I know this topic has been discussed a lot before, but in my opinion there is no simple answer to this question.
Lately, I have been a bit disappointed with my Nikon DSLR kit (D3200) and thus I've been considering an upgrade. I got it many years ago, and it is undoubtedly a great, affordable camera that produces great images. I've had lots of fun with it and I can't complain about its performance when shooting -- given ideal conditions. When I am shooting more challenging subjects, however, I feel a bit hindered by my camera body/system. The points that bother me the most are:
- Size. The D3200 is a very nice, compact, and lightweight DSLR, but it is still relatively big compared to modern cameras. It won't fit in a jacket pocket even without an attached lens. More current cameras with a higher image quality can be smaller than it is (but heavier). The situation is even worse for higher-end DSLRs.
- Autofocus. Again, the D3200 is a fantastic camera if you are just using the center focus spot using the optical viewfinder and nothing else. Live view (contrast) focus is straight up unusable, and there are only 11 (phase) focus points or so if using the viewfinder. At least that's the case with "ordinary" Nikon lenses. I don't know how it performs with higher-end lenses, like the Sigma Art line.
- "Low light" performance. I can't bump the ISO significantly before image degradation becomes obvious. Low light in quotes because that's the case even in fairly well-lit situations. Occasionally, I like to print on medium-sized paper (A3+), and if I need anything above ISO 400 to properly expose the image, it won't look that good printed. Of course, I can always stick to printing bright images large and save the "low light" scenes to smaller prints, so this isn't really my main concern.
- Custom controls. I wish I could customize the camera settings a bit more. For example, on my camera, the back button AF/AE can be set to lock the AF/AE or as a back button focus. But in image preview mode, the same button "locks" the image so it can't be deleted. Thus, you need to quit image preview before using that button to trigger autofocus again. I would like to have a dedicated AF button so I can shoot straight from image preview if the opportunity arises. Another example of customization I can't do: settings like auto-ISO and shutter speed can't be capped/limited to a certain range. Let's say I want to use auto-ISO but prevent it from going above 400 to avoid too much noise (and decrease shutter speed but risk shaky images). Or the opposite: prevent the shutter speed in aperture priority mode from going below 1/100 to avoid shaky images and then change ISO instead. Well, I can't do either at the moment. Again, a nice feature to have, but totally something I can live with.
From what I have seen, cameras nowadays have gotten pretty good and they do look like a significant upgrade from 10-15 year old bodies. I guess all popular, entry-level, modern cameras (2019-) solve at least 3 of the 4 problems I listed above, so I don't think I can go wrong with any big brand. However, I'm having a hard time deciding with so many options and sensor size/formats available. My options so far are:
- Nikon Z. Since I am already familiar with Nikon F lenses, I have read a lot about them and I know the strengths and weaknesses of many of those. That means I likely won't be disappointed if I switch to another system, and I want a certain lens that doesn't exist, or the optical performance is poor, or it is prohibitively expensive. The Z50, Z5, and Z6 all look amazing, and I can pick or switch between a full frame or cropped sensor easier than I would if I was stuck with a micro four thirds. They are more affordable than Sony.
- Sony. They seem to be fantastic cameras, with great image quality and features. Sigma and Tamron options for Nikon are likely available for Sony as well. I'm just slightly afraid that lenses might be too expensive for what they offer. Their cameras look super compact and pocketable, which is a huge plus to me. Full frame (A7iii) or cropped (A6400) are also both available for a seamless transition.
- Olympus. I think it is impossible to beat micro four thirds in size and affordability. It is perhaps the only system where you can get a wide angle, portrait, fast prime, macro, and telephoto that you can take everywhere in a small bag while not costing you a fortune. They also have pretty nice features, such as the "live mode"/"smartphone photography", where you can get a frame that was captured slightly before the shutter button was pressed. This must be so cool for wildlife. Olympus stabilization is also highly regarded, with people claiming it to be "gimbal-like". The E-M5 iii looks very appealing. My main concern is that I've never used a micro four thirds before and thus I don't know how much I'm letting go in image quality. I already feel that the dynamic range I get with the D3200 rocking a larger, cropped sensor could be better.
