UKC

I have been a fairly avid 35mm film photographer shooting primarily on an OM1n for years.

Several years ago, I finally gave in and bought a digital camera - while I still love the film, it is harder to access darkroom space from my current house and I have negatives piling up. At the time, full-frame sensors were well out of my price range. Without that option available to me, I bought an Olympus EM-5 mark III because it felt similar in hand to the OM1n.

However, I barely use the EM-5. I couldn't initially figure out what it was that I didn't like about it - initially I just thought it was me being a luddite, but over time I've realised that it's the micro four thirds format that I dislike.

I am lucky enough to be going on a holiday of a lifetime next year, and I would really like to take a camera with me that is practical (i.e., not film) and that I like using. I was thinking about trading the EM-5 in for a full-frame dSLR, as these have now dropped significantly in price.

I was startled to find that dSLRs are really a dead end, and that the big manufacturers are putting all of their energy into mirrorless formats instead. I know nothing about these, and it's increasingly difficult to find a bricks and mortar shop where I can go to handle them. I read some very good reviews, but some aspects of them (notably, the digital viewfinder) put me off.

So, my question is, has anyone used any of the current generation of full-frame mirrorless cameras? Any good or bad experiences? Recommendations? Has any bought one and wished they had stuck with a dSLR instead?

In reply to kathrync:

I have a full frame DSLR, Canon D5 mark 4. I also have a M50 a mirrorless with an APS-C sensor. There no noticeable difference between the viewfinder of either camera. 

In reply to kathrync:

I've been using Canon FF DSLRs for about 9 years, Fuji APSC mirrorless for about 5 years and a Canon FF mirrorless for about two years. (I gave up film in the mid 2000s)

You will get used to the digital viewfinder (DVF) quickly, it is helpful in that for the most part what you see is what you're getting. However, I've recently gone back to a DSLR, partly for fiscal reasons (my mirrorless Canon R5 is probably worth c.£2500 whereas I just bought a mint 2ndhand Canon 5DS for £550) but mainly as I missed the handling of the bigger DSLR body and I like looking through the optical viewfinder. Lenses for it are cheaper too, though still usable with modern mirrorless bodies via an adapter. I lose out on nearly the 100% perfect AF and IBIS or the R5. The DSLR is harder work, but I find the process more pleasing. You can get some absolute bargains if you prefer using a DSLR, albeit with a size and weight penalty which may or may not matter to you. All that said, yes, mirrorless is more the present than the future and DSLRs are arguably now the recent past.

I still use the Fuji as a travel/carry-around camera and make full use of the DVF, though I have the histogram on as well. The biggest thing I love about the Fuji is the analogue controls. I am considering a GFX50R as a travel/everyday camera, even if it is a bit of a brick.

In your shoes I'd look at a Canon R6 mk2, unless you want really big files in which case I'd think about a Fuji GFX50R, which you may enjoy more seeing as you're coming from film. One bit of advice I'd offer is that if at all possible, try to handle a camera before you commit to a system. When I decided to get 'serious' kit, I was looking at a Nikon D810 as my film cameras had all been Nikons and I'd had a Nikon D70s as a my first digital camera. However I tried a Canon 5Dmk3 and it felt so much better ergonomically. I've had a play around with a Nikon Z7, but again I didn't gel with the ergos. This aspect is totally subjective but it's worth bearing in mind before you send several £ks to MPB or Wex. 

Other people will be along to recommend Nikon, Sony or Pentax, all of which are valid, I just don't have any real experience of them. Others will tell you that you don't need full frame. They probably have a point but while I probably don't need full frame or 70+MP files either, I like them.

In reply to OwenM:

Ok, that's good to know, thanks. I dislike the digital viewfinder on the EM-5 - I find it quite pixel-y and it has quite a slow refresh rate. It is an old model now though, and I'm sure they have improved!

In reply to kathrync:

I use both a DSLR (6d) and mirrorless (G9, GX8) and they are very different but I wouldn't say either is better/worse. Each has pros and cons. As far as the viewfinders are concerned, there's no big deal with the refresh rate (120fps) and resolution in the G9. In very bright sunlight it is a bit harder to see than the optical viewfinder, but a brimmed hat fixes that problem. The big advantage of the EVF is in low light: It is effectively an 'image intensifier' and allows me to see stuff that's well nigh invisible in an optical viewfinder. The big difference for me between the DSLR and the mirrorless cameras is more subtle: The DSLR feels like a camera that happens to output digital images, whereas the G9/GX8 feel more like computers that happen to take pictures. Which will be better for you depends on what you want to do with it and your own 'foibles'. They're just different. For what it's worth I prefer using the DSLR, but actually use the mirrorless cameras most (80%) of the time.

In reply to kathrync:

The poor quality of the EVFs put me off to begin with but the Canon R range has overcome that (edit: as I am sure all the other brands have too).  R6s in particular have lost a lot of value if you’re buying used due to a Mk II being out.

The in body sensor stabilisation combined with modern IS lenses is astounding - I can do 200x longer exposures handheld than the rule of thumb for non stabilised lenses.

The significantly shortened flange-to-focal-distance of the mirrorless mount has helped produce some staggering lenses - both Canon and third party.  In particular, manual focus/aperture third party lenses with wide maximum apertures can be had used for a-few hundred quid and are close to optically perfect; a far cry from the sigmas and tamron’s of the EF era.  I particularly love my used Rokinon 85mm F/1.4 manual lens which can produce close to a medium format look and with its large travel “cine” style focus ring can be used really precisely with 5x in EVF digital zoom.   I dream of affording the canon 85 mm F/1.2 L.  

