TR Forums

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you played with an SL1?

You know, I picked one up at a Best Buy last week (we were bored), and the new 18-55 isn't as big as I'd thought it was- and unlike Sony's kit lenses, Canon's (and Nikon's) are pretty good, but also note that Canon just updated their crop tele, which is now amazing (55-250 STM), and they also released an optically stellar 10-18. So with the SL1, you're compact and light, and cheap, from 10mm-250mm Canon APS-C, or 16mm-~400mm in 35mm format. And the SL1 is no slouch, from a handling perspective, as JAE I'm sure can also attest.

ludi wrote:

Had a chance to stop by a Mike's Camera location Sunday afternoon, and they had an OMD-EM10 on the shelf with the kit zoom. It's actually smaller than I expected (good), while the behavior and controls layout are intuitively similar to my 7D (very good). Unfortunately they didn't have a 14-40 f/2.8 Pro lens in stock that day, so I wasn't able to compare the performance.

In any case, I think we have a winner. Just need to get the 7D kit posted to Craigslist.

Cool deal. I very much love the Oly omd's design. Too bad they didn't have the lens. Its a good'un.

How did you find the evf? For myself, I couldn't back.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you played with an SL1?

Nope. I'm not just looking to downsize the camera body, but the entire system. The E-M10 and the mirrorless MFT lens system look to be exactly the size I want.

The EVF isn't quite as natural as looking through the glass but the resolution is good and the E-M10 does an excellent job of proximity-transitioning between the main display and the EVF when held up for viewing. In any case, I invariably find myself making errors when sighting through the 7D's viewfinder, then modifying composition via the shoot-review-adjust method.

I love being able to have left that behind. I have been very tempted by their 12-40/2.8 and the 35-100/2.8. I will be very curious how the upcoming 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 will perform.

It is such a brilliantly small system.

I have been watching Fuji closely- MFT doesn't interest me nearly as much due to the extremely small sensor that will always be a step (or two) behind- but I have to admit that there are some amazing (though expensive) lens options as well as very capable bodies. I like the relative small-ness of the EOS-M, which despite it's flaws is actually a quite decent small camera when you adapt yourself to what it does well, like the touch shutter that doesn't miss a beat.

I'll be keeping my eye on both of the non-traditional mirrorless lines- MFT and X/E- to see where they go; the next step for them, especially for X-Trans, is a higher-resolution sensor, which along with expected refinements in handling and speed should make for a very potent challenger to the Canikonex APS-C mirrored lineups.

ludi wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you played with an SL1?

Nope. I'm not just looking to downsize the camera body, but the entire system.

It wouldn't hurt you to try it. With the EF 40mm f/2.8 lens, it is smaller than the mirrorless systems that you're considering.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

ludi wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Have you played with an SL1?

Nope. I'm not just looking to downsize the camera body, but the entire system.

It wouldn't hurt you to try it. With the EF 40mm f/2.8 lens, it is smaller than the mirrorless systems that you're considering.

Canon just isn't 'cool' anymore; it cramps people's style.

Airmantharp wrote:

Canon just isn't 'cool' anymore; it cramps people's style.

Or, they don't offer a truly smaller complete system. Or, some of us (and I know this might be crazy to you) don't care for Canon's ergonomics. Or, etc, etc, etc.

Look, it's extremely clear you really love your Canon gear. Pushing people towards it constantly or shifting every photography discussion into a purely numbers game isn't cool. That cramps my style.

I don't really 'love' my Canon gear, and I don't usually recommend it either (for entry level performance on a budget, Nikon is where it's at, for example), but I do love the results that it gives me, and I have no problem making light of the everyday results that Canon (or Nikon) could get that Sony/Olympus/Fuji just can't.

So yeah, their only small system is a product of their need to protect their larger system; Nikon, instead of making an APS-C or full-frame mirrorless, went with a 1" MILC system, and that seem to be working out pretty well for them. Hell, Samsung just copied the idea, and the Nikon 1 series doesn't really stand to make a huge dent in DSLR sales.

And it's all compromises; I know that very clearly when I look through the viewfinder of my 6D. But I also believe that unless someone has a near-irrational need for stuff to be 'small' and 'light' beyond what these companies produce, they're still the best choice nearly every time; at the very least, choosing something else means compromising outright performance, which is something that I demand. I can understand that some would prefer something different if they don't.

Airmantharp wrote:

And it's all compromises; I know that very clearly when I look through the viewfinder of my 6D. But I also believe that unless someone has a near-irrational need for stuff to be 'small' and 'light' beyond what these companies produce, they're still the best choice nearly every time; at the very least, choosing something else means compromising outright performance, which is something that I demand. I can understand that some would prefer something different if they don't.

I do understand the trade-off. The 70-200 f/2.8L is a dream lens and has gotten me some stunning results...when I bother to carry my gear, which these days is not that often because I can't just pick-it-up-and-go. If I could keep at least part of the Canon system AND get a smaller carry-around system, I would. But money only spreads so many ways, and now that I'm married I've got needs of wife and mortgage to address first, while always staring suspiciously at our two older vehicles and wondering which one is going to be the next to ask for $2000 on short notice.