I am not considering:
- Canon. I completely disagree with their "no third party lenses" policy. To me, that is unacceptable.
- Fujifilm. There are barely any telephoto options and they are one of my favorite lens types to use.
- Panasonic. I like what I read about the Lumix cameras, but they seem to be behind Olympus regarding micro four third still-focused cameras (apart from the G9). And I don't know much about the L-mount.
- Hasselblad, Leica, etc. Too expensive. I want something that I can take with me everywhere and not worry too much if it gets damaged.
I would appreciate if you all could help me figure this out! Especially people who have used more than one modern mirrorless system or have recently transitioned from DSLR to mirrorless. Many thanks in advance!
Edited to add:
I forgot to describe how exactly I use my camera. I mostly shoot:
- "Lifestyle" photos, like something cool I've seen while biking to work, walking in the park, visiting museums, etc.
- Hiking, biking, backpacking photos, like landscape, close ups, macro, wildlife, etc.
- Birds of all sizes.
- Occasionally, street photography if there's some cool event going on.
- I do like to shoot video, so something that would be 4K capable would be great.
After careful consideration, I've got a used E-M1 Mark II from my local shop. I found it for fairly cheap ($300, plus $80 for 1 year warranty and tax). I decided to pass on the GX85 ($400 for body-only) and G85 ($500 including the general purpose kit lens + tele kit lens), despite the great price. Mostly because of my awful experience with contrast AF, where it was unusable compared to phase-detect AF on my D3200.
I found a Sony A6100+kit lens for $440 (amazing deal), but after looking into their lenses, I felt like they were too expensive to the point where it wasn't really worth it getting an entry-level camera. You know, with Sony you really need to go big or go home, unlike M43 where quality glass can be affordable. Basically, if I were to buy an $800 lens, it wouldn't make sense to skimp on the body. I still plan on getting a Sony in the future, but I'll probably save for a nice full frame (A7III, A7C, etc) or higher-end APS-C (A6600) instead.
I still don't own any M43 lenses to test the camera outside, but I'm inclined to get:
I will order the first lens now, and think things through for the next two possibilities. I honestly don't know how wide of an aperture I'll need yet, but I'll likely have an idea after feeling how the camera performs in low light with the kit lens.
I will keep you posted and update the original post soon relating my experience!
That's a great deal, very nice!
I feel you on that lumix series. I like the way they look and they have good reviews, but the prices are inflated right now for some reason which sucks.
Absolutely where I ended up. I knew I could get myself in at a certain point and then upgrade and swap things around later as needed, so it wouldn't be wasted. I've been getting really good deals on some quality budget glass for the olympus. I did end up picking up that olympus 40-150mm for $80 in what appears to be perfect condition from mpb. I can tell it's a more budget lens because of some of the stuff being plastic... but the clarity of the glass is absolutely exceptional for that price... and it weighs nothing. I'll include the first couple pictures I took with it here.
For a lens that is half the size of a can of soda, it has that 80-300mm FF equivalent. I can see why people rave about this one as a starting telephoto.
So just so you can see the size of things... That's a Rokinon / Samyang 7.5mm Fisheye, then the 40-150mm Telephoto, and the 14-40mm EZ on the camera next to my computer mouse.
The only thing about those super zooms like the 14-150 is that you can sometimes sacrifice quality. IDK that much about that lens, but I got myself a little camera bag that's like 12 x 8 x 5 with a cross body shoulder strap for idk.. $15-20 online. It holds the camera, the lenses, the flash, the cleaning kit, the filters, the batteries, the charger, and the filters... and there's still room left lol. So Carrying a bunch of M43 lenses is super easy and light weight. Doesn't make me feel like I need to worry about super zoom coverage like I did with my canon. Always boils down to what kind of photos you think you'll be taking. My tactic was to get the 14-42mm based on recommendations online as a "walking in the park lens" to get used to the camera and then I've just been filling in the blanks as I go. Going on MPB and UPP and just poking around there's so many fun lenses in that $60-150 range that it's almost impulse purchases at that point. I'm still considering some of the manual ones from 7artisans as well... even new they're cheap and I keep hearing how they're good. I'm considering picking up extension tubes for my EM5ii to do macro shots at some point like I did for my canon. I still kind of want that 7artisans 3.5mm fisheye but I absolutely don't need... but it seems fun.