I loved my dSLR and there’s no way I’d go back.  The only thing I miss is the effectively zero power consumption when it was turned on but not being used; my R6 drains a battery in 12 hours if left on.  I’m sure I’ll eventually adapt when putting it on the shelf!

Going to a used R6 brought a new range of usability to all my old lenses as they instantly gained in-body image stabilisation. (Edit: with an EF to RF adapter.)

Check out the Canon RF 800mm F/11 lens, over 10x cheaper than any predecessor 800 mm lens, lighter and more compact, and made possible by the capability of image stabilisation to work with smaller apertures. I expect other makes will end up with similar lenses.  Just incredible.

In reply to kathrync:

I moved from film to Dslr and now full frame mirrorless (and I also had an Olympus em5 II as a second camera-which I have now sold)

the electronic viewfinder doesn't trouble me on my Nikon Mirrorless, you could also consider Fuji’s range of cameras, especially if travelling and weight are a consideration.

all the systems will take equally good pictures and all systems generally have lenses to cover most situations/price range so it is very much about your process of photography and how you interact with the camera.

personally I found the Olympus a little over complex.

Good deals can be had on Nikon Z 6/7 and the new Zf looks good if you prefer a traditional feel.

In reply to 65:

As the pros gradually sell of their used EF gear for RF lenses, used EF prices seem to keep dropping.  Some bargains to be had for mirrorless owners too…. I’m waiting for someone to use the reduced flange-to-focal distance of the RF mount to make a tilt/shift adapter for EF lenses on RF mounts…

> I lose out on nearly the 100% perfect AF and IBIS or the R5

I didn’t mention the AF in my post but yes it’s often almost instant and perfect with the new R models once you’ve figured out the right options.  I would love to try the eye tracking AF on the R3, resurrected and improved after decades of abandonment.  That’s a proper UI that is.  

In reply to 65:

Thank you for your very helpful reply!

As I said to someone else, my concern about the DVF is based on my experience with the EM-5, which is quite pixel-y and has a slow refresh rate - I recognise things have probably moved on since I bought it though. Guess I need to go and look through a few...

The lens cost is a valid concern - either way I would need to invest as all of my current lenses are either legacy Olympus or micro 4/3 mount. This is particularly a problem for the Nikon and Canon offerings since it seems that both have limited third-party options available if you want to use the native mount. I'm also a big prime fan, which inevitably means buying more than one!

Yes, the R6 mk2 is towards the top of my list - although I may hold out and see I can grab a cheap(er) R5 when Canon announces the R5 mk2, which is due imminently. I also want to look at the Nikon equivalents though. Nikon offer a range of affordable fast-ish primes, which is a strategy that suits my lens preferences.

 

Yeah - I'm not so interested in specific recommendations anyway, I know that they are always going to be subjective and that I need to make my own choice. I was more after the general experience of this type of camera.

I'm also aware that I really don't need full-frame - but this is a case where I like them!

In reply to wintertree:

Nice! This brings up the tempting possibility of using my beloved Olympus Zuiko f/1.2 50mm prime with a mirrorless camera - that would bring me joy!

In reply to kathrync:

This is a used RF fit lens, but most old lens mounts have adapters to RF - technically easy as there’s so much space to work with.

As you like primes you might Google “Meike 50mm f/.95”.  I’m not sure why there’s been such an explosion in better quality after market primes - if it’s the increased compute power from the passage of time and GPUs giving optical raytracing a massive boost or if it’s a master lens designer from a big name camera firm moonlighting…

In reply to kathrync:

The Nikon adapter works pretty well, I still use some F mount primes 20mm and 105mm and am considering a night-sky 16mm

https://viltroxstore.com/en-gb/collections/z-mount

some of the F mount nikon lenses can be picked up pretty cheaply nowadays. 

I still use my nikon FM2 manual film camera occasionally so I've also  kept some old lenses for that which I’ve found out work really well for video 

In reply to kathrync:

I have an Oly EM-5 Mk3 and when I read your comments about it being "pixelly" and "laggy" I had to go and check!

I guess when I look really hard I can see what you mean. The text overlay is certainly quite blocky, but I can't say I've ever noticed the EVF causing me issues in actual use. Maybe you have sharper eyes than me!

Re: laggy. Do you find it laggy when half pressed, or when just viewing?  Usually I find it sharpens up and seems like the refresh rate gets a bit once half pressed (as the image stabilisation kicks in) but it can feel a bit weird if you then move at all as the image is kind of "locked on" as it's trying to battle your hand movement.

I take it you've tried to "battle through" and get used to the EVF?

In reply to kathrync:

I've used a Canon R6 (Mki) for about 2 years, after moving from a Canon 5d Mk1, and the R6 has been fantastic. The autofocus and eye/face/object tracking is amazing. I use all the same lenses that I did before, with an EF to R adapter, so the transition was easy and the same old lenses work fine.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

You made me second guess myself, so I've also just checked. I realised that I have a mk2 not a mk3. I stand by my description, but this may be better in the mk3 compared to the mk2.