So, I either downgrade and end up with a smaller system that's still more competent and versatile than the near-SLR P&S models, resulting in a net cashflow somewhere between $0 and +$500 in my favor and a resumption of semi-regular photography; or I keep what I've already got and look over at that large, heavy backpack once a week and think "I really should shoot more often."

ludi wrote:

So, I either downgrade and end up with a smaller system that's still more competent and versatile than the near-SLR P&S models, resulting in a net cashflow somewhere between $0 and +$500 in my favor and a resumption of semi-regular photography; or I keep what I've already got and look over at that large, heavy backpack once a week and think "I really should shoot more often."

Which is what I hear constantly. Except from folks who I think enjoy talking photography equipment more than photography.

slowriot wrote:

ludi wrote:

So, I either downgrade and end up with a smaller system that's still more competent and versatile than the near-SLR P&S models, resulting in a net cashflow somewhere between $0 and +$500 in my favor and a resumption of semi-regular photography; or I keep what I've already got and look over at that large, heavy backpack once a week and think "I really should shoot more often."

Which is what I hear constantly. Except from folks who I think enjoy talking photography equipment more than photography.

Exactly. Its an argument about Paintbrushes and Canvases. The equipment matters so very little. Any Inter-changeable Lens Camera can do just about anything today. Better equipment will rarely, if ever, result in better images. There are times when particular things will be a bit (and usually, we are talking slightly to imperceptible differences) better or worse, but everything can be done in a workaround. If photography were simply just a technical exercise, than "he who had the best camera system would win" but it doesn't work that way. The greatest factor in our photography is the photographer. I could not care less about AF speed or corner sharpness at testing distances. I do care about being able to shoot good images at ISO6400 because my son does funny stuff late at night. But no one else here cares about how fun or cute my son is at night. I also enjoy taking a nice image of landscapes as well as to do some fun shooting of portraits for friends. My usage is no one else's.

Its the same issue that computer gaming went through in the late '90's/early 2000's - benchmarking was king. At the end of the day, do you enjoy your user experience? If yes, great! If not, than its time to re-examine things. After using a dslr for 2 years, I love my mirrorless. It meets every one of my needs and all but a couple of "wants." I doubt I could find a more capable system for my usage. For me, I am done looking at my equipment and trying to see if it is the best at anything. It really does not matter one iota. I am pretty much a two-lens person now, and I love the images I make with them. I am in a much better place than when I had 9 lenses and became indecisive over which lens to use. Now its easy. I enjoy it thoroughly, and my photos please me, and occasionally others.

I am finding more and more that the photographic industry is more about photographers trying to impress other photographers, rather than just making a good picture.

The only real differences I see are, 'can it shoot action?', 'can it focus in low-light?', 'how usable high-ISO images taken in low-light?'. This is what separates the wheat from the chaff, and it's the reason I went from a T1i to a 60D, to the 6D I have now, which I consider to be small and light for what it is- which is a camera that can reliably do all of the above.

I've yet to see a mirrorless camera that could match it, and that's my standard .

The deed is done. Sold the last of my Canon lenses on eBay this week and placed the order for an OM-D E-M10 and 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 lens at a combined price of $999 (plus misc accessories). A substantial downgrade from what I was using, but we shall see if I use it more often.

Just got my e-m10 today. I ran the gamut of thrill, disappointment, frustration, joy, and staisfaction. The menu isthe deepest I have seen. Finding all of my preferences to change has been a pain. ISO was a weird on, as I had to change the auto-ISO to be available for manual mode.

That being said, I will post up my thoughts once I can think it all through and customize it how I like it.

TheEmrys wrote:

Just got my e-m10 today. I ran the gamut of thrill, disappointment, frustration, joy, and staisfaction. The menu isthe deepest I have seen. Finding all of my preferences to change has been a pain. ISO was a weird on, as I had to change the auto-ISO to be available for manual mode.

That being said, I will post up my thoughts once I can think it all through and customize it how I like it.

Hit the forums on DPR, and there is some great setup "how to-s" that can get your customization of controls into a more sensible arrangement. It may make usage a lot more intuitive.

Me, I like the Panasonic OS, simple and straight forward for most controls.

Well, I have some impressions.

First, I really miss shooting with my a7. It had the best ooc jpegs of any Sony. The wb on skin tones was great, better than the Oly. So, about the Oly....

1. The zoom and focus rings turn the wrong way! I feel like I am in backwards-Canon-land (:?). However, the focus ring can be remapped to turn the correct way. How cool is that?
2. Every lens has the focus ring push-pull that puts it into MF. Very slick.
3. Low light is essentially even with my a7. I lose out on the DoF, no doubt, but I do gain amazing IBIS that lets me drop down the shutter speed.
4. The e-m10 is tiny. I am a big guy with proportionate hands, and its just too small. I have the extended grip coming.
5. AF is fast. Fast fast. Stunningly fast
6. The primes are smaller than the Mino 28/2.8. Love them.
7. If Sony had 35mm/ff equivalent lenses, I probably would have stayed. But having an equivalent 35/1.7, 50/1.4, and 90/1.8 is awesome. I don't get the DoF (not even close), but light gathering is there. And wow are they small. Did I say that already?
8. The 12-40/2.8 is stunningly sharp wide open. It is everything the 24-70's should have been.
9. The Oly has the deepest menu ever. So many options. And not as customizable as the a7. I really miss that. No easy and consistent ISO dial. Sony's ergonomics are nearly perfect for me.
10. The 45/1.8 is an awesome portrait lens. And it is a large thimble.

