# Moving to mirrorless: Fuji xe-2 or Olympus omd em10



## kropotkin (Jul 26, 2014)

So after three years of hardly taking my camera out of the cupboard post having kids, I've decided that it is all just a depreciating asset. I have over a grand tied up in Canon DSLR body and lenses, and so have decided to sell it all and move to something more portable and less intrusive.

I don't manage to find time now to lug all the equipment around. I want a camera that is smaller and still delivers excellent images. I think if I have something that is easier and less heavy to carry about with me I'd be more likely to use it. I'd ideally like an interchangeable lens system, so that if in the future I have more time I can then expand lens collections etc.

I see the options in my price range as

Interchangeable:
OMD em10
Fuji x-e2

Fixed:
Sony rx100mark3

Can anyone advise?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 26, 2014)

Fuji lens system, while very good, seems to average slightly more expensive than m43 when you compare equivalent products. Could be wrong and there's not much in it, but that's my impression anyhow.

I don't think the Fuji range lacks anything important now though, except maybe exotica like macro-zooms which m43 doesn't have either, and both systems have plenty of high quality options.

I'm contemplating trading in all my Nikon stuff for much the same reasons, the only camera I regularly use now is my X20, but still can't make up my mind between Fuji x-series and M43 (probably Olympus OMD)

I really don't like the Sony ergonomics if you're going fixed, I'd much prefer Fuji x20 or x100 (if you can live with fixed focal length) or GRD. I think an x200 is due pretty soon so there might be some bargains to be had.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

kropotkin said:


> So after three years of hardly taking my camera out of the cupboard post having kids, I've decided that it is all just a depreciating asset. I have over a grand tied up in Canon DSLR body and lenses, and so have decided to sell it all and move to something more portable and less intrusive.
> 
> I don't manage to find time now to lug all the equipment around. I want a camera that is smaller and still delivers excellent images. I think if I have something that is easier and less heavy to carry about with me I'd be more likely to use it. I'd ideally like an interchangeable lens system, so that if in the future I have more time I can then expand lens collections etc.
> 
> ...



Recently found this site:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings

I wouldn't buy a new camera now without first checking out the sensor rating on the site.


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 26, 2014)

Cheers- ill look at that.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2014)

I *love* my Olympus cameras. That is all


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 26, 2014)

At least consider a fixed lens camera. The Ricoh GR has a bigger sensor than 4/3 cameras combined with a body that is small enough to fit in a trouser pocket. The image quality is excellent. There is a crop setting option at the taking stage and a wide-angle attachable lens option so it is more flexible than appears at first.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> At least consider a fixed lens camera. The Ricoh GR has a bigger sensor than 4/3 cameras combined with a body that is small enough to fit in a trouser pocket. The image quality is excellent. There is a crop setting option at the taking stage and a wide-angle attachable lens option so it is more flexible than appears at first.


And I also love my GR, which I use more than any other camera.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

I would tend to err more towards m43 than Fuji even if I hadn't already invested in it, simply because it's an open standard with two big companies actively making bodies and lenses for it, as well as third parties, though not as much as I'd like. You also have the option of different body sizes using the same lenses for different circumstances.

The OMD is probably still the best buy right now though you might also look at the GX7 if you like the rangefinder style stuff.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

Having said that I recently bought a DSLR because I hate EVFs in the sun. They will eventually get better though.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2014)

I prefer the EVF on my Olympus EM1 to an optical one. It's that good.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

editor said:


> I prefer the EVF on my Olympus EM1 to an optical one. It's that good.


Even in the bright sun? Granted that the new OMD has a better EVF than my g5, but it's not absurdly better, and I find it's just a vague indication of where I'm pointing the camera in any decent daylight.

There is a lot of personal preference here really. One of the things I like about the GR is that the clip on OVF (which I got free) is really really good - huge and clear. Saves the battery too.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Even in the bright sun? Granted that the new OMD has a better EVF than my g5, but it's not absurdly better, and I find it's just a vague indication of where I'm pointing the camera in any decent daylight.
> 
> There is a lot of personal preference here really. One of the things I like about the GR is that the clip on OVF (which I got free) is really really good - huge and clear. Saves the battery too.


It works for me - mind you it is substantially better than the EVF on the original OM-D - and the advantages of a decent EVF in low light are pretty huge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Fuji lens system, while very good, seems to average slightly more expensive than m43 when you compare equivalent products. Could be wrong and there's not much in it, but that's my impression anyhow.



It certainly used to be the case that Fuji lenses were "premium" because they made relatively fewer than most other producers (so far fewer economies of scale than the likes of Canon, Nikon or Pentax, for example), which you can see by their comparable prices for their medium-format rangefinder lenses compared to the same size and speed of lens for a Mamiya RZ (usually a 15-20% premium), plus they do their patented "electron beam-coating" process on the majority of their lenses (a selling point if you're an old fart who remembers how much less flarey Fuji's lenses were compared to a lot of their competitors in the '80s and '90s)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

editor said:


> It works for me - mind you it is substantially better than the EVF on the original OM-D - and the advantages of a decent EVF in low light are pretty huge.


They do excel in low light. Somebody who takes a lot of pics at, say, gigs, would be really well served by a m43 system with one of the fast primes. Not only do you have the EVF and the speed but the DoF actually works in your favour there - 1.4 is too narrow for proper portraits, but double that to effective f2.8 DoF and it's perfect.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

I actually was just in a camera store looking at a used XE 1. They had a couple of them. Coming back and reading the reviews, the comments made are that the colors produced by the camera are good for people/portrait, but flat if taking photos of things. Looking up the sensor ratings of any listed Fuji, they all rank near the bottom of the heap.

Think I'll keep looking.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

Seriously, don't make buying decisions based on DxOMark.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

Why not?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Why not?


Because it's the ultimate pixel-peeping website. That's what it's for, I mean no criticism. But it doesn't take anything else into account, and tbh pixel-peeping quality is practically the least important factor nowadays, given that almost any system you care to name will produce high quality images.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

Given that a camera purchase, plus lenses these days probably means an outlay of a lot of money, I think it makes sense to do a lot of homework before laying out the money.

Reading up on DxO Labs, they appear to be a rigorous and unbiased testing lab, and their work helps cast light on the multitude of camera models that have proliferated, imo, as an attempt to keep consumers in the dark.