Admittedly, this was not as bad as I remembered. But, it is quite obvious when used back to back with an optical viewfinder.

Both, but I agree it's worse half-pressed. When I'm just viewing I experience very obvious "jumps" in the viewfinder.

To some extent, but as I don't like the micro four thirds format anyway, my motivation to battle with this has been limited 

In reply to kathrync:

Ugh, I mean better half pressed - I was agreeing with whoever made that comment...

In reply to kathrync:

I moved from a Canon 6d to a OMD-EM5ii and really liked the size, digital features and ease of use but I didn’t love the picture quality.

Now I’m on Sony and I wouldn’t ever consider going back to a dslr or film. 

In reply to kathrync:

I recently picked up digital photography again after years of just shooting film.

Purchased the Sony A7Sii, and can't stand to use it. A lot of setting adjustment seems to be through menus rather than dials, I find the EVF slow to respond when I lift the camera to my eye, and using the screen view drains the battery very quickly.

The picture and video quality are great, but the amount of fussing every time I want to take a photo means I'm often missing things, and for me I'd rather have a slightly lower quality image, but capture exactly what I wanted to, rather than missing potential photos for the sake of messing with a menu to change the aperture of the lens.

There are definitely workarounds for these problems, but I've found the camera so frustrating that doubling down on making it work for me doesn't seem worth the fuss, when I know older DSLR's I've previously owned, or my film cameras, don't come with those frustrations.

I think I'll be selling mine in a few months and purchasing a Nikon full frame DSLR as I know them well and am yet to try a camera that compares when balancing quality with ease of use

In reply to winterphase:

Really? I've never used a Sony, but I find it hard to believe that lens aperture isn't (or can't) be mapped to one of the dial controls!

Unintended consequences: One thing I really liked about my Panasonics is that the have a plethora of user configurable buttons and dial on the body (and lens): No more rummaging around menus to switch to electronic shutter or change stabilisation mode. The down side I found was that it pretty much impossible to 'grab' the camera without a risk of touching one of the many buttons and changing something in the setup. My favourite being the one that swaps the functions assigned to two of the dials. Ahhh! You just can't please some people!

In reply to winterphase:

This is partly why I bought a 5DS (I'd had one previously and loved it and the files it produced) but I don't think you need take a hit on image quality. I'd wager a Nikon D850 can hold it's own against anything this side of a Phase One.

It's also why I both love and hate Fuji X-series (I have a XT2 but have had others). The analogue controls are brilliant but the number of settings which I've zero interest in plus the absence of any sort of lock on anything other than ISO and SS means that sometimes I pull it out of a bag and find that's decided to shoot in a way I don't want and by the time I've fixed it the light has changed or the photogenic snake has seen me and vanished into the undergrowth (yes, bitterly, the latter happened).

I have a comfortably off friend who went through a series of Nikon DSLRs and then Fuji XTs but was continually frustrated by the complexity and by all the features he didn't need. He ultimately sold everything and bought into the Leica M series, which is what I'd consider if I could afford the lenses.

I really want someone to make a small titanium body with IBIS, a FF or better still cropMF sensor, the AF performance of Canon R, the analogue controls of Fuji, a proper grip, weather sealing, two SD slots (none of this CF Express), and either a split prism TTL viewfinder or a proper rangefinder for MF. Absolutely NO exposure compensation dial, video, modes, film simulations or files other than full-sized RAW.  And then make a version without the colour array filters for monochrome shooting. But that's never going to happen. Leica comes closest but it's far too expensive and who the hell wants a camera made of brass?

In reply to Marek:

Ha, I bet that's irritating when it happens!

In reply to kathrync:

I reluctantly sold most of my film gear (Leica M6) and tried a few different sub-FF mirrorless and didn't get on with them.

Bought a Sony a7 when it launched, about 10 years old now. It's all the camera I need even after that amount of time, which is rare for tech! There are certainly upgrades in newer models but they're about as useful as the upgrades in top of the line smartphones these days..... i.e. not very. 

I'm only wavering about upgrading to one of the newer gen a7S models because I've started shooting more video. Could never justify upgrading if I was just shooting stills though. 

In reply to kathrync:

I shot OM-series film SLRs for a long time, including a lot that was published in climbing mags. Most people were on big autofocus SLRs at the time but I loved the compact design and control layout. I built up a bunch of primes that gave lovely results and really taught me how to see at different focal lengths. I put off digital for a long time but ended up with Nikon DSLRs . They were very competent but simply not as portable - I took my OM-4ti everywhere, including multi-pitch E6s. Compacts didn't really cut it either.

When mirrorless first came out I wasn't very interested as the OM system and my Mamiyas had wedded me to big optical viewfinders. Plus they were all small sensors. Then I saw the original Sony A7 in a camera shop and did a double take - it looked like a modern OM-1. I bought one and a simple adapter and started using it with my old lenses. Overwhelmingly it was great. The sensor is fantastic - big, detailed with bags of dynamic range, a huge upgrade on the Nikons. The viewfinder I am now totally happy with - likewise big and detailed. I found the slight lag frustrating initially but soon adapted. Otherwise it has a lot of advantages, particularly with manual focus, slow lenses and low light. For macro it is an absolute revelation - I still use it with my OM 135, 80 and 38mm heads on the variable extension tube. I wouldn't go back to an optical viewfinder now.

