[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Another thing I have noticed that sometimes my Google Pixel or Galaxy S10 produce better or more usable shots using the built-in HDR when the background is bright. Does Sony/Olympus or any of these mirrorless cameras have in-built HDR mode and how good are those?

I'm a bit out of touch, but Sony does have some multi-exposure HDR-like shooting.

It is only available in the Superior Auto (gold, not green) mode.

One thing i really like about Sony is that their sensors' dynamic range is very wide (check DxOMark) -- so that lowers the chances of blown out highlights.

Plus Sony has a feature called "DRO" (dynamic range optimization) which you could say is a very subtle HDR for JPG, which helps bring back the blown highlights. You can set the aggressiveness of this (Off, On, High - IIRC).

I'm not sure if there is multi-shot DRO... need to check.

[dmplog]

Originally Posted by adimicra

I have also looked at the olympus cameras. I am wondering why you chose the Olympus EM10 Mk3. I am little skeptical of choosing a micro 4/3rd sensor as it is much smaller than the APSC and might not provide significant benefits over a flagship smartphone like a Pixel/S10. Which lens are you using/planning to use with the Olympus?

I use kit lens 14-42 pancake lens (link). Also recently bought 40-150mm lens (Link).

On "why I chose the Olympus EM10 Mk3 "
This was my first DSLR purchase. After evaluating number of Nikons, Canons and others, finally, I was deliberating only between Sony A60 and Olympus EM10. I didn't want to spend in excess of 50K for body and kit lens. Other main drivers were compactness and value-for-money. Both fulfilled these criteria. I inclined towards Olympus due to below factors
1. Reviews about nice JPEGs out of box and the 'Olympus colour'. I was not sure if I would have time to do RAW processing!! I am really enjoying this. Number of Advanced Photography modes (e.g. composites, keystone compensations, etc) and Art filters give additional flexibility.
2. Could record 4K - being future proof (Sony a6000 could not)
3. Has a 5-axis image stabilization - definitely a boon for handheld low light cases.
4. VFM Lenses. I recently bought a 40-150mm lens for $150 ~ Rs 10K!! It works really well in all lighting conditions.

Whether, Pixel / S10 can replace DSLRs. May be theoretically yes, fair point. Possibly, I am an old school and prefer a proper camera. :-)

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

I bought the Sony 18-105 f/4 -- and its a good enough lens, but its HUGE.

So I'd suggest sticking to the kit lens and getting an additional prime.

The only advantage of the 16-50 is size. It may give good enough pictures given plenty of light, but not without. Mine spends its life on the shelf.

[Sony 50/1.8 OSS] Awfully slow to focus, right? Which is extra frustrating on these Sonys that once upon a time not so long ago held the title of "fastest autofocus".

Every Sony camera has the fastest autofocus ever! Hype or what*? But no, I don't find the 50mm to be slow, and I use it a lot for carnatic-concert pics.

Habitually, I half-press the shutter button, assess, and then snap. Frankly, though, most of the time, I could probably just fully-press it, and I'd get a good pic --- but maybe not focused where I wanted it.

These things are relative, of course, and you have a lot more experience of photography than I do, so my not-slow might feel like waiting an age to you. This I can say: it is a heap faster than the fully-manual 90mm which is my other concert lens!

Generally, autofocus on the a6500 is better and faster than it was on the a6000.

[Sigma 30/1.4]Really lusting after this one myself!!

Mine was bought used on JJMPF. It is the lens on my camera around the house. Great for cat portraits, and even for flowers. It will certainly never be sold again on JJMPF --- or anywhere else!

Originally Posted by adimicra

I am open to m4/3 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic but I don't understand the benefit of those over something like a Sony a6000.

Brand love! But they sure do produce some very good-looking cameras. And then ergonomics: they may be better at that than Sony is.

Another thing I have noticed that sometimes my Google Pixel or Galaxy S10 produce better or more usable shots using the built-in HDR when the background is bright. Does Sony/Olympus or any of these mirrorless cameras have in-built HDR mode and how good are those?

Sony has all kinds of stuff for both HDR and low-light photography. There is automatic single-shot Dynamic-range optimisation, and multiple-shot HDR merging. For low light, there is a multi-shot ISO-auto setting. I haven't used any of these things in earnest, but, just trying them, they seem quite remarkable. You also have all kinds of bracketing options if you want to do this stuff in post-processing. Sony does this stuff: I'd be very surprised if its competitors don't do it too. From your previous camera ownership, you too are a more experienced photographer than I am!

One thing that I have found useful when buying stuff in general is to read the manual rather than the publicity material. You can find the manuals for the Sony cameras via the support links on their camera web pages. It is a pretty dry read: a couple of hundred pages of settings with short descriptions. It makes for dull reading, but is pretty-much authoritative on what the cameras do, or do not do. (but not on how well they do it, of course!)


*The next generation of Sony cameras will focus on something as soon as you even think about it!