From their 'about' page:



> All measurements are performed on straight-from-camera RAW files, the only reliable way to evaluate intrinsic hardware performance. Read more.
> All lenses are tested on every camera on which they can be mounted. Read more about how camera sensors impact the optical performance of lenses.
> Lenses and cameras are tested for their full range of possible settings such as focal length, aperture, exposure time, ISO speed, white balance, etc.
> To ensure highest precision and reliability, measurements are performed at DxO Labs’ dedicated testing laboratories, where conditions are controlled as in standard metrology labs. Read more.
> ...






http://www.dxomark.com/About/What-is-DxOMark2


Looks pretty good to me.


I certainly have no vested interest here; but it makes sense for purchasers to check out sites like this and form their own conclusions. It costs maybe half an hour of time, and well worth it, given the investment that a good camera represents.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

Their measurements highlight differences in exceptional fringe cases of use of any lens or camera, and are deceptive in terms of actual use. They don't pay any attention to anything apart from their stated parameters.

They are basically irrelevant when it comes to photography, unless you're in a specialised industry. Gross image quality issues will be apparent from any other comparison.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

It's usually a good idea with standardized testing to pay attention only to the variables within the stated parameters. 

You're entitled to your opinion, but Dx0 Mark sensor ratings get referred to all over the various media that deals with photography, and appear to be held in relatively high regard by many commentators.

But if people would prefer to make their purchase based only on a couple of anecdotal stories, they're certainly welcome to do so.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's usually a good idea with standardized testing to pay attention only to the variables within the stated parameters.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion, but Dx0 Mark sensor ratings get referred to all over the various media that deals with photography, and appears to be held in relatively high regard by many commentators.
> 
> But if people would prefer to make their purchase based only on a couple of anecdotal stories, they're certainly welcome to do so.


Because the internet is full of pixel-peepers. It's a nice comfortable metric, nothing messy like "yeah but is this actually a good camera to take photos with?"

The Canon 5D MkIII will blow the shit out of the OM-D on DxOMark. Because obviously. That means it's a better camera?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

But.... if you take the time to check out the site, you'll become aware that their comparisons are based on more than just the number of pixels.

Are we actually arguing about whether or not camera purchasers should check out a testing site?

My idea is this: let people visit the site and make up their own minds. What do you think?


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Because the internet is full of pixel-peepers. It's a nice comfortable metric, nothing messy like "yeah but is this actually a good camera to take photos with?"
> 
> The Canon 5D MkIII will blow the shit out of the OM-D on DxOMark. Because obviously. That means it's a better camera?


Some of the differences are so subtle that a lot of people would be hard pressed to see the difference in regular shooting, even at high ISOs e.g.:



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

editor said:


> Some of the differences are so subtle that a lot of people would be hard pressed to see the difference in regular shooting, even at high ISOs e.g.:
> 
> View attachment 58418
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16


I really can't tell the difference with loads of this shit. I've seen so many internet pieces saying "well X is clearly superior to Y at ISO Z here" and I look at the images and think "wait no what these just look exactly the same and they're 100% crops as well".

I mean really, who the fuck cares about the difference between the two shots above.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

...especially when so many people now view photos on their phones.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

Reading the initial reviews on the cameras I've been shooting with - Canon s90 and 110 point and shoot - one would conclude that they were the best thing since sliced bread. And in fairness, they have some good features for point and shoot cameras.

But I later became aware that these Canons have miniscule sensors; this was consonant with my general unhappiness with the image quality, especially in certain shooting situations.

Recently finding the DxO ratings, sure enough - the sensors in these cameras are near the bottom, which jibes with my impression of the IQ of the cameras.

It's the prime motivator for me now looking for a decent used DSLR.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2014)

When I'm deciding whether to take out my GR or my OM-D, the relative sensor sizes are the last thing on my mind.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Reading the initial reviews on the cameras I've been shooting with - Canon s90 and 110 point and shoot - one would conclude that they were the best thing since sliced bread. And in fairness, they have some good features for point and shoot cameras.
> 
> But I later became aware that these Canons have miniscule sensors; this was consonant with my general unhappiness with the image quality, especially in certain shooting situations.
> 
> ...


You previously thought that a compact would have the same sensor as a DSLR?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

No, I didn't think that ..... but I didn't realize just how small the Canon sensors were, even in comparison to other point and shoot cameras.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 26, 2014)

Sensor quality seems much of a muchness these days in anything decent.

Ergonomics, viewfinder quality, autofocus capability, stabilisation/ISO and available lens quality seem much more important to me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2014)

My main goal, is the best image quality.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My main goal, is the best image quality.


So shoot large format. Can't top a 4x5  neg.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 26, 2014)

MY first camera was a mirrorless with an EVF or screen interchangeable. It had an 8fps burst which was fun but AF was slow and low light performance limited.

I am now considering my first FF dslr which offers, great IQ including at high ISO, large clear Optical Viewfinder, fast AF, compatible with my lenses which are all FF and will now work as they were designed, narrower DOF, good battery performance. I am about to press the trigger to get it atm - I can't wait!


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My main goal, is the best image quality.


Some of the greatest, most powerful photographs ever taken probably wouldn't stand up too well to a DxO examination.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 26, 2014)

editor said:


> Some of the greatest, most powerful photographs ever taken probably wouldn't stand up too well to a DxO examination.


I agree, total image quality comes a second to a properly useable camera. I want to be able to get the shot, to have full control of the device, to be able to shoot when I need to capture an image not wait while the shot is lost.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So shoot large format. Can't top a 4x5  neg.



Cost considerations.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Some of the greatest, most powerful photographs ever taken probably wouldn't stand up too well to a DxO examination.



Dx0 examines hardware, specifically sensors; not images.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I agree, total image quality comes a second to a properly useable camera. I want to be able to get the shot, to have full control of the device, to be able to shoot when I need to capture an image not wait while the shot is lost.



Isn't the idea behind a properly useable camera, to get good photos?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Isn't the idea behind a properly useable camera, to get good photos?


I am just saying, there is more than IQ to be considered when weighing up a purchase.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Dx0 examines hardware, specifically sensors; not images.


The point being that you seem to think ultimate image quality is the most important consideration. I do not. Not by a long chalk.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2014)

editor said:


> The point being that you seem to think ultimate image quality is the most important consideration. I do not. Not by a long chalk.