Over the years I gradually replaced the OM lenses with native primes and then, as I was doing more commercial work again, added f/4 zooms. If you like primes the Sony mount has much the widest choice, plus the recent zoom releases have seen even the used Zeiss primes plummet in value. The Loxias and Voightlanders combine old-school haptics - all metal with manual aperture rings - with modern glass of startling sharpness.

I added a newer body - A7RII - a few years back which has an incredible sensor plus IBIS and better AF but I much prefer the handling of the original A7 - all the subsequent bodies have been (to me) significantly bigger and heavier. (The original A7R was the same size but had some other issues). Plus I very rarely need files bigger than 24MP, the main benefit for me is more pixels in crop mode. Video quality on both is very good.

The other thing to be aware of is that unlike film SLRs the sensor is quite central in the body which makes the OM adapter extend the size of your lenses significantly. This is not an issue with the native lenses - the SonyZeiss and Samyang 35/2.8s are both tiny and light and on the A7 the combo is pocketable.

Only issue to note is I've had both bodies repaired at ~£250 each. Shutter issue on the A7, screen on the A7RII. I'm not sure if I've been unlucky, they've been well looked after but heavily used. Tempted to buy a second A7 as it's the one camera I've owned that I can't see being improved.

In reply to 65:

Read noise from the leading manufacturer’s sensors has improved a lot in the past 7 years, both from better fab processes and designs lowering read noise  and back thinning for leading sensors improving light collection efficiency.  The quoted figures for Canon’s developer kits are about 2e- read noise which is staggering given the cost of the whole product compared to scientific sensors.  It’s a big shift for low light performance with not many gains left now I think, unless Sigma ever sort out the Foveon sensors.

In reply to kathrync:

How dare you blaspheme against my chosen weapon of choice. I love my MFT camera because it uses lighter glass than a Full Frame camera and the glass is cheaper too. 😂

However if I was to recommend a Full Frame camera then it would be the Panasonic S5m2. Its a highly under rated full frame mirror-less camera and packs a punch with its Stills and video capabilities that very few camera's, if any can match for price and specs.

Also Panasonic like the form-factor of the S5m2 so much that they have a micro four thirds sensor in the exact same body. And they are both the exact same price.

Panasonic also have a partnership with Leica, so the glass is up there with the best.

I have the Micro Four Thirds version and my mate has the Full Frame version. Both cameras take excellent images and video. However the Full-Frame wins hands down in Low Light and Astro photography. With everything else, they are neck and neck.

Did I mention Image Stabilisation?

No other camera company comes close.

In reply to The Lemming:

If you like MFT, that's great. It wasn't for me, but that's subjective, it doesn't mean they are bad cameras!

In reply to kathrync:

Forgot to mention, if you get a modern camera I suggest that you get one with Phased Detection Auto Focusing.

its the bee's knees at focusing and no other focusing method comes close. You could go manual focusing but with fact moving subjects, good luck on that one.

In reply to kathrync:

You can get a last gen S5 with lens for under £1k

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/panasonic-lumix-s5-full-frame-mirro...

In reply to all:

Thank you everyone for the input.

I think my takeaways are that these cameras have moved on since I last bought a mirrorless camera and are worth taking the time to look at, and that they also have some nice "hidden" advantages which appeal to me like interfacing well with manual lenses.

I've also been persuaded to look outside of the Canon/Nikon box - I certainly wasn't aware that Sony have so many offerings in this area.

Thank you all for your time - expect an excited "new purchase" post at some point (probably a couple of months down the line)!

In reply to kathrync:

Another Sony vote from me. Cameras wise probably any brand will do what you want, so in this case 'feel' could be more important to you. 

I'd suggest (from to much Internet trawling) that Sony has an advantage in lens range including fully compatible 3rd party offerings. Nikon and Panasonic maybe following close behind and then Canon with little or no 3rd party autofocus lenses. Also depending on your usage Sony autofocus is very reliable. If body size is a factor the A7c might be interesting to you. 

Full disclosure I'm a FF Sony A9 user BTW and love it!

In reply to Mike_d78:

Sony are King of the Hill, or at least till you try to use their Menu System/User Interface. Its shockingly awful to use. I was ready to put down some cold hard cash and invest into Sony, until I actually got my hands on an A7 iii and pulled my hair out trying to find what I wanted to make it work.

Cameras today are all as good as each other, however the main difference between them is their User Interface. And if you can't get along with it, then move onto something more intuitive otherwise you are going to hate the whole experience of your new camera setup.

In reply to The Lemming:

The menu system changed for the better in the A7 iv.

In reply to 65:

I have an X-T1 and have had that issue virtually every time I've taken it out. Particularly frustrating if you've bumped the camera into a mode that only records JPEG without realising.

My current weapon of choice is a Nikon FM, which thankfully and obviously doesn't suffer from any such flaws

In reply to The Lemming:

I disagree,  it's shockingly easy to use.

In reply to kathrync:

What don't you like about it? the image dimensions? Surely you can just set it to 'standard' proportions?

In reply to tehmarks:

I still have my FM2, the Fuji XT series reminds me of it, save for all the mode-related niggles.

In reply to Toerag:

Back in the day (six years ago), MFT was in its infancy and still developing. The Olympus EM-5 was at the top of its game, and is still a good second hand camera. Six years ago, I was umming and ahhing about going Full Frame or crop sensor/MFT.

