quality Printing is akin to black magic.

It’s good fun!

Jeroen

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Not quite true, the EM1 for one doesn’t.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...sonic-not-sony

Had read somewhere that the EM1 Mk2 was going to use an Olympus designed and Sony manufactured sensor, like Nikon does for many of its cameras (Nikon designed and Sony manufactured). Could be wrong. Anyway.

Re talking about kit: it is mainly on forums such as this. When shooting with photographers, beyond some leg pulling, the talk is more about light and composition, one's style, and about maximizing the chances of getting certain shots.

Gear is relatively easier to master. The art of imagining, seeing, composing and processing as per one's vision is a lifelong journey. Especially for autodidacts like me who don't have a a classical arts background, or a photo mentor.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

If you are buying in the US look for OM-D EM5 MKII with 14-150mm lens(24-300 eqiv).

Thanks for the suggestion and it looks like a great camera but I am looking for something in the price range of Sony A6000. This is not really going to be my main camera as I am not looking to replace my 70D, so hard to justify spending more than a grand in USD on another camera.