Given that a camera exists in order to produce images, I think that a camera's ability to produce high image quality is as important as the ability of a car to drive straight down the street, or of a food processor to dice carrots.

Most people, given a choice between a tool that does its job well, and one that does its job less well, will choose the one that does its job well.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Given that a camera exists in order to produce images, I think that a camera's ability to produce high image quality is as important as the ability of a car to drive straight down the street, or of a food processor to dice carrots.
> 
> Most people, given a choice between a tool that does its job well, and one that does its job less well, will choose the one that does its job well.


And that's where the other considerations such as size, build, speed and ergonomics also play a vital part.

I'm surprised you're finding this so hard to understand, to be honest.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> And that's where the other considerations such as size, build, speed and ergonomics also play a vital part.
> 
> I'm surprised you're finding this so hard to understand, to be honest.



Don't be surprised: I have trouble with all sorts of things.

The heart of a camera, the guts, the reason it exists, is to take good photos. Good image quality with a DSLR will come about through the interaction of a good sensor and good glass. Ergonomics etc also matter, but imo come second to the ability of the photo to make a good image.

I want a camera with intuitive controls, nice ergonomics etc. but I won't choose a camera for those things, if the primary function of the camera is lacking or deficient.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Don't be surprised: I have trouble with all sorts of things.
> 
> The heart of a camera, the guts, the reason it exists, is to take good photos. Good image quality with a DSLR will come about through the interaction of a good sensor and good glass. Ergonomics etc also matter, but imo come second to the ability of the photo to make a good image.
> 
> I want a camera with intuitive controls, nice ergonomics etc. but I won't choose a camera for those things, if the primary function of the camera is lacking or deficient.


But for most everyday shots even an 'average' camera provides more than enough image quality for most uses and you'd be very unlikely to spot the difference between a mid range camera and a full frame camera costing $$$$. 

A major international airport has a series of my photos blown up to over a metre high along their walls - and they were taken with a 3.1MP camera.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> But for most everyday shots even an 'average' camera provides more than enough image quality for most uses and you'd be very unlikely to spot the difference between a mid range camera and a full frame camera costing $$$$. .



If a person is satisfied by the image quality provided by one of the starter camera models, no doubt  they will save a lot of money in the long run.

The image quality of the cameras I've been using, which have small, poorly-rated sensors, doesn't satisfy me anymore, so I'm looking for something that can give me something better. This might not be a problem that others come across.

As for 3.1 mp, I think FM was right that pixel number isn't all there is to sensor quality.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If a person is satisfied by the image quality provided by one of the starter camera models, no doubt  they will save a lot of money in the long run.
> 
> The image quality of the cameras I've been using, which have small, poorly-rated sensors, doesn't satisfy me anymore, so I'm looking for something that can give me something better. This might not be a problem that others come across.
> 
> As for 3.1 mp, I think FM was right that pixel number isn't all there is to sensor quality.


How big do you intend to output your images? Billboard size? A0?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> How big do you intend to output your images? Billboard size? A0?



Does that matter? Not so many years ago, billboard images were created solely with film cameras.

Most professional photography doesn't end up billboard size - yet pro photographers often use top end Mamiyas, Hasselblads, etc, that are way out of most people's price range.

I expect there's probably a reason that the pros select the cameras they do over mid range Canons and Olympus cameras.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

Which reminds me: the last time you and I had a discussion like this, you were taking the position that cell phone cameras were just as good as DSLRs.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Does that matter? Not so many years ago, billboard images were created solely with film cameras.
> 
> Most professional photography doesn't end up billboard size - yet pro photographers often use top end Mamiyas, Hasselblads, etc, that are way out of most people's price range.
> 
> I expect there's probably a reason that the pros select the cameras they do over mid range Canons and Olympus cameras.


Some do use mid-range cameras, actually (some even get on the front covers of international magazines with phone pictures), although for certain types of professional photography you do need high end gear (e.g. sports, landscapes).


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Which reminds me: the last time you and I had a discussion like this, you were taking the position that cell phone cameras were just as good as DSLRs.


That was only in the highly confused mind of an individual poster.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Some do, actually



I'll just have to take your word on that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> That was only in the highly confused mind of an individual poster.



Either that; or a different individual poster just likes to be contrary sometimes.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'll just have to take your word on that.


One seconds Googling produces: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...s-om-d-e-m1-is-one-top-pros-camera-of-choice/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

In certain circumstances, doctors have performed surgery with pen knives; as a rule, they prefer hospital issue scalpels and equipment.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> In certain circumstances, doctors have performed surgery with pen knives; as a rule, they prefer hospital issue scalpels and equipment.


That comparison really shows that you simply don't understand the issues. A pro might use an Olympus camera - or a GR -_ because it would be a better tool for a particular job_ than a high end full frame camera. 

If you're basing the concept of 'good' photography on pixel peeking and the often-imperceptible differences in sensor quality, I don't think I'm going to be particularly interested in your take on the subject.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

Not to worry, I don't even know what 'pixel peeping' is - but it sounds kinda naughty.

As for cameras for different jobs - I'll grant you that various cameras might produce images in particular ways that appeal to a particular subset of users; but in general, it's possible to mimic the output of a mediocre camera with a good camera, via settings etc - but a mediocre camera can't be made to match the best output of a good camera, no matter how much knob and menu-fiddling one does.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not to worry, I don't even know what 'pixel peeping' is - but it sounds kinda naughty.
> 
> As for cameras for different jobs - I'll grant you that various cameras might produce images in particular ways that appeal to a particular subset of users; but in general, it's possible to mimic the output of a mediocre camera with a good camera, via settings etc - but a mediocre camera can't be made to match the best output of a good camera, no matter how much knob and menu-fiddling one does.


A mediocre camera can still take fucking amazing pictures though - the point being it's the scene being captured that matters, and not the size of the sensor. Get that in your head and some of your photography may improve. 

Most people don't give a shit if a photograph was taken on a £3,000 camera or a £300 one. All they care about is the scene, the message, the art and the emotional impact.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> A mediocre camera can still take fucking amazing pictures though - the point being it's the scene being captured that matters, and not the size of the sensor. Get that in your head and some of your photography may improve.
> 
> Most people don't give a shit if a photograph was taken on a £3,000 camera or a £300 one. All they care about is the scene, the message, the art and the emotional impact.