It's been interesting for me. For fast action in lower light... there is no escaping needing good sensors and fast lenses. But because of the IBIS and some of the fun tools olympus puts in their camera software (live composite is so cool... pretty sure the one you're getting has that)... I have been able to take stills in lower light by using longer exposures and still getting cleaner shots. So I had to kind of reset how I thought about the exposure triangle settings.
I'm excited for you. Using this olympus from 2015 has convinced me that I absolutely want to get a modern flagship M43 camera at some point.
It is definitely true that money spent on Sony isn't wasted money. But at the same time, I was thinking, what's the point of spending $900 or more on lenses, and end up using them on an entry-level body? I don't know, it felt to me that it's better to save instead and get a higher-end camera and glass at once. Sony full frame must be so nice, especially for video, but I'll have to wait for now.
What I said above is definitely not the case for M43. I've just bought the tiny 14-42mm kit lens and it's set me back $500 for the whole initial setup (body + kit lens, including tax). With a longer telephoto (Olympus 75-300 or similar, ~$300), it will cover most of my use cases. For the price of either a nice Sony lens or body. And it's a camera that used to be their flagship model, so I feel good about the deal I got. It's very clear that you don't need to spend much to get the good stuff. Your hummingbird photo is a great example of the good stuff you can get out of a lens; affordable glass yielding a nice reach, sharpness, optical quality, and pleasant subject-background separation.
This is something that bugs me slightly about my 18-200 Nikon F DX (APS-C) lens. It is an awesome lens that I'm currently taking everywhere, but I wish it was sharper at times. I guess I will need to get used to switching lenses more often than I currently do. I also might want to experiment with sticking more to fixed focal lengths again. I noticed I always shoot at 28, 35, 50, 85, and very occasionally 105, 135mm full frame equivalent. 300mm or longer for wildlife. Needless to say, those are the most appealing focal ranges to most people and unsurprisingly, there are primes for all single focal length within this range. I'll look into my EXIF data and see what I can stick to initially, and try to zoom more with my feet. It will be an interesting journey!
Yes, I still need to figure out a setup that would work for me. I'm currently using a crossbody bag to carry my Nikon and it works great. I will look into a similar setup that can hold the M43 camera and two lenses or so, plus two filters (CPL and ND), a lightweight tripod, and backup battery and storage. I'll need to get an SD card for my new camera on Bestbuy, so I might look into what bags I can find there. For the card, I'm thinking about a Sandisk V30. I'm not sure about higher speeds, where I'll be able to record high-bitrate 4K, but it does sound appealing. I'll think about it while my lens is on its way.
I've read good things about the Laowa 7.5 f/2 and Lumix 9mm f/1.7. I might get one of those two in the future as a wide-angle low-light. Or maybe either a 17mm or 25mm prime, since 35-50mm full frame equivalent looks very pleasing to me, as it does to most people. We'll see how it goes with the kit lens. I feel like a wider fast prime would be more useful, though, given that it would serve two distinct purposes.
I'm sure it does, since Nikon's optical stabilization technology from 2006 already goes a long way. I still think I'll get a fast and wide prime, given that I'm very interested in wide apertures for astroscaping. But at the same time I'm not sure how well a M43 would perform capturing the northern lights, the milky way, or a meteor shower.
I'm pretty excited, too. I keep thinking about the new possibilities that might arise with this camera. This weekend, I shot a huge bull moose, 200mm cropped, handheld, optical stabilization only, on manual focus, at 1080p. The video turned out great, regardless. I am excited to try the same thing with IBIS, 4K, longer reach, and autofocus/focus peaking now!