I went MFT for its versatility, lighter and its cheaper glass compared to full frame. I discovered that my MFT weapon of choice had shocking auto focus and was awful for astro photography.

Fast forward six years, and a few MFT cameras under my belt, and I can happily say that a MFT flagship camera is up there with the Big Boy Full Frame cameras. Low light is its Achilles heel. But when you add in post production editing with Lightroom, DxO or Topaz and I defy anybody to spot a Full Frame vs MFT in a photo line-up or video production. Provided you aren't hunting for that mad blurry background.

MFT have some powerful processors inside them and can handle professional codecs for video work. As the sensor is small, they can deliver the best image stabilisation when hand held of any camera out there. Almost gimbal quality.

But if sensor size was the be-all-and-end-all, why aren't more people going Medium Format?

Personally I don't think the sensor size is a big concern any more unless you are specifically shooting/filming in low light situations or want very shallow depth of field for artistic reasons.

Sony is King for Full Frame prosumer cameras without a doubt. Their A7iv is biting at the heels of an Arri professional filming camera. That is a major achievement.

Sony A7iv = £2.3k body only

Arri Alexa = £66k body only

In reply to Toerag:

I dislike the aspect ratio - it just doesn't speak to me. I don't think I can alter this in-camera - if I can, I never found the setting.

I can, of course, crop in post. But I find that I often don't get the composition the way I want it doing that. I'm too accustomed to composing in the viewfinder.

I also found that I never got to grips with working with lenses created for this format. At 35mm, I can pretty much guesstimate the shutter speed and aperture I want given a focal length and ISO, based on many years working with very basic meters. That sense for the right ballpark has gone out of the window with a different sensor size, which leaves me feeling like I'm not in control of the camera. I could try to battle through this, but on balance I would prefer to go to 35mm, and switch back and forth between digital and film more easily. Based on borrowing my Dad's full-frame dSLR for a couple of weeks, this approach would work better for me.

In reply to fotoVUE and The Lemming:

I wasn't trying to start a pro/anti Sony war! They have a range of lenses that appeals to me so I'll look at the bodies. Reviews elsewhere indicate that the menus can be finnicky compared to other brands, but this seems to bother different people to different degrees. So, I'll go and try one somewhere. If the menus don't bother me, then I'll consider one. If they do, I'll strike this option off the list. No need for anyone else to argue about it!

In reply to 65

Can't you just ignore them? Once set up and shooting in RAW, I think the only thing I ever go in to the menus for is the interval timer. Everything I need is done with the lovely tactile dials and knobs.

I have to admit that I havn't found this a problem. If the settings are wrong and I mess up it is because I left it that way last time I used it. I presume you use the lock had by holding down the Menu button?

Really? The exposure compensation dial is the one thing I use (or consciously decide not to use) for every single shot, and is often the only thing I will change over many shots. But maybe I am doing it all wrong!

Having used film SLR's for a long time, then, after a gap only using compacts, used Fuji X cameras, if I pick up anything else like a Canon or Nikon I just feel baffled by the lack of proper dials and knobs; I don't think I could ever switch to anything without them now. Does anyone make a FF camera with Fuji-like controls?

In reply to kathrync:

Sony are King and you will have to search hard to find a better camera for the money.

And I'm a Panny Fanboy.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Someone upthread suggested the Nikon Zf to me. That might fit the bill...

In reply to kathrync:

Ah, I knew about the crop sensor Nikon Zfc, but hadn't realised they had brought out a full frame one. The top view looks almost identical to my Fuji. Now I just need about £5000 to spend..... On the other hand, it sounds like, unlike Fuji, the Nikon Z lenses don't have aperture rings......

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, but some third-party manufacturers are making Z-mount compatible lenses that do. The Voigtlander ones look nice...

In reply to kathrync:

Did the 5 miss out? Basic camera menu 1, near the top - image aspect, then select from the options shown?

All my Olympus cameras from around 2017 have had an option to change aspect ratio.

Appreciate you don’t like M4/3 however so even if newer version have that option now doubt they are of no interest to you anyway.

Hope you find a camera that suits. From what you have said I doubt Olympus/OM Systems could meet your expectations. I’m happy with Olympus so can’t offer any suggestions on other makes.

In reply to The Lemming:

That’s a bold claim.  One I happen to disagree with…

Another bold claim.  The manufacturers regularly leap-frog each other in the specs that really count, so if you’re in for the long haul that’s kind of irrelevant.  More than a bit of it comes down to which makes and which specific cameras someone can really work with IMO, and to the available of used and third party lenses.  

Because neither money nor medium format gear grows on trees, and there isn’t such a wide range of lenses.

To take your argument to the other equally silly extreme, If sensor size doesn’t matter, why don’t you just use your mobile phone camera?

In reply to Climbing Pieman:

The EM-5 mkII is from 2015 - my OP was wrong, I don't own the mkIII, so this might be a later addition. Or, it may be that I just didn't spot this option...  I don't have it with me to check right now. I will look later to satisfy my own curiosity.

Yeah, regardless of whether I missed something obvious or not, there are a variety of things that I am not keen on in this camera, so I think I'm ready to move anyway! I'm sure the Olympus/OM cameras are great for the right person, they just turned out not to be my thing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Really? I'm with 65, the exposure compensation dial is very annoying. It's the only thing I would change as firstly, I never use it, and secondly, it doesn't lock (on my X-T1) so it gets knocked and I end up with under/over exposed photos when I grab my camera to "catch a moment".