I also could give a shit what a camera costs. If I can find a cheap used camera with the ability to produce superior image quality, that's what I'll buy. It's stupid to spend money unnecessarily when what you want can be had for less.

As for what others want, that's fine. We're discussing what for most people is a hobby, and everyone takes their own path. Hardly seems a topic worthy of getting one's back up over.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I also could give a shit what a camera costs. If I can find a cheap used camera with the ability to produce superior image quality, that's what I'll buy. It's stupid to spend money unnecessarily when what you want can be had for less.
> 
> As for what others want, that's fine. We're discussing what for most people is a hobby, and everyone takes their own path. Hardly seems a topic worthy of getting one's back up over.


You just seem a little strangely obsessed with this concept of "superior image quality."


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> You just seem a little strangely obsessed with this concept of "superior image quality."





'Superior image quality' - a strange obsession for a photographer to have!


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 'Superior image quality' - a strange obsession for a photographer to have!


When it's placed over capturing the moment, the mood, the atmosphere and the message, yes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> When it's placed over capturing the moment, the mood, the atmosphere and the message, yes.



Didn't say that.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Didn't say that.


I think you've made your priorities pretty clear over the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> I think you've made your priorities pretty clear over the last few pages of this thread.



If I somewhere said that, then I misstated my position.

Like any other photographer, I first of all am trying to communicate my message etc, whatever it happens to be.

My preference for doing so, is to have the best tool for the job.

In determining which is the best tool, the ability to produce superior image quality, is foremost in my consideration.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Given that a camera exists in order to produce images, I think that a camera's ability to produce high image quality is as important as the ability of a car to drive straight down the street, or of a food processor to dice carrots.
> 
> Most people, given a choice between a tool that does its job well, and one that does its job less well, will choose the one that does its job well.



A tool is a tool.  It can only "do the job well" if the person using it can operate it.  That's why decent photographers can get fantastic photos with seemingly-mundane kit.  David Bailey, for example, to prove a point when he used to advertise the Olympus Trip 35mm compact camera (way back in the late '70s), did several professional photoshoots using one, rather than his usual Rolleis, and Bert Hardy, a fairly legendary photo-journalist on this side of the Atlantic, took a bet that he could get a front page-quality picture with a Box Brownie (single-speed shutter, single aperture).
Don't put your faith in kit, put your faith in your own competence to take a good photo, and in your understanding of the basic technical principles of camera-use, and of composition.  Do that, and you won't go far wrong, regardless of whether your kit gets loads of great hardware reviews.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Don't be surprised: I have trouble with all sorts of things.
> 
> The heart of a camera, the guts, the reason it exists, is to take good photos.



Nope, just to take photos.
Because at the end of the day, "good" is 95% perception, and only 5% to do with how sharp the lens was, or how highly the sensor (or, for we old-timers, the film) is rated.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 28, 2014)

It depends what kind of photography you are doing, how important a lens or a body will be. It is always necessary to work with the qualities of the kit you have. Some images may well be beyond a particular combination of equipment. If it is critical you get those shots, then the specific gear may be necessary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2014)

editor said:


> You just seem a little strangely obsessed with this concept of "superior image quality."



And yet it's almost impossible to quantify unless you're counting pixels and/or cross-analysing the colour repro against a chart like camera mags used to do with new film emulsions.
For me (and this is only my individual opinion) a "superior image" is one that draws you in, whether it grabs you by the throat, or just makes you look again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It depends what kind of photography you are doing, how important a lens or a body will be. It is always necessary to work with the qualities of the kit you have. Some images may well be beyond a particular combination of equipment. If it is critical you get those shots, then the specific gear may be necessary.



Sure, but most amateur photographers are generalists, and if they do "specialise", it's generally in a genre where specialist kit isn't required, beyond perhaps a macro lens, or a fast lens. They don't *need* extra-light or extra-robust bodies, or a pixel count in the 20s of millions, although it's fairly obvious that people llike to OWN such kit, regardless of need.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Cost considerations.


Actually most people I know who shoot large format say it saves them money. They don't need to take many pictures. They tend to be a lot more careful about what they shoot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Actually most people I know who shoot large format say it saves them money. They don't need to take many pictures. They tend to be a lot more careful about what they shoot.



I knew an Anglo-Indian bloke in the '70s who used to make money doing postcard shots of London (the usual banal views), who would "storyboard" his pictures so that he only ever used 2 sheets of film max for each shot.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I knew an Anglo-Indian bloke in the '70s who used to make money doing postcard shots of London (the usual banal views), who would "storyboard" his pictures so that he only ever used 2 sheets of film max for each shot.


One particular person I know (who runs the darkroom I use) was saying he only ever took one shot of each place when he was doing a project with several locations. He and his partner would visit beforehand and plan the shot.

I've never shot LF actually - I would like to. I was considering getting the Harman Titan pinhole as I like doing wide urban shots. Need a new tank spiral though.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sure, but most amateur photographers are generalists, and if they do "specialise", it's generally in a genre where specialist kit isn't required, beyond perhaps a macro lens, or a fast lens. They don't *need* extra-light or extra-robust bodies, or a pixel count in the 20s of millions, although it's fairly obvious that people llike to OWN such kit, regardless of need.


I know some birders / natural history types with fast 500 or 600 (one has an 800mm lens), and bodies with very good AF. Then there are some landscapers with 36mpx DSLRs.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2014)

What most impacts image quality imo is lenses. The best lenses make the best images, unfortunately the best lenses cost the most because photographers have realised their qualities and this dictates prices.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 30, 2014)

I absolutely LOVE my x-e1.  They're almost identical to the x-e2 but half the price.  Seriously consider one.

The EVF is excellent and with the 27mm pancake it fits in my pocket.  The kit lens is a real step up from a normal kit lens too, a stop faster across the whole range (f2.8-4) and pin sharp.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I actually was just in a camera store looking at a used XE 1. They had a couple of them. Coming back and reading the reviews, the comments made are that the colors produced by the camera are good for people/portrait, but flat if taking photos of things. Looking up the sensor ratings of any listed Fuji, they all rank near the bottom of the heap.
> 
> Think I'll keep looking.