[theexperthand]

Originally Posted by adimicra

I am open to m4/3 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic but I don't understand the benefit of those over something like a Sony a6000.

As someone who was in your boat till recently, let me chime in with my 2 paisa worth inputs.

I am a Nikon user for 12 years and recently shifted to MILC. After evaluating Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, and Olympus, I brought an Olympus OM-D M5 MarkII with 14-150 lense. The final contenders where Sony and Olympus and these are the reasons why I chose Olympus over Sony.

• Availability of a wide range of lenses.
• Viewfinder at the traditional spot, instead of extreme left like Sony.
• Amazing image stabilization.
• Live Composition Function.
• Ergonomically better (Personal opinion, your mileage may vary).

I could not find any remarkable difference in picture quality between an APS-C and m43 system. M43 images are as equally good as the images produced by the APS-C sensors. I also felt Olympus was ergonomically much better than Sony - it was a breeze to use the multiple wheels and the multiple function buttons help you customize the camera a lot.

The 14-150 does a good job, and I am now eyeing the Olympus 45mm prime for the portrait shots.

Also, the cool retro looks of Olympus didn't hurt

PS: If you want to read the Olympus OM-D M5 MKII manual, you can do so here.

PPS: Putting 2 low light images I shot without a tripod - was really astonished with the level of Image Stabilization by Oly.






--Anoop

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

The only advantage of the 16-50 is size. It may give good enough pictures given plenty of light, but not without. Mine spends its life on the shelf.

The first lens that came with my original E5 was the 12-50 / 3,5-6,3.
Yes, at night you do need to crank up the ISO, but what with the stabilisation of these cameras it really is not a problem. In fact one of my most accoladed images was shot during evening in the streets of old Delhi. Even on A3 size print the image is razor sharp.

I still use this lens quite a bit for Street Photography. One advantage is that it is small. So sitting on my Pen F it makes for a very small neat unobstrusive package. I find people in street photograph react quite differently when I have all the kit out, compared to this small combo. With a small camera they think you are just an amateur happy snapper. Who cares? With all the big gear around your neck/tripod they will see you as somebody who might want to (financially) benefit from images with them in it. Not everybody is into that.

I have one prime the 17mm/ 1.7mm and the pancake/lens cap 8mm.

I also have the Pro 14-40 2.8 lens which is of superior quality of course compared to the 12-50 (also have the 40-150 2.8). I shoot probably 80% of all my images with these two pro lenses.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Brand love! But they sure do produce some very good-looking cameras. And then ergonomics: they may be better at that than Sony is.

Yes, I must admit I love the way the Olympus OMDs/Pen F look! At least until the last model they released. It looks ridiculous. Great specs and performance but awful looks! Talk about being bloated. I actually got to try it out last weekend at a big Photography Fair here in the Netherlands.

One often heard complaint is that the Olympus body is fairly small. So for people with big hands that is sometimes an issue. The Sony bodies are probably, by and large somewhat larger?

I did invest in the extra handhold and additional battery pack. Makes the package little bigger, heavier, but sometimes a little easier to handle. And of course now I have two batteries. One battery usually last me 200-250 shots, so that is not that much.

Jeroen

[adimicra]

Thanks for all your inputs.
One question to olympus users - do you have in-built HDR in the Olympus cameras? For my budget, the EM10 MK2 makes perfect sense.
Another question - are there any Oly general purpose senses which are wider than the normal 14-50 (28-100). One reason I prefer the Sony kit lens is because the range is wider 16-50 (24- 75). The extra 4mm at the wide angle makes a huge difference in my opinion. I have read here and other places and m4/3 have better/cheaper lenses compared to Sony. But when I looked at the prices, I don't see much options at a cheaper price. May be I am missing something.
Any users of Fujifilm? Looks like they have the best JPEGs right out of the camera but their cameras are pretty costly. I have seldom done RAW processing in last 5-6 years and I am not into video. So, good JPEG quality, HDR/dynamic range and low light image quality are the top criteria for me along with portability and usability.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The first lens that came with my original E5 was the 12-50 / 3,5-6,3.
Yes, at night you do need to crank up the ISO, but what with the stabilisation of these cameras it really is not a problem. In fact one of my most accoladed images was shot during evening in the streets of old Delhi. Even on A3 size print the image is razor sharp.

My "16-50" criticism is specifically of the Sony lens supplied as a kit lens: I sure other people can make a better one! I should give it another chance on my a6500, which can take the ISO higher.

Olympus always seems to take the Stabilisation review prize. And Sony seems to come in last in that race: my verdict is that it certainly works, it even makes manual focusing easier. But I can't make any comparison with others.

If I had bought Olympus, I would be able to enjoy the fact that it would look like the descendent of my old OM1 film camera. But I didn't.

I use my right eye to the EVF, and quite like the "rangefinder" layout. My nose only hits the back of the camera for some of my shots. Matters of personal comfort.