That's it for now. More coming.

My EM-10 kit arrived yesterday. Took a bit of time to get familiar with the menu system, but once I understood how to work the camera, I was able to shoot as proficiently as with my old Canon setup. I like it. The AF is very fast and quiet (an advantage of the small, lightweight optics I suppose), and while I thought the 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 lens would be a bit limiting but it actually offers a very good range and usable macro. I'm not thrilled by the motorized zoom feature but since the snap-ring allows it to be switched to manual mode, it is satisfactory.

So how do you like the Oly kit? I liked 90% of it. Loved probably 75%.

I really like the body hardware, particularly the wifi sync/control. The menu system is a bit obtuse but the most commonly-used features are easy to find and select once the user becomes accustomed to the three-way interactions that may occur between MENU, INFO, and Live View. The 12-50mm lens is a pretty slick setup and is a useful walk-around lens, but does tend to flare a bit excessively in response to bright point sources. The import software is functional but somewhat less polished compared to what Canon offers.

Overall? I still like it, but wish I could afford to change the lens setup slightly. The 12-50mm is functional and adequate but the f/2.8 zoom and a long telephoto would probably give better results for my shooting style.

Welcome to m43!

I've been shooting m43 since 2009 and really enjoying the freedom of having a small camera and lenses. Really beats carrying the heavy Canon bodies and L lenses around. Started with a GF1 and recently upgraded to a GX7. The E-M10 is a fine camera.

What's your lens lineup/ambitions looking like right now?

The first thing I'd recommend is to ditch the 12-50/3.5-6.3, or at least supplement it with a nice fast prime. I have two friends with E-M5s and they both ebayed the kit zoom pretty much immediately. The lens is not well regarded in the m43 community due to lack of resolution, corner softness and excessive CA. It's also fairly long. About its only saving grace is that it is water-resistant.

If you're hankering for f/2.8, the Oly 12-40/2.8 is a stellar lens, if somewhat heavy (for a m43 lens, that is). Of course, one thing m43 is really good at is small, fast primes, and they really complement the small bodies, as well. If you're into small zooms, Panasonic especially have been making waves lately with their compact zooms (Oly started the collapsible zoom line in m43, but Panny's recent small zooms - 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6, 14-140 mkII have exceeded expectations and won't break the bank).

Also, a hidden gem I've discovered recently is the Sigma DN 60/2.8 Art lens, which is a great performer at a bargain price (~$209 street). Super sharp (even wide open), very smooth bokeh (even stopped down), compact and cheap. Makes for a great portrait prime or short telephoto.

You can check out some of my shots here (including samples from the Sigma):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/48040151@N06/

EDIT: PS I would highly recommend you turn on 0s Antishock on your E-M10. The longer focal lengths in m43 especially are susceptible to shutter shock due to the focal plane shutter closing and then opening before capture. I recently did some tests with my GX7 here and found that using the E-shuttersignificantly improved sharpness at longer focal lengths. While the E-M10 doesn't have E-shutter, the 0s antishock setting (which my GX7 doesn't have) is meant to address the same problem (shutter shock).

Thanks, I'll look for that setting. As for lenses...not much happening atm. I have a wife and a mortgage now, and spent nearly $6k in various car expenses in 2014, so my priorities have shifted compared to my early Canon days.

Well, that was disappointing. Two weekends ago I was in Georgia for a friend's wedding. I charged my batteries the night before, tested the camera when I packed it, and tried using it to photograph a flowering tree the next day...and nothing. No display, and the shutter was locked closed. Turning the camera on would cycle the shutter a couple times, but still closed. It would communicate to USB but lock up within a few seconds of being disconnected.

It went back to Olympus under warranty and I should see it back in about a week, but that doesn't speak well for reliability.

I guess that's the other drawback of switching away from SLR. Your 6D was a prosumer class camera and very sturdily built.

I still have my old Nikon D80 that I got back in 2007 and it still soldiers on today as a backup body. My brother still has his Canon Rebel XT.
Meanwhile our parent's house is littered with many many broken small cameras like Fuji and Oly point and shoots, Canon G10 among others.

The OM10 is hardly a point and shoot. It is very capable, and incredibly well built. Oly sire doesn't have the QC issues Nikon is having, and among their top of the line products. Doesn't make the brand as a whole bad, nor does it make the product poor. Every brand has bad luck issues.

Arrived around lunch today, working like new. They promised a maximum of ten business days and got it turned around in just about a week, so can't complain.

Not sure what the exact issue was but the attached service ticket indicated a significant repair on the shutter mechanism, along with a general calibration and firmware update afterward. My best guess is that the shutter controller either had a bad sensor or just plain locked up? At any rate, it's good to have it back.