I wouldn't if I were you.  They've not reviewed the x-e1 or x-e2 sensor at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.  Also, Ken rockwell is about the only person on the planet I've heard moan about the colours coming our of fuji sensors, everyone else raves about them.  I don't think I've ever seen a review that gave it less than 4 stars ever.  That other site for pixel nerds (http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x) raved about the lens IQ too.

Anyhoo, it's a lovely camera.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 30, 2014)

For the nerds, here's a 100% crop of a handheld mixed lighting scene at iso 800, straight out of the camera as a jpg with no post processing.  This isn't meant to wow you with the picture, but show the detail it can easily resolve.  Not sure while I feel the need to do this, but hey...



Original


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 30, 2014)

If you get an x-e1, fuji will send you the 50-230 zoom for free btw: http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/promotions/  I did this and sold it almost instantly on ebay for £200.

I would have been torn the same way you were OP, but the sheer value for money won me out.  It's a bargain of a camera at £400 quid.

omg, I've gone all fanboi.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 30, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> .  They've not reviewed the x-e1 or x-e2 sensor at all,..



That's true: what I say in the post is that   'Looking up the sensor ratings of any listed Fuji, they all rank near the bottom of the heap.'

I think that people develop a bit of brand loyalty with cameras, lens issues aside - I know that I've been faithful to Canon for years, and it'll be a big change for me, switching to a different manufacturer.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's true: what I say in the post is that   'Looking up the sensor ratings of any listed Fuji, they all rank near the bottom of the heap.'
> 
> I think that people develop a bit of brand loyalty with cameras, lens issues aside - I know that I've been faithful to Canon for years, and it'll be a big change for me, switching to a different manufacturer.


Not me so much. With compacts, I've had several Ricohs, a Canon, Olympus, several Sonys and a Konica and I recently switched from Nikon to Olympus for my SLR.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's true: what I say in the post is that   'Looking up the sensor ratings of any listed Fuji, they all rank near the bottom of the heap.'
> 
> I think that people develop a bit of brand loyalty with cameras, lens issues aside - I know that I've been faithful to Canon for years, and it'll be a big change for me, switching to a different manufacturer.



Well that's because the only ones they've reviewed are point and shoots or bridge cameras.

DXO have not looked into this range at all - the similar sensored x-pro is still not one there(another rave reviewed camera).  The same was true of the OM-D.  They didn't review it for _ages_.  It was so long there was almost a need for the conspiracy cap tbh.

This thing is in another league.  It's far better for IQ than my old pentax K-X and that was no slouch.  In fact it was excellent,  but this is even better.

tbf, I switched brands because (a) my dslr was run over by a van and (b) I wanted a smaller camera that took just as good pictures.  I boiled it down to the olympus e-pl5 (same sensor as the om-d but smaller and much cheaper) or the x-e1.  The x-e1 won for a couple of reasons, not least because it had a top quality EVF.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 30, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Well that's because the only ones they've reviewed are point and shoots or bridge cameras.
> 
> DXO have not looked into this range at all - the similar sensored x-pro is still not one there(another rave reviewed camera).  The same was true of the OM-D.  They didn't review it for _ages_.  It was so long there was almost a need for the conspiracy cap tbh.
> 
> This thing is in another league.  It's far better for IQ than my old pentax K-X and that was no slouch.  In fact it was excellent,  but this is even better.



I'll do a bit more digging on the XE 1 - I was impressed with its relatively compact size.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2014)

weltweit said:


> What most impacts image quality imo is lenses. The best lenses make the best images, unfortunately the best lenses cost the most because photographers have realised their qualities and this dictates prices.



What does "best" mean, though? Look through most 20th-century photography books, and you'll invariably come across loads of pictures taken on Tessars, Xenars and other "classic" lenses - all lenses that were the result of optical experimentation and mathematics, though, not products of algorithms, so which is best - my crystal-clear 75mm/f3.5 Tessar on my Super Ikonta, the lovely 50mm/f1.7 Pentax PK-A Super Takumar on the front of my DSLR at the moment, or the "mathematically"-perfect zoom on my Fujifil F660EXR.
Just because a lens is expensive and garners good (or even fantastic) reviews, doesn't mean it's one of the "best lenses".  What tends to be best is *what works* for a particular picture.  I'e seen great portraits taken on lenses whose focal length wasn't suited to portraits, and great landscapes that weren't taken on wide-angle lenses.
I think we get way too caught up with the techno-woo about kit, and don't give enough thought to "is it any good for what I might do?".

BTW, if you're using a crap emulsion, or have a grubby sensor, the "best" lens in the world won't give you "the best image"!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> I wouldn't if I were you.  They've not reviewed the x-e1 or x-e2 sensor at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.  Also, Ken rockwell is about the only person on the planet I've heard moan about the colours coming our of fuji sensors, everyone else raves about them.  I don't think I've ever seen a review that gave it less than 4 stars ever.  That other site for pixel nerds (http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x) raved about the lens IQ too.
> 
> Anyhoo, it's a lovely camera.



The rudest thing I've seen about Fuji's colour repro was "it's a bit Velvia", which as far as I'm concerned isn't an issue, given how many photo-pros used Velvia in its' prime.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What does "best" mean, though? Look through most 20th-century photography books, and you'll invariably come across loads of pictures taken on Tessars, Xenars and other "classic" lenses - all lenses that were the result of optical experimentation and mathematics, though, not products of algorithms, so which is best - my crystal-clear 75mm/f3.5 Tessar on my Super Ikonta, the lovely 50mm/f1.7 Pentax PK-A Super Takumar on the front of my DSLR at the moment, or the "mathematically"-perfect zoom on my Fujifil F660EXR.
> Just because a lens is expensive and garners good (or even fantastic) reviews, doesn't mean it's one of the "best lenses".  What tends to be best is *what works* for a particular picture.  I'e seen great portraits taken on lenses whose focal length wasn't suited to portraits, and great landscapes that weren't taken on wide-angle lenses.
> I think we get way too caught up with the techno-woo about kit, and don't give enough thought to "is it any good for what I might do?".
> 
> BTW, if you're using a crap emulsion, or have a grubby sensor, the "best" lens in the world won't give you "the best image"!


Sometimes VP you do this thing of responding almost indignantly to one of my posts before going on to say pretty much the same thing as I said.