I've never really understood what it does? One sets the iso, aperture, shutter speed as required and takes a photo. What does the dial change in camera?

In reply to galpinos:

This has always confused me as well. I have full control over how much light hits the sensor from the ISO, aperture and shutter speed. If I want to compensate my exposure, I'll alter whichever one of those is my lowest priority. I've never seen the need for a separate function for this.

Maybe that's just my analog background...

I'm really glad you said this though, I thought it was just me!

In reply to kathrync:

Turn out a public confession was a good idea, at least neither of us are alone now!

I don't actually understand what it changes in the camera if not one of the setting I have already picked.

In reply to galpinos:

I started with an XE-1 and it was very easily knocked. Much less so on my XT-2 (the dial is stiffer and, I think, further back). Not sure how XT-1 compares.

It simply changes the shutter speed, but is a more accessible dial. For landscape, I work entirely in aperture priority mode. I set the aperture and ISO (letting the camera choose the shutter speed initially) then look through the viewfinder. If the histogram or blinking highlights show it is needed, I twiddle the exposure compensation dial to correct the exposure. I am letting the camera do most of the work and I only have to make corrections. And, as I said, the exposure compensation dial is more accessible (just needs the thumb while still holding the camera as if shooting).

So, because I always, with every shot, check the histogram with a view to compensating, the dial will never be left in the wrong position. 

Maybe this method is unorthodox (I don't know), but it works for me.

Obviously I might go back and change the aperture or ISO if I don't like the shutter speed I am getting after any compensation.

The only time I set the shutter speed manually is if I am photographing moving wildlife or night time stuff, but I mostly do landscapes.

In reply to galpinos & kathrync:

I find aperture priority mode suits me well; the camera has a good stab at the exposure and I sometimes tweak it a bit with the exposure compensation dial; what the camera does and what I want are always close so there’s less adjustment to be done than manually controlling the exposure.

The only times I tend to fully manual it are sunspots, nights skies and recently auroras where the camera doesn’t have a clue what’s going on…

In reply to galpinos:

If you're using the camera in fully manual mode the exposure comp dial does nothing. It's only there for aperture/shutter priority or maybe the programme modes. I only ever shoot manual (except ISO in a few circumstances) so the dial may as well not be there for me.

Robert:

The annoyances I'm talking about are usually finding that the AF, metering and/or drive settings have been altered by the various buttons/levers being brushed when it's in my bag. The D-Pad buttons, none of which I use, must also get pressed in-bag and a setting changed as the settings they control are occasionally off from where I'd set them. A single sliding lock (emphatically not a button unless fairly solid like the ISO and Shutter speed locks) that prevents actuation of any of the setting buttons is a huge omission on these cameras. It doesn't happen all that often, but enough to be an annoyance and I have either lost or buggered up enough shots to be really annoying.

Otherwise, yes, most of this stuff can be ignored. My Canon cameras do all kinds of things that I have zero use for (the R5 is as much a video camera as a stills camera, I don't do video).

In reply to 65:

Yeah, that makes sense. I basically only ever use manual unless I'm trying to take snaps of my sister's kids, so I've never felt the need to touch it.

In reply to 65:

Which are the D-pad buttons? If the four around the menu button, they can be securely locked.

I must admit, I don't think I've had issues with accidentally moving the drive or metering setting levers (they are pretty stiff). I have occasionally accidentally unlocked and moved the ISO and shutter speed dials.

In reply to wintertree:

Fuji GFX is accessible, however GF lenses are mostly freaking huge if not more expensive than Canon RF-L glass. I can go on holiday with a 5DS body, a 16-35 f4L, a nifty 50 and a 70-200 f4L for under £1500 whereas to get anywhere near that coverage with the Fuji (or Hasselblad X) system I'd need a mule to carry it, not that I'd have any money left over for the actual holiday.

Quite. There's a reason why working professionals veer towards bigger sensors. If there was no difference, they'd save their money and neck muscles. Outside of porn, no-one has a business based around how big their kit is.

In reply to wintertree:

 

Many do and that's why cameras are going out of fashion.

In reply to The Lemming:

I don't think that's true. The engagement on this thread tells me that there are plenty of people who do care about cameras.

It is true that most of the people who would have bought a compact for family snaps in previous years are simply taking photos with their phones now. But I really don't think that cameras are "going out of fashion" for anyone with a genuine personal or commercial interest in photography.

In reply to 65:

I remember reading a few years ago a wedding photographer saying they could get just as good results with a Fuji mirrorless but that they used a Canon FF simply because clients paying a lot of money expected a big "professional" looking camera.

In reply to Robert Durran:

With you on this one Robert. That's just how I do it as well.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes I’ve heard that one, it’s a bit of a trope in that there is now plenty of internet chatter about how clients are now preferring the unobtrusiveness of having their wedding recorded entirely on a phone. There’s undoubtedly truth in both, but not much in general terms.

I vaguely know one wedding photographer who used two XT2s for years. He’s braver, or more likely better, than me, I wouldn’t have confidence the AF in such a zero tolerance context. I think he shot two primes and MF though. 

