M4/3 as a second?

[IronMaskDuval]

Thinking about getting in M4/3 as my second camera with a wide kit lens. I don't mind carrying my D7100, but I can see where a small one would come in handy from time to time. How do these things perform? I'd like to use it as a second camera for videos, and I may take this thing out on a day that I am not intentionally shooting and have a camera that is better than my phone. I understand the limitations of these cameras from a technical standpoint, but do the photos hold up to a dslr? Are the colors there, contrast, etc?

I've been looking at the Lumix GM5 and the Olympus EM5. Thoughts?

 

[jaomul]

I have a d7100 and EM5. The Olympus is so good I put my Nikon stuff up for a m4/3rds swap on a local website just this morning.

I went on a small trip recently and had 2 setups. The only thing that the d7100 does noticeably better is tracking, and I believe the EM1 more or less sorted that side (at least if your not primarily a moving target shooter)

 

[The_Traveler]

I agree with jaomul in regards the m5.
Another benefit of the relatively tiny m5 is that, with a pancake lens like the Oly 40 1.7, it looks as handles like a p&s. This good for street stuff.

 

[fjrabon]

I like the LX100 a lot as far as M4/3 cameras go. I've always thought if you're going to go M4/3, you might as well go integrated zoom.

 

[bribrius]

I would happily ditch my 7100 because i have never liked it. But i need some of the features. Lens availability, the plug in ports, that kind of stuff.

 

[petrochemist]

I like the LX100 a lot as far as M4/3 cameras go. I've always thought if you're going to go M4/3, you might as well go integrated zoom.

The integrated zoom severely limits the advantages of micro four thirds IMO. The mount is extremely flexible when it comes to adapting non-native lenses, and has a great range of native options too. I've never understood those who but a DSLR and never consider a second lens - which is effectively the same thing.

I don't think my GF2 + 17mm /2.8 would be noticably bigger than the LX100, with the 9mmBCL it's smaller still. Yet when more reach is wanted I just fit something like the 55-200... (I've yet to try it with an adapted 600mm - even my madness has limits!)
I find my G5 better as a DSLR replacement, but have no issues with the quality of either.

 

[jaomul]

I would happily ditch my 7100 because i have never liked it. But i need some of the features. Lens availability, the plug in ports, that kind of stuff.

I'm curious. What don't you like about the d7100? What lenses are not replaceable in another system and what ports are not in other brands?

 

[bribrius]

I would happily ditch my 7100 because i have never liked it. But i need some of the features. Lens availability, the plug in ports, that kind of stuff.

I'm curious. What don't you like about the d7100? What lenses are not replaceable in another system and what ports are not in other brands?

the size, the feel in my hands, the low light sucks. If i am going to deal with a camera bad i low light i would rather opt for a more portable camera.. I bought it mostly for the lens selection (you know 1960- whatever with on board focus motor). I find the features of the 7100 more in line with the higher pro cameras far as use. You can find the same things in other brands, not so sure on m43 though.

 

[jaomul]

Thanks. Was just double checking if I did swap was there an overlooked feature I hadn't considered but would miss.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Oh, well. /thread. My wife made the decision for me, and I think everyone knows how that turned out.

 

[fjrabon]

I'd ditch all my dSLRs if it wasn't for sports. At this point I still think the mirrorless/M4/3 offerings still can't really compete when it comes to shooting sports. Otherwise I'd probably have ditched everything and gone with an XT1 system and a couple of speedlights.

I also like Nikon's CLS, but at this point in what I'm shooting, I rarely use it. Nothing I couldn't almost as easily do with a manual OCF and a hotshoe mount flash trigger cable.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

I'd ditch all my dSLRs if it wasn't for sports. At this point I still think the mirrorless/M4/3 offerings still can't really compete when it comes to shooting sports. Otherwise I'd probably have ditched everything and gone with an XT1 system and a couple of speedlights.

I also like Nikon's CLS, but at this point in what I'm shooting, I rarely use it. Nothing I couldn't almost as easily do with a manual OCF and a hotshoe mount flash trigger cable.

I enjoy the size and weight of my current setup. I really only wanted the 4/3 for those occasions that I would like to have something better than my cellphone and was really curious just because. I tend to like smaller things, but everything small seems to look funny on me except for my wife .... I think this comes from me being a bean pole into my early 20s. I'm over 200 lbs now at 5'10 and still wearing a 30/31 waist, so very few small things look right anymore. lol

 

[goodguy]

I have a feeling if you get a MFT as a second body it will be soon enough your only body.
These are good cameras, if you are not too picky about low light performance and maybe willing to sacrifice a little in AF accuracy in fast moving subject you will like it a lot, size is definitely smaller.
I schlep with my big FF body with big lenses, I don't do this because I love the weight and size but because of the flexibility of the system, if I would get that in a MFT size camera I would own it already.

Good luck with what ever you decide to do.

 

[fjrabon]

I'd ditch all my dSLRs if it wasn't for sports. At this point I still think the mirrorless/M4/3 offerings still can't really compete when it comes to shooting sports. Otherwise I'd probably have ditched everything and gone with an XT1 system and a couple of speedlights.

I also like Nikon's CLS, but at this point in what I'm shooting, I rarely use it. Nothing I couldn't almost as easily do with a manual OCF and a hotshoe mount flash trigger cable.

I enjoy the size and weight of my current setup. I really only wanted the 4/3 for those occasions that I would like to have something better than my cellphone and was really curious just because. I tend to like smaller things, but everything small seems to look funny on me except for my wife .... I think this comes from me being a bean pole into my early 20s. I'm over 200 lbs now at 5'10 and still wearing a 30/31 waist, so very few small things look right anymore. lol

The thing I like about the smaller systems is the versatility. If I want to make an Xt1 more balanced with a big lens, I can slap a grip on it. But if I want to make it tiny, I can do that too. I can't cut my D7100 in half and still shoot with it.

 

[Ido]

I have started losing some of my faith in the Micro Four Thirds standard when I started shooting with the Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm f/4.5-5.6 I bought roughly a month ago. Maybe I was just expecting too much, or I read through the reviews too quickly, but I was just disgusted by the chromatic aberrations in this lens, and also the softness away from the center, at all focal lengths and apertures. I just feel like I should get more from a $600–$700 lens (though I bought it used with decent savings, thank goodness). I would have instantly pulled the trigger on a Panasonic 7-14mm f/4, but fear of the much-maligned flare problem on Olympus bodies steered me away. If only there was an 8-16mm f/4 lens that's decently sharp throughout the range, has little CA, handles distortion and flare well… I'd happily pay around a grand for it, and accept a somewhat large and heavy lens. Oh, well.

However, the OM-D E-M5, along with the three lenses I bought first, has definitely been serving me well for over a year now, as my primary system and my first foray into system cameras. If that's possible, I'm sure it can be good enough as a second body.