Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Shiny Things' started by MrBob, Jan 11, 2016.
oly us has always gone over the top for me on warranty stuff
I hope so because I just ordered a refurb from them.
One benefit is that they'll actually fix the camera VS sending you another used one or just refunding your money, the latter happened with my E-M5 and I've been checking the Oly outlet site ever since to see when a 10 mkII in silver was up again.
Oh and just a PSA if you get a used E-M5 or 1, try running the EVF for a good period in hot weather while it's still under warranty. The top of the camera would get really hot and then the screen would go all white, and this seems to be an issue with the early Olympus EVF's.
I am debating whether or not to get the GH5 before heading out to Japan.
A customer of mine had one of the Olympus mirrorless arrangements and the quality seemed very high. If I wasn't already familiar and with nice Panasonic lenses I would consider a switch. I want to stay with one ecosystem though.
They're actually the same ecosystem, both have the m4/3 mount and I use a few Panasonic lenses on my Olympus cameras.
The big question is will your focus be stills or video? If video is a big thing for you then there's no question go with Panasonic. But for stills Olympus has some advantages, both companies make great cameras though so there's no wrong choice.
Only been checking in on this mirrorless market periodically. Not in tune with what has been going on beyond the fact that the technology seems to be turning over fairly rapidly. So what about an investment in Canon. I've got a few L series lenses that I love and do not want to part with. Is there anything under the $1k mark that would do them justice or is an SLR still the way to go?
Stills mostly but after discovering how good the video is on my GX85, there will be more dabbing in that.
For mirrorless? Or Canon?
With mirrorless there are adapters which will let them work with some AF functionality, but these are 400 dollars. Then there are others which are basically the reverse of teleconverters in that they condense the image so there's no crop factor and a wider effective aperture but these are even more money on top of the body.
Image quality wise everyone is doing well for the most part now, Canon has some models to avoid (6D mkII and any APS-C camera not using the 80D's sensor) but otherwise it's all good. If you can live with the 1.6x crop factor I'd get an 80D if you already have a lot of nice lenses.
But what are the lenses you have now and what are you planning to shoot? With that info I can give a better answer on possible directions to go.
Two L's primarily. 24-105L (walking around lens) and 100-400L (distance compression lens). Also use a 50 1.4 (non-L) for a variety of reasons. All on an ancient 40D body that I have found no reason to replace. Will still keep the body for Tokina 12-24 that I use.
If you're using the 12-24 on it I'm guessing it's for landscapes? Then an 80D would be a nice replacement, you have ~2 stops more dynamic range and cleaner high ISO images. The dynamic range of the 80D is getting close to Nikon/Sony's and it has "ISO invariance" which basically means that instead of having to nail an exposure you can underexpose and bring the image up with little loss of quality which is nice for when the lighting conditions change rapidly. This also allows for more use of the dynamic range so you can expose for the highlights in a high contrast scene while still being able to bring up the rest of it. I know that shooting with my Canon G1X (IIRC 2 generations after your 40D) you had to nail the exposure because there was a ton of shadow noise so this could be big for you.
The other option is the 77D which is like the 80D's guts put into an upgraded rebel body with a smaller second dial & LCD top screen for 800 bucks VS the 80D's 1100.
Here is a list of the differences:
Some additional info: The 77D's viewfinder is a littler smaller as well.
Thank man. Considered the 80D but also thinking about a 5D mkiii (depending on adoption rate of the mkiv and how the price of the mkiii drops as a result). Blows my budget so I can't justify it at present as I'm in one of my many low activity periods (over the years) with respect to photography. Was hoping that there was a mirrorless option at a low price point that would eclipse the images I'm able to get from the 40D. Technically that is probably easy but there is something about the pixel density of the 40D and the images it produces that has permitted it to live on well beyond its useful life.
P.S. usually use the 12-24 for close quarters unusual people shots. It's on loan to a friend who is a yacht broker currently. He uses it to shoot interior shots of his listings.
Pretty much all the current mirrorless cameras will be a step up from your 40D. If you want a whole kit I can work that out for you. How important is the narrower depth of field for your shooting?
I'm a bit iffy on the 5D mkIII personally, I work on a lot of images from that camera since my second shooter uses one primarily and have been handed it a few times from other photographers. The files aren't nearly as flexible as my Nikon's, the 80D, or 5D mkIV in the way I talked about in the last post. It's still a great camera don't get me wrong, and it'll be better at high ISO than the 80D just it's missing that flexibility that's a huge deal to me.
I shoot on aperture priority always. Love the work of Ansel Adams but not a charter member of the group f/64. I tend to stick more toward the wide open and of the spectrum hoping to lift subjects from the background.
For landscapes, I don't really see the need for a real Bright lens. The inexpensive 9-18mm zoom is remarkably compact and useful. It is definitely *not* weatherproof, so...bring the duct tape and shopping bag.
You won't get anything like your f1.4 Canon on m4/3 without spending a good bit of money. It's about a stop difference from m4/3 to aps-c and another stop for full frame.
So F1.4 on m4/3 would look like F2 on the 80D and F2.8 the 5D.
But with Fuji or Sony it would be the same as your current 40D.
There are a lot of ways you can go but if you're happy with your setup I'd still push the 80D. It'll be better in many ways for low ISO than the 5D mkIII. It will have a sightly wider depth of field at an equivalent focal length though you're obviously used to it with the 40D and for landscape work that's actually a benefit.
But since you are interested in mirrorless just so you know what's out there I'd try to mess around with one. Do you know anyone nearby with a decent kit? Or are you going to be around MA anytime soon? If you are just let me know and you can try one of mine out.
The 9-18 even wide open has a pretty big depth of field. Wide angles in general do then you add in the smaller sensor. So you could get by easily with F2.8 on that sensor since it's like f5.6 on full frame.
The reasons you'd want it are low light situations like just before sunrise/after sunset. Or if there's wind or very fast moving clouds then you'll need a faster shutter speed. I've shot many landscapes that would be F1.4-2 on m4/3.
I don't know anyone with a decent kit. I was shooting backup at my nieces wedding down in LA last year and the "paid" photographer was using all full frame mirrorless cameras. Three of them with fixed focal length lenses. Used them for both stills and video. He loved them and got me thinking about switching over. He was dropping a lot more coin than I'm willing to part with though.
That's a whole different world than m4/3 or even the aps-c mirrorless cameras. $$$ is an understatement too for a full kit
I can see why a wedding photographer would love them though. I've used my m4/3 cameras for events and the love em myself especially with the live histogram and blown shadow/highlight warnings. They make shooting manually a lot easier. Also for groups face detect autofocus is beyond amazing. Lift up the camera to your face and there's no fiddling around. You've got it in focus & know if your exposure if off in a fraction of a second.
And the Sony full frame cameras don't really have any sacrifices in image quality* just their tracking AF isn't up to the top Nikon/Canon*. The downsize is that while they're a little smaller than full frame DSLR's that advantage isn't much especially since the lenses are about the same size.
*In both these cases the A9 is different, it has worse low light performance likely for to all the additional hardware in the chip, but the AF is up there with the top traditional systems from what I've read.
Ron, just sell all your canon stuff and buy a good Fujifilm kit. Maybe you'll miss a stop of dynamic range here or a fast-moving focus shot there, but you gain tremendous jpgs out of the camera and an intuitive, simple shooting experience. As a rank amateur it is important that I enjoy myself while shooting, and the tactile user experience with Fuji is excellent. The available glass is phenomenal and the lineup has matured enough that there are good examples available used. If nothing else, I'd recommend that you try out an XT2 or X Pro 2 before diving in.