New Semi-Pro Needs a New Camera (Mirrorless, maybe?) - Help!

[Ido]

Show me a 70-200 with IS that competes with the Canon/Nikon/Tamron versions and I'll change my tune.

All mirrorless systems, except Canon, Nikon and probably Pentax, have a high-end 70-200mm equivalent now, though none offers exactly a 70-200mm f/2.8 or something truly equivalent in depth of field, such as a 50-135mm f/2 for APS-C or 35-100mm f/1.4 for Micro Four Thirds—they're all at f/2.8 or f/4.

I haven't really dug through test results for these lenses, or for the DSLRs' 70-200mm for that matter, so I don't really know how well they perform—I'm going by hearsay.

Olympus has the 40-150mm f/2.8 and Panasonic has the venerable 35-100mm f/2.8, which has been out on the market for a few years now. The Olympus doesn't have optical image stabilization, because it isn't needed on Olympus bodies, as they have sensor-shift IS instead. Most Panasonic camera bodies won't have image stabilization with the Olympus lens, but the Panasonic lens does have OIS.

Fujifilm has recently released its own, a 50-140mm f/2.8 lens for their APS-C system.

Sony has the 70-200mm f/4 for the FE-mount, so it's compatible with the full-frame cameras.
There is a 70-200mm f/2.8 for the A-mount, though, which can be used with Sony's adapter and act just like a native lens, basically. If it's used with the adapter that has the SLT technology, it should even work just like it would on an α99. The new α7R II should have a good-enough autofocus system for A-mount lenses to work great even with the simpler adapter. There is one drawback: the A-mount lenses don't have OIS because the A-mount bodies have sensor-based IS, so one only has IS when used with the newer α7 II and α7R II.
Too bad they skimped on the E-mount 24-70mm's quality … that could have made the FE system truly excellent, apart from the odd raw-file compression.

Samsung released a 50-150mm f/2.8 lens when they released the NX1. Should be a great combo.

If we broaden beyond just the mirrorless world, Pentax has a couple of options. There is the new 70-200mm f/2.8, which they released in anticipation of a full-frame DSLR that should come at some point, and also the older 50-135mm f/2.8 for APS-C cameras.

I'm pretty sure the Olympus, Fuji and Sony telephoto zooms are top-notch lenses in today's standards, and the new Pentax is probably along those lines as well. The Panasonic is a bit of an older lens and it seems like they focused a lot on its size, so I don't know how good it is in comparison, but I hear it's pretty darn good.

 

[thinkscotty]

I use a Micro Four Thirds kit exclusively, the specific camera and lenses are in my "signature" below. I mostly shoot landscape and a little bit of wildlife, mostly birds that pass through my country each year. I do not require shallow depth of field—in fact I avoid it on most of my photos, though I use my 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 lens wide open when I photograph wildlife and it's usually good enough for me. I'm also satisfied with my gear's capabilities in low light most of the time, and I have an f/1.8 standard prime for the odd occasion that requires better results in low light or shallower depth of field than I usually need.

You are asking very personal questions that can't be answered generally. Each photographer has different demands and expectations, so seemingly simple questions such as "Is the reduced Bokeh in Micro 4/3 a big deal?" are practically impossible to answer by another person—only you could possibly know that.
A way to judge it is via equivalence: If you see a photo that has the kind of shallow depth of field you want to get, look at its EXIF data. If, for example, it was shot on a full-frame camera at 85mm and f/2.8, you can easily divide each by two and find you'll need 42.5mm at f/1.4 on a Micro Four Thirds camera to get exactly the same look at the same focusing distance. That can be achieved with the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2, which costs over $1,000, but you can also get very close to that mark with the less expensive Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 or Olympus 45mm f/1.8.
If the depth of field you want is something crazy, like what can only be achieved with an 85mm lens at f/1.4, you can only get somewhat close to that in Micro Four Thirds with the manual-focus Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95, or an adapted Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux.

As for the GX8, I'm not sure it's all worth the hype. I looked at the results in DPReview's studio comparison tool, and I think the results in low light look worse than the 16MP sensors in the GH4 and E-M5 II. It's a bit of a shame for me, because I was really hoping the higher resolution sensors would maintain the current sensors' noise levels. And I was looking at a 16MP comparison on them, so the 20MP sensor was actually at an advantage—I didn't look at the pixel level for the GX8. You can take a look at the same comparison yourself:

Studio shot comparison Digital Photography Review

This was an extremely helpful answer. Thank you especially for the link with the camera comparison - I hadn't used that tool yet and it was very interesting to see.