Yeah, you definitely start to find the spots where you need to fill in the gaps. I find that the middle of the focal range is where I notice the biggest need for primes. That 14-42mm is handling most of the "wide to normal" for me right now since I'm not doing full on portraits with this particular camera... if I was I'd probably look into something in the 35mm or 55mm super fast lenses specifically for that task. With birding I've never been able to deal with primes since things change so quickly... I'm constantly using the full range of my 150-600m on my canon... they never stay in one spot lol. I think for a "walking around EDC lens" the 14-42mm has been fantastic. Olympus lenses have surprised me with their sharpness on non-Pro level stuff. Something to think about if you're considering fast lenses in a range and wanting "most bang for your buck" is to consider what the difference is between them in aperture. That 14-42mm at it's widest is f/3.5.... that's roughly 2 stops of light and not a ton of DoF in practice. At it's widest though it's f/5.6 so you're talking about 3.5 stops of light and a more noticeable change in DoF. I kept hearing about the 20mm primes and such.. but since I already had this zoom it felt like it wasn't worth it because I was getting most of what I wanted out of it. I'm still considering that 7artisans 55mm f/1.4 II for a portrait lens because it's gonna offer more of a difference from what I have, but I don't really need it right now.
I'm just rambling off on a tangent though... sounds like you've got it figured out. :)
I would also suggest start looking around for extra batteries. There are some better brands of 3rd party batteries that people seem to like. I've heard really mixed stuff about wasabi... some people love it and some people say it sucks. I've had good luck with neewer and kastar so far. Reason being two fold... 1. if you bought used the battery is also gonna be used and have lower life than it did when it was new and 2. mirrorless cameras use battery much faster than DSLR. I picked up a kastar 2 pack of batteries with a dual charger for my EM5ii for $22 total online. It's been really nice so I can either carry a spare or just swap the low battery for a new one when I get home and not have to wait for any charging. Also aftermarket chargers all seem to work off USB-C which is really convenient as well.
Well, yes. I do need to find the spots where I need to fill in the gaps and this will require some (significant) experience. I'm always reading a lot about stuff, and there's too much to learn regarding photography, still. For instance, I was trying to shoot the milky way this weekend under Bortle class 2 skies. The results were good, but not exactly great. I was thinking "yeah maybe a fast and wide lens will do". Now, I've read that people actually tend to stitch mid-focal length individual shots together instead. That's when photos actually look good, not so much when using those nice, fast, wide primes like the famous Rokinon or Simga lenses. Quite the surprise to me, honestly. That is just an example to illustrate my point, which is, there is usually a right(er) answer, but rarely an easy answer.
Regarding portraits, I used to like the strong bokeh of fast primes on a DSLR since my mom got a 50mm f1.8 for my old Canon years ago, but recently I've learned to appreciate short telephotos, too. 42mm gets you ~85mm equivalent, which is quite nice, just not very creamy at those apertures. I agree with your comment that it would only make sense if you were to get a 7artisans 55mm f1.4 or something.
Yes, I too would use the whole 150-600mm range on my Tamron/Nikon all the time for birds. I think it's a known fact that for wildlife one gets primes for increased sharpness, but knowing that you will have to crop very frequently. And when you crop to the equivalent increased focal length on the zoom, you don't get the increased sharpness advantage. It's mostly a budget game, I think.
Agreed. I'm looking into buying a kit from Kastar (2-4 batteries plus USB charger), which is selling for $40-$70. As a matter of fact, cheaper than a single OEM battery ($80). Go figure. On my Nikon, two batteries would last me 3-4 days outside while backpacking (in theory, ~1000 shots). The EM-1 Mark II is rated for 440 shots per battery, so I think the OEM plus 2 extra will suffice. USB-C charging is a must, because that's what I use to charge my action camera's batteries and other devices using my portable power bank. I think a kit from Kastar will do.
Also agree. On a day or half a day out shooting, I usually use half a battery, swap it when I get home, and let the other one charge. It's simply practical.
I'm waiting for my Olympus 14-42 electronic zoom to arrive, which should be here on Monday. My next steps will probably be the extra batteries. Then, a Lumix 100-300mm for wildlife (or equivalent). I'm (really) excited to see where this is gonna take me. Look at this, selling a couple of Nikon F lenses to fund a completely new system -- relatively small changes in practice and likely not changing the end result much, yet such a different approach to the hobby. I feel like this journey is going to be fun!