I think you know what a "good lens" is. A good lens is one which has gathered a repute among photographers because of attractive optical and or mechanical qualities. That repute usually means its used price holds up well.

So in the case of Nikon, the 85mm f1.8 is considered optically a good lens, but the 85mm f1.4 is considered optically better, so it commands double the used price of its f1.8 cousin. Again within Nikon, the 70-200 f2.8 AFS VR is considered a good lens, with fantastic optical qualities and its used price also reflects this.

Yes, these lenses often suit certain images, but as you mention, there are no rules.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'll do a bit more digging on the XE 1 - I was impressed with its relatively compact size.





ViolentPanda said:


> The rudest thing I've seen about Fuji's colour repro was "it's a bit Velvia", which as far as I'm concerned isn't an issue, given how many photo-pros used Velvia in its' prime.



ironically, ken rockwell was complaining that the velivia looked nothing like velvia.

the thing they messed up was they swapped the provia and "soft" settings, meaning it's a bit muted out of the box.  Change it to "soft" and you get nice, bright provia type rendering.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 30, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes, these lenses often suit certain images, but as you mention, there are no rules.



The 27mm fuji lens is pretty much perfect corner to corner according to photozone.de  My experience leads me to believe that it's pretty much impeccable, which is amazing for something with less than 2cm protruding from the body.

Weirdly, the 50mm pentax 1.8 I loved so much beforehand doesn't produce anywhere near as good results on my fuji as it did on my pentax.  I thought it would be amazing, but it wasn't as good.  I loved that lens.  Go figure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Sometimes VP you do this thing of responding almost indignantly to one of my posts before going on to say pretty much the same thing as I said.



"Almost indignantly"?  Don't flatter yourself!
And if I've said a similar thing to you, perhaps you should ponder that perhaps you're not making yourself clear. 



> I think you know what a "good lens" is. A good lens is one which has gathered a repute among photographers because of attractive optical and or mechanical qualities. That repute usually means its used price holds up well.



Yeah, but that's your (and my) take on "best lens".  My point here is that there are a lot of photogs out there, especially amateurs, for whom that's not a primary concern - for whom repute doesn't even figure alongside speed, weight etc - and they are the people who drive the market in lens sales.  We all know at least one of this type of photog; the guy (it's ALWAYS a bloke!) with the latest camera and latest lenses, whose photography never improves, and who firmly believes that if only his gear was better, his photography would be too!



> So in the case of Nikon, the 85mm f1.8 is considered optically a good lens, but the 85mm f1.4 is considered optically better, so it commands double the used price of its f1.8 cousin. Again within Nikon, the 70-200 f2.8 AFS VR is considered a good lens, with fantastic optical qualities and its used price also reflects this.
> 
> Yes, these lenses often suit certain images, but as you mention, there are no rules.



The problem being that many photographers - a majority of amateurs at least, going by my experiences (a bit old now) of camera clubs - will sit and read "The 35mm Handbook" or similar photographic manual, and then take what they've read to heart, and *never* willingly break any of the rules, and to me that puts a real limit on what you can achieve photographically.  What I'd love to see on every photography course and at every camera club is for someone to do what my old Graphic Art teacher (thanks, Robin!) did - stand up with some printed matter in their hand, say "this is the rulebook for photography", and then tear it up in front of you! That really set us free, back in the '70s, the idea that there wasn't any "right" way to take photos, or to do composition, that the rules were okay, but that you could break them if you thought it'd result in a decent picture.
He was also a proponent of pre-visualisation (something that's kind of died a death as a serious photographer's practice), and always recommended carrying a notebook, so you could note down how you saw the frame, and how you wanted to reproduce it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> The 27mm fuji lens is pretty much perfect corner to corner according to photozone.de  My experience leads me to believe that it's pretty much impeccable, which is amazing for something with less than 2cm protruding from the body.
> 
> Weirdly, the 50mm pentax 1.8 I loved so much beforehand doesn't produce anywhere near as good results on my fuji as it did on my pentax.  I thought it would be amazing, but it wasn't as good.  I loved that lens.  Go figure.



I've seen a few complaints similar to the above, and one of the issues seems to be registration distance. The adaptors are made to suit *the majority *of lenses, and in a minority of cases will be a few thou out of true registration.  Leica, even with their production tolerances, used to end up having their dealers shim the lens mount adaptor on screw to m mount adapters with bits of rice paper, in order to deal with the problem!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 31, 2014)

I had a look at one of those XE-2 things. Very tasty. Love the Fuji lens ergonomics too. Actual aperture rings and everything. Some even have distance markings.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 6, 2014)

Thanks everyone for your opinions.
I seem to be heading now for the OMD E-M10 after starting out very pro-Fuji. The IBIS is very attractive, as is the tilting screen and in-built wifi. I haven't yet held an XE-2, but I tried out the XE-1 and the OMD in John Lewis at the weekend and preferred the ergonomics of the OMD.

It is a difficult call to make! I'll be wedded to a system once purchased, for realistically at least the next 5 years. I'm tempted to wait until Photokina in September to see if prices change or there is some new game-changer released in my budget...


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 6, 2014)

If they were the same price I think would have gone for the OM-D myself, but it was going to work out at least 200 quid more than the x-e1. At the time, the equivalent priced olympus was the epl5 and that's nowhere near as nice.  

Never regretted it.  Slightly miss IBS for my prime lens but it's at least two stops faster than the OM-D kit lens at that length so it's not really an issue.  Really depends on what you're intending to shoot but I think you can go wrong with either system.

There's currently 200 quid cashback on x-e2 and 100 cashback on x-t1s http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/promotions/


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2014)

The lack of lens is a major drawback for the X-e2.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 6, 2014)

editor said:


> The lack of lens is a major drawback for the X-e2.



It's the price of lenses that does it for me.  I just looked, thinking maybe I would take the 200 cashback when you buy two lenses and they're extortionate.  The 10-24 is 829 and the 14mm is £669, which puts any sort of ultrawide out of anyone remotely normals price range imo, unless you go the samyang fisheye route.

There's more choice at more pricepoints for lenses on 4/3


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 6, 2014)

kropotkin said:


> Thanks everyone for your opinions.
> I seem to be heading now for the OMD E-M10 after starting out very pro-Fuji. The IBIS is very attractive, as is the tilting screen and in-built wifi. I haven't yet held an XE-2, but I tried out the XE-1 and the OMD in John Lewis at the weekend and preferred the ergonomics of the OMD.
> 
> It is a difficult call to make! I'll be wedded to a system once purchased, for realistically at least the next 5 years. I'm tempted to wait until Photokina in September to see if prices change or there is some new game-changer released in my budget...



what range of lenses do you see yourself wanting?