Lemming: re cameras dying out due to phones: don’t hold your breath. MFT and snapshot-level APSC maybe. Possibly due to my ignorance of physics, I can’t see how a phone is going to equal the ergonomics, useability and IQ of a good camera with good glass and still resemble a phone. FWIW my next big photographic purchase is going to be a new iPhone. 

In reply to galpinos:

I had an X-T1 for a couple of years. I really liked most of the design, the photos, and the lenses (16-55mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2). I sold it because of the drive and exposure compensation dials turning of their own accord in my bag. Really annoying, and evidence of a lack of thought in the details.

I switched to a Nikon D700, which I still have. Most of my photography is on film though - I still prefer my F2s. One day I'll buy myself a newer mirrorless, maybe a Z6ii.

In reply to 65:

I'm heavily invested in MFT, so I'm in for the long haul.

😂

In reply to kathrync:

Out yesterday with my R6 (mk1) and a 70-200 mm f/4 L.  The photo below was taken at f/5 and is pixel sharp on the bits in focus in the middle and the edge.  It’s an astounding combination.  

In reply to wintertree:

Just to throw something else into this thread. The Sony RX10iv is well liked and gets very good reviews.

It is a bridge camera but has a larger sensor than most bridge cameras. The lens covers the 35mm equivalent of 24mm to 600mm

Dave

In reply to kathrync: Until recently I was dedicated to Pentax DSLRs having started my photography with a Pentax MX film camera which was very similar in form and concept to the original OM-1. I had a gaggle of zoom and prine lenses and lauded Pentax’s strategy of sticking with optical viewfinders and lusted after the full frame K1. However I found that more often than not I wasn’t getting good photos because I couldn’t be bothered taking all the gear with me, or the hassle of changing lenses in the field.

I recently traded it all in and bought a new OM-1 and 12-100 (24-200 full frame equiv) f4 pro lens. I was blown away by the quality of it’s viewfinder, autofocus subject tracking and image quality. Also the portability and weather resistance (IP53) of the system. I have since bought a macro and 100-400 zoom but they don’t get so much use yet. The main difference is that I use my camera a lot more, even when sea kayaking in calmer conditions with a water proof deck bag. The technology of sensors is improving with better dynamic range and less noise so for most cases the MFT format gives me the image quality I want (and IMHO better than with slow 35mm film) However its limitations are noticeable when I crop an image significantly.  I can see the appeal of FF for landscapes etc, but for mountain, sea or wildlife photography the lens premium in terms of cost, weight and bulk would be too much for me.

In reply to kathrync:

I forgot that you’re a sea kayaker too. This was taken with my OM-1 paddling around Boneray off St Kilda last week. I did try an EM-5 in the shop but it felt flimsy compared to the OM-1

In reply to kathrync:

An interesting comparison of OM-1 and Canon R6ii for wildlife photography

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLJa9OlNI18&ab_channel=ChasingLuminance

In reply to kevin stephens:

Full disclosure: I have an MFT G9 + 100-400mm for most wildlife, but also a Canon 6d (FF) + 70-200mm F2.8.

Whilst a agree with most of the video (usability/cost trumps a small increase in image quality) I'd say that...

(a) The Canon images in the video were IMHO consistently and clearly better than the OM-1 images.

(b) The FF sensor really comes into its own in poor light (e.g., dawn/dusk). I've just come back from photographing bears in Slovenia (dusk, dense forest) and the Canon images are massively better than the MFT images.

But no, I'm never going to buy a Canon 600mm F4.

In reply to Marek:

All fair comment. I have a PL 100-400 and like it but there does seem to be a consensus that the OM 300 F4 is considerably better. If photography were my main passion then I would probably get a FF set up in addition to the MFT system, but I couldn’t imagine stowing it in a dry bag on the deck of my sea kayak.

In reply to kevin stephens:

And a significantly more expensive! (£2k4 vs. £1k5)

No indeed. My point wasn't that FF is better/worse than MFT, but that it just depends on your usage model and what trade-offs make sense to you. Horses for courses and all that.

It's also worth remembering that there's nothing magical about MFT lenses: An MFT 300mm F4 is probably going to be a comparable size/weight/cost as its FF cousin. And more significant (in those metrics) than the body.

In reply to galpinos:

I use it quite a bit. Imagine your trying to shot a peregrine flying across a bright sky. I have the f number set at the lowest, and will have set the shutter speed high (I try and always do this, a stationary bird gives me time to fine tune the shutter speed). ISO has to be set to auto. But the camera receives so much light it overcompensates, pulling the ISO down, resulting in a dark, underexposed image. So I go +.3 or +.7 on the exposure compensator dial, resulting in a more true image. Similar for saying shooting a duck on a lake on a bright day. And I do the reverse when shooting a duck on a tree lined, shady pond where the camera overcompensates resulting in an over exposed image.  It can be a pain coz I need to remember to set to zero.

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

I understand the scenario, but I don't understand why you would use exposure compensation rather than just resetting the ISO by an equivalent amount. Especially in the scenario you describe where the amount you are overexposing by is likely to remain relatively consistent for the period that the peregrine is within range.

It may just be that this is the way that I have always done it due to not having a camera with an automatic compensation function until relatively recently, so I have ISO, aperture and shutter speed readily available on the command dials, and exposure compensation tucked away in a menu...

