Please help me choose a camera

[goodguy]

I'll have to disagree with @Derrel about Olympus M43 sensor performance. There is nothing wrong with them. They can produce excellent images. There are tons of examples out there. The M43 cameras out today have great performance and a lot of features that dslr's do not have. And Olympus has a lot of great glass. There is also tons of lenses in the M43 system. Not only that but you can adapt any aps-c or dslr lens out there to use.

I can highly recommend the EM1 mkII. Also the hi-res feature will give you quality on par with some of the best dslr's.

There are not to many M43 users on here and I find that ff users tend to look down on them even with the advancement of the sensors. There are dslr's out there with worse performance.

Sorry but I actually agree with Derrel, I had the Panasonic G7 and it low light performance was disappointing, about 400iso and I already had to struggle with grain, I was forced to use prime lens most of the time and eventually after few weeks of test and true attempt to like this system I sold it and got a Sony a6300. MFT is ok for travel but only in ideal lighting conditions, once the sun is going down or indoors and image quality is suffering.

That's a G7. I have no issues going to 4000 iso. Once again people are looking at the older sensors. The technology has improved greatly with the new top end models for the last few years.

G7 is older but not by much, its pretty much same sensor in the G85 with new processor, low light performance can improve but not by 2 full stops
When I bought the G7 the reviews were pouring love on the camera comparing it to APS-C, well its not touching APS-C,
Camera performance is a complex this, its about sensor technology, sensor size, processor and lenses.
Sensor size is one factor which is not changing, its about the ability to collect light, the more light you collect the cleaner the image will be.
Its mainly about expectation of user, I had 4 APS-C cameras, one FF and one MFT and the jump from one camera to another is very noticeable to me, my standards are very high, if user is more flexible then me then MFT can be ok I guess, in any case this is my experience and I will not buy an MFT camera again for pictures, video maybe but not pictures.

 

[SquarePeg]

I have the Xt2 and love it. I could not be happier with the AF system and the gorgeous jpegs that it produces. Even with the "cheaper" lenses like the 60mm macro and the 50-230 it takes super sharp pics. If you're looking to use it outdoors and mostly in good light, the 50-230 is a bargain if you can find one - plus it's light as a feather for when you're hiking around Europe. I've used it to shoot some action (softball) and animals and lots of landscapes/florals.

Personally, while I know the Fuji 18-55 kit is a great lens, that focal length is boring to me so I almost never use it. If I were you with your budget and your goals, I would #1 buy used/refurb to stretch your $, #2 get the XT2 with the 23mm and either the 55-200 or 50-230 depending on what you can find on the used market.

Good luck!

 

[BrentC]

I'll have to disagree with @Derrel about Olympus M43 sensor performance. There is nothing wrong with them. They can produce excellent images. There are tons of examples out there. The M43 cameras out today have great performance and a lot of features that dslr's do not have. And Olympus has a lot of great glass. There is also tons of lenses in the M43 system. Not only that but you can adapt any aps-c or dslr lens out there to use.

I can highly recommend the EM1 mkII. Also the hi-res feature will give you quality on par with some of the best dslr's.

There are not to many M43 users on here and I find that ff users tend to look down on them even with the advancement of the sensors. There are dslr's out there with worse performance.

Sorry but I actually agree with Derrel, I had the Panasonic G7 and it low light performance was disappointing, about 400iso and I already had to struggle with grain, I was forced to use prime lens most of the time and eventually after few weeks of test and true attempt to like this system I sold it and got a Sony a6300. MFT is ok for travel but only in ideal lighting conditions, once the sun is going down or indoors and image quality is suffering.

That's a G7. I have no issues going to 4000 iso. Once again people are looking at the older sensors. The technology has improved greatly with the new top end models for the last few years.

G7 is older but not by much, its pretty much same sensor in the G85 with new processor, low light performance can improve but not by 2 full stops
When I bought the G7 the reviews were pouring love on the camera comparing it to APS-C, well its not touching APS-C,
Camera performance is a complex this, its about sensor technology, sensor size, processor and lenses.
Sensor size is one factor which is not changing, its about the ability to collect light, the more light you collect the cleaner the image will be.
Its mainly about expectation of user, I had 4 APS-C cameras, one FF and one MFT and the jump from one camera to another is very noticeable to me, my standards are very high, if user is more flexible then me then MFT can be ok I guess, in any case this is my experience and I will not buy an MFT camera again for pictures, video maybe but not pictures.