The 18-55 kit lenses are so good there's little reason to upgrade unless you want a prime for some reason (speed & size are the only ones that really matter here - the IQ is that amazing in the kit lenses.  The 18mm end of the 18-55 is _better_ than the 18mm prime according to photozone.de!  Admittedly, that's their worst prime, the 23, 27 & 35 are all better than the kit zoom) .  I think I'm going to buy the cheaper constructed but almost-as-good-iq-wise 16-50 kit lens for £140 quid off ebay just so I can use the 16mm (24mm equiv) end.

Sorry about the waffly post, but I was facing almost the exact same choice a few months ago.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 6, 2014)

Another thing to consider is the fact the JPGs from the FUJI are excellent.  Great straight out of the camera means I never bother with raw, which is a fantastic time saver.  Not sure about the OM-D, perhaps ed could comment on that.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 6, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> If they were the same price I think would have gone for the OM-D myself, but it was going to work out at least 200 quid more than the x-e1. At the time, the equivalent priced olympus was the epl5 and that's nowhere near as nice.
> 
> Never regretted it.  Slightly miss IBS for my prime lens but it's at least two stops faster than the OM-D kit lens at that length so it's not really an issue.  Really depends on what you're intending to shoot but I think you can go wrong with either system.
> 
> There's currently 200 quid cashback on x-e2 and 100 cashback on x-t1s http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/promotions/


Wow- I hadn't seen the new XE2 promotion! thanks. Dammit that might make it more difficult...

Lens wise, on my Canon APS-c I had 50mm 1.8 Canon prime (wonderful), 2.8-4.5 17-70 Sigma (OK, bought as replacement for crap Canon kit lens but not actually that much better), 75-300mm canon telezoom (Not very good, rarely used) and the excellent 100mm f2.8 Canon Macro.

I ended up mostly using the 50mm prime and the walkaround 17-70.

I'd be looking to get similar setups with either the fuji or olympus: good walkaround lens and a fast prime at 50-70mm FF equivalence.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 6, 2014)

The 35mm f1.4 fuji prime has excellent reviews and the normal 18-50 f2.8-4 fuji kit knocks the socks of that cannon kit lens and sigma.  Both have IS and are all metal iirc.  The prime is one of their more 'reasonable' lenses at just over 400 quid, or 340 quid new from uk sellers on ebay.  35 might not be long enough for you though, depends.  I really like my 27mm pancake fwiw.

I'm not really sure what the difference is between an x-e1 and x-e2, but the x-e1 is waaay cheaper again.  you could get it with those lenses above plus the 50-230 for a grand I think.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Another thing to consider is the fact the JPGs from the FUJI are excellent.  Great straight out of the camera means I never bother with raw, which is a fantastic time saver.  Not sure about the OM-D, perhaps ed could comment on that.


I've no complaints at all. I think the OM-D is a wonderful camera.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 8, 2014)

After a lot of thought I've bought the omd with a twin lens kit on grey import. Should get it next week. Thanks for everyone's advice


----------



## chandlerp (Aug 13, 2014)

I bought the Canon Eos M a couple of weeks ago and have been very happy with the results but the battery leaves a lot to be desired being good for only a day / 200 shots.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2014)

chandlerp said:


> I bought the Canon Eos M a couple of weeks ago and have been very happy with the results but the battery leaves a lot to be desired being good for only a day / 200 shots.


That is very poor indeed.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 19, 2015)

How you getting on with the eos m ....chandlerp ?.....just seen it in argos (Mk1) with a speed light flash and 18/55mm equiv for £199.....and I've got £80 on my nectar card which Argos take

The urge is strong with this one obiwan

Pair of batts around a tenner ?


----------



## chandlerp (Apr 20, 2015)

I like it very much.  The battery life isn't great as I've said before but the pictures are top quality.  I've since bought one for my girlfriend and a couple of mates have bought them too.  All from Argos for £199.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 20, 2015)

Battery life is always shitty with mirrorless cameras, though 200 is particularly crap. It just means carry another battery as standard tbh.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Battery life is always shitty with mirrorless cameras, though 200 is particularly crap. It just means carry another battery as standard tbh.


I get a pretty good life of around 350 shots from my OM-D.  That's good enough for me, I think.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Same from my xe-1


----------



## chandlerp (Apr 20, 2015)

Over the last few months I've been getting more like 300 shots.  I think it was likely due to me not switching the camera off very often and having the screen on very bright.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 20, 2015)

Just bought one from Argos today...as well .... Had £80 of nectar points so it set me back £120.... Result

Only had silver left though ...charge the bat overnight and have a pop tomorrow.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 20, 2015)

chandlerp said:


> Over the last few months I've been getting more like 300 shots.  I think it was likely due to me not switching the camera off very often and having the screen on very bright.


That will do it. With my GF2 I have the screen set at lowest brightness and turning itself off after the lowest length of time. I try to only use the EVF on the G5.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 20, 2015)

Blimey....low light conditions seem superb.... Quite a step up in sensitivity over my old eos 450


----------



## chandlerp (Apr 21, 2015)

Oh definitely.  I haven't even used the flashgun yet.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 21, 2015)

took some nightshots tonight just walking home from the station
















theres a night burst ...which takes 4 shots in a second and then merges them into a jpeg for handheld nightshots   .....those are the above ....this would have needed a tripod with my old eos ..
well impressed


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 22, 2015)

Tankus said:


> theres a night burst ...which takes 4 shots in a second and then merges them into a jpeg for handheld nightshots   .....those are the above ....this would have needed a tripod with my old eos ..
> well impressed


This would also reduce noise in the image, which tends to be more noticeable in these sort of images. I really like the last shot.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 22, 2015)

the fast shutter speed keeps it sharp too ,,,,the new LED street lights do make for  a more interesting shot


----------



## Tankus (May 19, 2015)

bit more practice with it now ....it doesn't feel right in the hand ... the best hand position blocks the AF assist beam .....I've got the adaptor so I can run my old ef lenses on it

18mm




55mm




250mm




It needs a viewfinder as in bright light its a bit pants on the 3" screen  ....going to order a 3" screen shade methinks  ......glad I didn't buy this outright as I was so intending to do when it came out 3 years ago at £600 plus...  its good for what I paid for it though.
I've had some nice panos and pleasing shots ...the sensor and autofocus is a step up from the old eos 450 .