You are absolutely spot on about the GX-8 noise. Lots of color noise on skin tones and hair especially - no good since I'm about 50% a portrait photographer. I could correct that in Lightroom, I suppose, but is it worth the money over the E M-5ii in that case? Especially since I really don't need 4K video. The 20mp vs 16mp doesn't matter a bit to me, since chances are my prints would never get to poster size. I liked the GX-8's size and "feel in hand" more than the olly though. Wondering how much that matters. The GX-8 was just really well reviewed. That, plus the fact that it's brand new (thus theoretically increasing its life as a competitor) had me sold on it vs. the other 4/3s. Well...time to reconsider.

I think for my purposes, depth of field will be more important that for you. I guess like you say I need to figure out how much I really need. I shoot wide open about half the time now, which suggests I like the bokeh look.

I have to tell you I'm just back at Square 1 right now. Haha...that's what I get.

In any case, this was very helpful. Thank you.

 

[thinkscotty]

Major Questions:
1) Can you really do pro photography with Micro 4/3. If so - why does everyone use a Canon or Nikon still?

People used to do professional photography with a wooden box and a plate covered with chemicals in the back. Most of the most amazing, famous, revered shots were taken with equipment that by modern standards would be considered junk. So yes, you can certainly do it with a micro 4/3.

Nikon and Canon are both well established companies and both have a ton of lenses available for them because the mounting systems they use are well established. That's a big selling point for a lot of us.

2) Is the reduced Bokeh in Micro 4/3 a big deal?

Depends on how much you like bokeh I guess. You can still achieve bokeh with a smaller sensor, but it's easier with a larger one.

3) How much am I missing by skipping the full frame?

Depends on what you use your camera for really. If you are shooting in good lighting any sensor can produce reliable, quality images. When you start losing light, that's when sensor size really starts making a huge, huge difference. The larger sensor will allow you to shoot at lower ISO's and maintain a quality image. Smaller sensors? Welll good idea to bring along a light source or two of your own to compensate.

There are generally other things as well of course, depending on the camera.. FX or full frame models are generally higher end, have better AF systems, etc that can all be important to your choice depending on what type of photography your doing.

4) Any general advice for a semi-pro looking to build a system.

My usage will mainly be for portraits, pets, street, event, and travel photography.

If your planning to shoot professionally, I would probably really consider going full frame. If your planning on just doing portraits outdoors or in a studio where you can control the lighting, a 4/3'rds would work fine. But a lot of what people pay for is event photography - so your going to be in a lot of situations where the larger sensor will make a huge difference in your end results. You'll also probably want some options on a fast telephoto lens to capture events properly, something most 4/3 systems don't offer.

The other thing to consider is the "mystique" of the big camera. Yes, I know this sounds silly, but it happens to be true. Show up an event with a cute little micro 4/3'rds and most people won't think your the professional they hired. Just walking around the zoo with my 7100 and a 70-200 F2.8 mounted I get asked all the time if I'm a professional photographer and if I'm there shooting for a paper or magazine.

It's crazy, I know - but it's just a fact of life.

This was extremely useful - thank you. I'm a big strong dude so the size/weight thing doesn't matter to me. Just seems like a smaller camera would probably end up in my bag more often than a full size DSLR, that I might be more likely to reach for it rather than a smartphone camera in quick moments, and that it would be less obtrusive. But on that last point, like you say with the "mystique", I had been wondering whether I'd get sneered at by people who don't know anything about cameras when I showed up to an event with something little. Most of the time probably not. But sometimes, probably so. Not something to ignore. Then again, I'll never do photography full-time, more as a side gig. I'll never charge full-time rates probably. Man, just so much to consider here.

You guys have me re-considering saving for a few more months and going for the D750. I'd discounted the big DSLRs. But...no more...

In any case, thank you for a very responsive and useful answer, for helping a relative newbie out.

 

[thinkscotty]

You ought to check out The Visual Science Lab, Kirk Tuck's blog. He's a longtime Austin, Texas professional shooter, and he's been using the Panasonic system for a few years now; it seems to have the best video feature set for professional-grade video, especially with two cameras that need to be easily time-coided and footage integrated without hassles. His blog **was**, not too long ago, an amazing resource; but then he did the unthinkable (to many of us), and he TRASHED a lot of the old articles, and began fresh.

Great blog recommendation! I've been reading his stuff and love it.

 

[robbins.photo]

Major Questions:
1) Can you really do pro photography with Micro 4/3. If so - why does everyone use a Canon or Nikon still?