There is no doubt that most ff dslr's have better iso performance. But saying, like derrel said, poor overall performance is not the case. There are professionals using M43 with great success. Nobody looks at their images and say "they must have used a M43 camera, it would look much better if they used ff dslr's". The fact is today when people see an image they can't tell if it was shot M43, aps-c or dslr. No matter what system you use you can produce incredible looking images. Hell cell phones today can produce amazing images.

No one who wants a lighter, smaller system should be shamed to going M43 as of the are going to take terrible pictures. These days, no matter what system, it's the photographer not the camera.
Every system has their pros and cons and you buy into one that fits your needs. For me M43 works amazingly well. I can go on traveling and hikes and take all my lenses with me and not be worried that the camera is not up to task.

 

[Derrel]

NEW and "best" versus newish..and the best...

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

Look at the rubbish High-ISO/Low-light score of the newest and best Oly body versus the Sony FX camera, or even the entry-level Nikon FX body...wow...that's a MAJOR difference in favot of the Sony sensors.

Olympus cameras however do have very appealing styling, and nice body and lens construction and design, and the feel in the hand is pretty amazing. But it's not accurate to state that the Olympus is on even footing with the Sony-sensored, FX cameras, because it is simply not.

 

[jaomul]

It is also down to what you intend to shoot. If you intend on being at modest iso the M4/3 system has a lot going for it. The Olympus in particular have a superb inbuilt body stabilization system, especially the OMD m 4/3.

I currently have M4/3, a crop Nikon and a Fx Nikon. All the cameras are more capable of taking good photographs than my ability, but there is no point in saying the smaller sensors match the bigger ones once you start pushing the iso. For every tech improvement the m43 has got, the larger tech has got better also.

However, it's almost like saying how much better than great one is over the other. If I didn't shoot a lot of moving subjects I'd be using all m43. They have great small fast lenses and are a great balance of size and performance

Edit- I had larger Vs bigger sensors written, that should have read smaller Vs bigger, edited

 

[chuasam]

I have a D810 but i borrowed a Lumix GM1 for my London vacation and used the mirror less far more.
This year I'm borrowing an EM 5 for my trip.
The Em5 II would be a great choice for you.
Old farts like Derrell can't Remember how bad it was to shoot film. Sure a FF is superior in low light but getting there refreshed beats lugging a huge beast.

 

[fmw]

To me the trend is smaller and lighter. As sensors improve, they will continue to be made smaller. After all, they are competing with cell phones as well as other cameras. I have a pocket point and shoot camera with a sensor that is smaller than M4/3. It makes fine images. It isn't for everything or everybody, but it outperforms a cell phone. I've been using APS-c sized sensors since the beginning of digital and have never had the impulse to worry about having bigger sensors, let alone spending my money on one. If I could get Fuji quality in M4/3 format, I probably would have gone that way.

 

[goodguy]

I'll have to disagree with @Derrel about Olympus M43 sensor performance. There is nothing wrong with them. They can produce excellent images. There are tons of examples out there. The M43 cameras out today have great performance and a lot of features that dslr's do not have. And Olympus has a lot of great glass. There is also tons of lenses in the M43 system. Not only that but you can adapt any aps-c or dslr lens out there to use.

I can highly recommend the EM1 mkII. Also the hi-res feature will give you quality on par with some of the best dslr's.

There are not to many M43 users on here and I find that ff users tend to look down on them even with the advancement of the sensors. There are dslr's out there with worse performance.

Sorry but I actually agree with Derrel, I had the Panasonic G7 and it low light performance was disappointing, about 400iso and I already had to struggle with grain, I was forced to use prime lens most of the time and eventually after few weeks of test and true attempt to like this system I sold it and got a Sony a6300. MFT is ok for travel but only in ideal lighting conditions, once the sun is going down or indoors and image quality is suffering.