----------



## Tankus (May 19, 2015)

but moving objects are a real challenge ...its not intuitive , and very hit and miss 




I'm looking at hot shoe viewfinders ...the prices are a bit mad though  .... new camera bag is considerably smaller, half the size of my old slingshot ..  Camera nexus7 and 250 mm lens only






but I'm not 100% sold ...which is a surprise considering how much cameras have changed in the last 8 years since my old  eos 450


----------



## editor (May 19, 2015)

You can get those bags super cheap on 7 Day shop.


----------



## Tankus (May 19, 2015)

paid £12 ...great manbag ..... nexus 7 just about fits in the rear pocket.... camera and gubbins fit in the front ..


----------



## editor (May 19, 2015)

Tankus said:


> paid £12 ...great manbag ..... nexus 7 just about fits in the rear pocket.... camera and gubbins fit in the front ..


There's something very similar going for £6.99 here. Where did you get yours from?


----------



## Tankus (May 19, 2015)

amazon ...that looks a bit bigger ...looks good though

Just put that site into favs ...some good deals there


----------



## Tankus (May 24, 2015)

Got somewhat frustrated yesterday out in bright light .....very difficult to view the screen.....

The adaptor working well on my bigger lens










but this with the sun causing reflections off my face and glasses ment I was shooting blind




Seen a comedy option for a tenner
A screw fit LCD magnifier.......
I know it defeats the whole point of a mirrorless , but technically I'm doing that when carrying a 250 or 300 mm for more options

I may get laughed at....but wtf

No glue on this one ...screwfit and magnets


----------



## Tankus (May 26, 2015)

Oh dear






Only to be used out in the wilds.	Away from people who laugh...sort of defeats the cameras selling point but ....


----------



## grosun (May 28, 2015)

Tankus said:


> Oh dear
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hahahaha, that's enormous! Far larger than I imagined it would be from the product image.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 8, 2015)

It works really well though ...out with the camera this morning with some low angle sun behind me ...and I couldn't see the screen ...put this on ...job done ....keep it with me in my camera bag


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2015)

Tankus said:


> Oh dear
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my Lord. That thing looks as daft as a brush.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 8, 2015)

At least if you drop it in the water, it can swim back to you.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 8, 2015)

the camera will sink as the magnifier loses its magnetic grip .......... .... ...I'm going to call it Bob


----------



## Tankus (Nov 16, 2015)

6 months on ....and I'm not feeling it for this camera and bob  ....the ergonomics of it are just plain wrong ....and I'm finding it a bugger to instinctively frame my shot ....I didn't think that the lack of a viewfinder would be such a deal breaker ....but it is ..... Sensor technology has moved on from my near 10 year old eos 450 ,so I'm reasonably happy with what comes out  ....but I just don't like using it ....
Cant even hold it properly without blocking the light sensor ...I do use a neoprene wrist strap support ....but still ....Have looked at aftermarket grips ...but then ...that was not the reason for buying it 

I'm actually back to using my old camera bag ...its just got a little lighter ......as that lens cover does take up a lot of space  

Have looked at the horse shoe digital viewfinder for canon ...but it actually costs around £160 




which is vexing me as more than I initially paid for the camera body lens (18/55mm) and flash ....for the combined price ....might as well gone for a newer SLR ...dunno ...had toyed with going full circle  and plump for a panasonic all in one ...with RAW and viewfinder  (Panasonic DMC-TZ60)





It strikes me that it would make a cracking everyday camera ....which was my  initial intent with the eos m and a pancake 50mm lens ...really need a rethink


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2015)

Tankus said:


> 6 months on ....and I'm not feeling it for this camera and bob  ....the ergonomics of it are just plain wrong ....and I'm finding it a bugger to instinctively frame my shot ....I didn't think that the lack of a viewfinder would be such a deal breaker ....but it is ..... Sensor technology has moved on from my near 10 year old eos 450 ,so I'm reasonably happy with what comes out  ....but I just don't like using it ....
> Cant even hold it properly without blocking the light sensor ...I do use a neoprene wrist strap support ....but still ....Have looked at aftermarket grips ...but then ...that was not the reason for buying it
> 
> I'm actually back to using my old camera bag ...its just got a little lighter ......as that lens cover does take up a lot of space
> ...


You should have gone for an OM-D! The good news is that you can pick up the first version pretty cheap on eBay now. I wouldn't advise spending  money on those bolt on viewfinders as they're ergonomically awkward, IMO.


----------



## Tankus (Nov 19, 2015)

It's my lens legacy innit .....I fancied a day camera ....and one to use all lenses when I felt the urge ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 28, 2015)

Yeah, I can't be doing with cameras without viewfinders these days—not just because my crappy eyes won't focus close enough to use screens all the time (I'd send the eyes back but they're well out of warranty now).

If you're looking for an all-in-one, the Panasonic LX100 is really good. I nearly bought one the other day before I remembered that I already have a million frickin cameras and don't need any more.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 13, 2017)

level 10 want  .....bloody price though  ....











OMG ...... controls back on the outside and EVF .....may restore my interest in photography

that ..with a 22mm pancake  ...the want is strong with this one ...obi wan 
canon eos M5


----------



## Tankus (Aug 24, 2017)

fuck it ....just went back to a newer model of my old faithfull eos 450 ....and just got a 750d ...same size as the last one ...but 10 years worth of advancements , everything in the same place so zero learning curve .... did look at the 760 with the extra LCD screen but same chip ...thought ..nah  , can't justify a grand for the eos m5  .....still keep the eos m in the car or day bag for those odd moments  , but I actually hate using it   .... it's back to the old sling bag and kit  when I feel the urge  ....the lack of a viewfinder is too much of a deal breaker for the way I shoot .....and also  mirrorlesses (well that original M one anyway ) are a bit pants for moving objects ...

heh ...full circle

ps sorry about the blank pictures in the earlier shots ...photobucket are blackmailing me ...I've now gone over to flickr


----------