In reply to kathrync:

In the end you can do it by whatever equivalent method suits you. If exposure compensation is hidden away in a menu then obviously you won't want to use it, but on some cameras including my own Fuji the dial is clearly placed to be the most conveniently available when actually looking through the viewfinder as if the layout is encouraging that method. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

I've kind of done the opposite. I went for an MFT initially for exactly the reasons you describe, but I find I take far fewer photos than I used to because I don't enjoy using it. I've been on a similar journey in the past, buying zoom lenses for convenience and then just not using them because I simply don't enjoy using them as much as I like a good prime. 

Conversely, I was perfectly happy lumping my compact-but-heavy analogue film camera, 3 prime lenses and a stack of film around with me (including climbing and sea kayaking) because I enjoyed using it.

For anyone, I would always say that the best camera is the one you use - but for me personally I've learned the hard way that convenience is not the factor that draws me to use a camera!

In reply to kathrync:

What don't you like about it? We need to know the problem before we can (usefully) offer a solution!

In reply to kathrync:

Changing the ISO doesn’t work in any auto exposure mode because the camera adjusts exposure to compensate, and in manual surely it’s easier to just adjust the shutter speed or aperture? Exposure compensation is easy to access on my OM-1 and TG6. Very useful for example when kayaking in a cave when all the normal exposure modes are confused by daylight from the opening, also to get my desired exposure on snowy photos. I’m finding this a great benefit of an electronic viewfinder

In reply to Marek:

This is true - but it does make a difference when you consider focal length equivalence.

As you say, a 300mm F4 is going to be roughly the same size/weight/cost on any camera. However, 300mm on an MFT is going to have a focal length roughly equivalent to 600mm on FF - and a 600mm F4 lens IS significantly bigger/heavier/more expensive than a 300mm F4, again regardless of the sensor size in your body.

In reply to Marek:

This is my main  gripe from further up the thread:

I also found that I never got to grips with working with lenses created for this format. At 35mm, I can pretty much guesstimate the shutter speed and aperture I want given a focal length and ISO, based on many years working with very basic meters. That sense for the right ballpark has gone out of the window with a different sensor size, which leaves me feeling like I'm not in control of the camera. I could try to battle through this, but on balance I would prefer to go to 35mm, and switch back and forth between digital and film more easily. Based on borrowing my Dad's full-frame dSLR for a couple of weeks, this approach would work better for me.

...and yes, I am aware that this comes down to a very fuzzy "I just don't like it"...

In reply to kevin stephens:

I know that changing the ISO won't work in an auto exposure mode - but I never use auto exposure modes!

In manual, it depends on your priorities. I'll always change whichever is my lowest priority for the image I want to take. I agree that this isn't usually ISO - but sometimes it is... I have customised my set up so that all three are readily available to me - the trade-off is that the exposure compensation is now less readily available than it is in the default set-up.

In reply to kathrync:

I’m sometimes tempted to resurrect my Pentax MX which sits on a shelf above my computer. And I did find that primes do get you to think more carefully about composition. Before you decide on full frame I would encourage you to try, or at least hold an OM-1. In the meantime three photos from my mechanical MX, which I feel is the spiritual ancestor of my new OM-1

In reply to kathrync:

Exposure compensation is irrelevant if you’re doing full manual settings.  If you switch to auto exposure it’s really useful as soon as you start looking at small things with very different brightness to other things. In that case you develop a good feel for what adjustments to make; I know what to use for the barn owl vs the raptors etc.

In reply to wintertree:

I'm sure it is - I just get more pleasure out of using my camera manually. Once again, that's a personal preference...

In reply to kevin stephens:

I did. Before I started this thread, I was considering if upgrading my MFT body to something more recent might help - it would certainly be cheaper given that I have a stable of MFT lenses. I handled a few different options including an OM 1. None of them gave me the happy camera feeling.

In any case, my question was never "MFT or FF". It was, "given that I've already settled on FF, dSLR or mirrorless".

In reply to kathrync: That’s great to make a very well informed choice. If you don’t need all the fancy auto focus tracking of mirrorless FF you may enjoy trying a Pentax K1 FF DSLR. Really good optical viewfinder and top notch legacy K mount AF and MF lenses. Look up the reviews and see what it feels like in your hands

In reply to kathrync:

Nowt wrong with what you described and I can sympathise. As I think I said earlier I like using my FF Canon 6d in preference to the very capable MFT G9, but for even less quantifiable reasons than you! It really depends on whether you use cameras as a means to an end (priority is the picture) or whether you enjoy photography for its own sake (priority is the experience).

In reply to Marek:

For me, the priority is the experience. The picture is a pleasant side-effect!

In reply to kathrync:

Hmm. What you say makes sense, but in the field it just feels easier, with less of a range to faff with. The exposure compensator is basically adjusting the iso for you.  

On a totally different note, I’ve been playing about with an apexel zoom clamped onto my phone, taking videos of garden birds. For £12 off eBay, the results are fantastic. Also use the macro, great fun.  

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

Horses for courses again. I've spent so long using a completely mechanical camera with no auto-anything that it feels like less mental faff to me to just do it the way I am familiar with... But, I realise that this is increasingly rare.
 

Yes, we use the macro at work sometimes for outreach projects. I work on neglected tropical diseases - we use this to let kids look at mosquitos and other disease transmitting insects close-up. We used to use stereoscopes for this, but we increasingly find that younger kids in particular find it much easier to interact with a phone or tablet - it's easier for us to point out interesting things on the screen, for example.