People used to do professional photography with a wooden box and a plate covered with chemicals in the back. Most of the most amazing, famous, revered shots were taken with equipment that by modern standards would be considered junk. So yes, you can certainly do it with a micro 4/3.

Nikon and Canon are both well established companies and both have a ton of lenses available for them because the mounting systems they use are well established. That's a big selling point for a lot of us.

2) Is the reduced Bokeh in Micro 4/3 a big deal?

Depends on how much you like bokeh I guess. You can still achieve bokeh with a smaller sensor, but it's easier with a larger one.

3) How much am I missing by skipping the full frame?

Depends on what you use your camera for really. If you are shooting in good lighting any sensor can produce reliable, quality images. When you start losing light, that's when sensor size really starts making a huge, huge difference. The larger sensor will allow you to shoot at lower ISO's and maintain a quality image. Smaller sensors? Welll good idea to bring along a light source or two of your own to compensate.

There are generally other things as well of course, depending on the camera.. FX or full frame models are generally higher end, have better AF systems, etc that can all be important to your choice depending on what type of photography your doing.

4) Any general advice for a semi-pro looking to build a system.

My usage will mainly be for portraits, pets, street, event, and travel photography.

If your planning to shoot professionally, I would probably really consider going full frame. If your planning on just doing portraits outdoors or in a studio where you can control the lighting, a 4/3'rds would work fine. But a lot of what people pay for is event photography - so your going to be in a lot of situations where the larger sensor will make a huge difference in your end results. You'll also probably want some options on a fast telephoto lens to capture events properly, something most 4/3 systems don't offer.

The other thing to consider is the "mystique" of the big camera. Yes, I know this sounds silly, but it happens to be true. Show up an event with a cute little micro 4/3'rds and most people won't think your the professional they hired. Just walking around the zoo with my 7100 and a 70-200 F2.8 mounted I get asked all the time if I'm a professional photographer and if I'm there shooting for a paper or magazine.

It's crazy, I know - but it's just a fact of life.

This was extremely useful - thank you. I'm a big strong dude so the size/weight thing doesn't matter to me. Just seems like a smaller camera would probably end up in my bag more often than a full size DSLR, that I might be more likely to reach for it rather than a smartphone camera in quick moments, and that it would be less obtrusive. But on that last point, like you say with the "mystique", I had been wondering whether I'd get sneered at by people who don't know anything about cameras when I showed up to an event with something little. Most of the time probably not. But sometimes, probably so. Not something to ignore. Then again, I'll never do photography full-time, more as a side gig. I'll never charge full-time rates probably. Man, just so much to consider here.

You guys have me re-considering saving for a few more months and going for the D750. I'd discounted the big DSLRs. But...no more...

In any case, thank you for a very responsive and useful answer, for helping a relative newbie out.

Never had any desire to shoot professionally myself, I'm too accustomed to shooting whatever I want whenever I want and I never really wanted to have to deal with the headaches of trying to do it as a business.

I guess for me though one of the big considerations would be durability. If I were shooting professionally I wouldn't consider going to an event without a backup camera - just in case.

Imagine your at a wedding and something goes wrong with your main camera. Well, I wouldn't want to be the one to try and explain why you were paid to shoot this once in a lifetime event but failed because of technical problems.

So I'd want to make sure I had a solidly built tank as my primary camera, and a camera that could mount the same lenses as a backup at a minimum.

Not sure if I'd really want to use something that is consumer grade for commercial use. I guess more than a few people do, so it might just be me.

 

[PaulWog]

Thanks so much! That makes a lot of sense. I've seen a lot of debate on that video in recent months, but your explanation helped clarify a few things for me.

You're getting me back interested in the DSLRs, questioning the mirrorless route again. So if you don't mind I'd love to pick your brain a little more. I've been doing A LOT of photography over the past year, largely for my job. And I've taken a few courses in my off-time as well. But my whole experience with anything beyond smartphone photography has been in just that one year. Which means while I (think I) have skills, I don't have experience.

So you keep recommending Nikon. My work camera is a Canon - mostly because there was a deal on the Canon when it was on sale. So Canon is what I know.

Why would I choose a Nikon over Canon? I can't seem to find any clear objective facts on this, so I'm soliciting personal opinions instead.

Thank you for your time - truly.

The reason why you should pick Nikon over Canon is just based on the offerings right now. Nikon has the D750 at a reasonable price, Canon doesn't have that. Unless if you want a specific lens offered by Canon (ie. an f1.2 prime), your decision might simply come down to the DSLR choice. Obviously you should try any camera out in-store (to see if the menu system / control layout works for you), but otherwise, there's not much to say.