By the way Jeroen, do you remember the original Olympus Pen film cameras? I used to lust after them --- partly because they were "half-frame" and one got 72 pics per film roll instead of 36. Of course, I never had one, so never discovered what the reality of that long thin format was. It might seem less strange today, as our screens have become wider and less tall.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by adimicra

One question to olympus users - do you have in-built HDR in the Olympus cameras? For my budget, the EM10 MK2 makes perfect sense.

I already confirmed that in my post.

Originally Posted by adimicra

Another question - are there any Oly general purpose senses which are wider than the normal 14-50 (28-100).

Of course, I own both 12-50mm and 12-40mm lens.

The entire list is here.

Originally Posted by adimicra

I have read here and other places and m4/3 have better/cheaper lenses compared to Sony. But when I looked at the prices, I don't see much options at a cheaper price. May be I am missing something.

It depends on quality. If you want fast lenses, it gets expensive. The 12-40mm is one of the greatest allrounder lens, and it is expensive. The 12-50mm is lot cheaper, but slower.

My current Olympus gear:
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Olympus M. Zuiko 12-50mm F/3.5-6.3
Olympus M. Zuiko 40-150mm F/4-5.6

Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkII
Olympus M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO
Olympus M. Zuiko 75mm F/1.8
Olympus M. Zuiko 45mm F/1.8
Olympus M. Zuiko 25mm F/1.8
Samyang 7.5mm F/3.5 (manual focus)

[Sebring]

A bushel of treats

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

By the way Jeroen, do you remember the original Olympus Pen film cameras? I used to lust after them --- partly because they were "half-frame" and one got 72 pics per film roll instead of 36. Of course, I never had one, so never discovered what the reality of that long thin format was. It might seem less strange today, as our screens have become wider and less tall.

Yes, I remember it well. The other day at a vintage shop I almost bought one. Only Euro 15.

At the time I had my very first SLR. A Practica LTL 3. It was the first model to have TTL metering. Praktica had screw mounts on all its lenses. It was the only affordable model. I was about 14 years and made my money doing daily paper rounds and working in a toy/hobby shop on Saturdays.

It was still a lot of money. But I wanted to get into photography. My then best friend had the original Pen F and sometimes I envied him for the ease of use, and the fact he got double the number of exposures.

Nobody talked about image quality we do now (or at least that is how I remember it). You just got on with shooting and where very carefully as you had limited number of shots per film and every print cost money. We have come a long way from those days.

In those days we bought film by the meter. By winding your own film into the spool we could get close to 50 exposures (and about a 100 for the Pen F) from a single film.

In those days I also did my own film processing. Had my own little dark room. Only black and white.

I had my Practice for about ten years, bought several lenses and other kit. Went with me during my first couple of years in the merchant navy too. Seen action all around the world. I eventually switched to Minolta X700 and went for slides. From there ten years later or so I went digital. Never owned a SLR since the Minolta.

Jeroen

[Thad E Ginathom]

I associate my memory with a particular area which my family and I left in 1967, at which time I was 15. Whoa, I just googled, and Pen dates back to 1959! When I was 7.

[theexperthand]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Thanks for all your inputs.
One question to olympus users - do you have in-built HDR in the Olympus cameras? For my budget, the EM10 MK2 makes perfect sense.
Another question - are there any Oly general purpose senses which are wider than the normal 14-50 (28-100).

Yes, Olympus does have built-in HDR. I almost decided on EM 10 MK2 before I brought EM 5 MK II, the primary reason being a much better image stabilization. I love low light photography and this was a major deciding factor for me.

This is a comprehensive list of micro 43 lenses from different manufacturers <LINK>


--Anoop

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Mine was bought used on JJMPF. It is the lens on my camera around the house. Great for cat portraits, and even for flowers. It will certainly never be sold again on JJMPF --- or anywhere else!

Nice! I actually hadn't ever checked out the JJ Mehta Forums!

Well, shortly after that i looked at OLX and a "Canon" 30mm 1.4 showed up (without me even searching for it)!

Today i met the guy, and picked it up for 16k - which i think is a great price

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

... Today i met the guy, and picked it up for 16k - which i think is a great price

I heard that, when a woman gives birth, the memory of the horror of it is wiped out by a specific hormone, without which most people would never risk a second time.

I think I have a shopping hormone! I immediately forget how much I have paid for things.

But 16k sounds familiar. IIRC, it is quite a bargain of a lens at the retail price, but this is a good saving. Enjoy! Check the firmware version: the latest improves the behaviour of the manual focus. Mine needs it, but I don't have a Windows machine.

I have bought two lenses from JJMF members, and it has been a good experience both times. Enjoy your new lens!

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

I bought the Sony 18-105 f/4 -- and its a good enough lens, but its HUGE.

Agreed its huge. Even I got that but not using it much.

So I'd suggest sticking to the kit lens and getting an additional prime.

Either that or go with 35mm 1.8.

Awfully slow to focus, right? Which is extra frustrating on these Sonys that once upon a time not so long ago held the title of "fastest autofocus".

Its not bad actually. I found the 35mm to be better.