That's a G7. I have no issues going to 4000 iso. Once again people are looking at the older sensors. The technology has improved greatly with the new top end models for the last few years.

G7 is older but not by much, its pretty much same sensor in the G85 with new processor, low light performance can improve but not by 2 full stops
When I bought the G7 the reviews were pouring love on the camera comparing it to APS-C, well its not touching APS-C,
Camera performance is a complex this, its about sensor technology, sensor size, processor and lenses.
Sensor size is one factor which is not changing, its about the ability to collect light, the more light you collect the cleaner the image will be.
Its mainly about expectation of user, I had 4 APS-C cameras, one FF and one MFT and the jump from one camera to another is very noticeable to me, my standards are very high, if user is more flexible then me then MFT can be ok I guess, in any case this is my experience and I will not buy an MFT camera again for pictures, video maybe but not pictures.

There is no doubt that most ff dslr's have better iso performance. But saying, like derrel said, poor overall performance is not the case. There are professionals using M43 with great success. Nobody looks at their images and say "they must have used a M43 camera, it would look much better if they used ff dslr's". The fact is today when people see an image they can't tell if it was shot M43, aps-c or dslr. No matter what system you use you can produce incredible looking images. Hell cell phones today can produce amazing images.

No one who wants a lighter, smaller system should be shamed to going M43 as of the are going to take terrible pictures. These days, no matter what system, it's the photographer not the camera.
Every system has their pros and cons and you buy into one that fits your needs. For me M43 works amazingly well. I can go on traveling and hikes and take all my lenses with me and not be worried that the camera is not up to task.

I agree with everything you say, I did get very nice pictures with my G7 but overall I found it to be so poor in low light situation and the dynamic range was just a joke, so the question isn't if you can get good results with a MFT because you absolutely can, the question is what is the best system I can get for my needs. I think you can buy today a Sony a6000 with just kit lens and get a very small flexible system with APS-C camera, its definitely not perfect but still is very good and surpasses MFT due to its APS-C sensor.

 

[BrentC]

NEW and "best" versus newish..and the best...

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

Look at the rubbish High-ISO/Low-light score of the newest and best Oly body versus the Sony FX camera, or even the entry-level Nikon FX body...wow...that's a MAJOR difference in favot of the Sony sensors.

Olympus cameras however do have very appealing styling, and nice body and lens construction and design, and the feel in the hand is pretty amazing. But it's not accurate to state that the Olympus is on even footing with the Sony-sensored, FX cameras, because it is simply not.

My issue is you saying the sensor has poor overall performance. Low light is not everything. I can count on my hands the time that low light has been an issue for my type of shooting. The Oly has great IQ and colours. Once again, I have said that every system has there pros and cons and you buy into the system that works for you. But is disagree that its an overall bad performer.

If you do the DxO compare to a D500, which the EM1 should be compared to for the type of camera its meant to be, then there is not much of a gap at all. 80 to 84 overall score. I can pick other DSLRS models that have lower scores then the Oly. Plus the features you get are fantastic:

18fps C-AF and 60fps S-AF
ProCapture
Hi-res mode where you get an 80MB highly detailed image
About 9 different bracketing modes - including in camera focus stacking
Live composite - watching the image being built as the exposure is shot and allowing you to stop
PLus a bunch of other features.

Hell in low light with my 12-100 IS Pro I can easily handheld a 1sec exposure. There are people doing 5 and 10sec handheld.

Anyways I hate these 'My system is better the your system'. Everything out there today are all giving very good quality images. Buy what suits your needs.

 

[JohanNew]

I'll have to disagree with @Derrel about Olympus M43 sensor performance. There is nothing wrong with them. They can produce excellent images. There are tons of examples out there. The M43 cameras out today have great performance and a lot of features that dslr's do not have. And Olympus has a lot of great glass. There is also tons of lenses in the M43 system. Not only that but you can adapt any aps-c or dslr lens out there to use.

I can highly recommend the EM1 mkII. Also the hi-res feature will give you quality on par with some of the best dslr's.

There are not to many M43 users on here and I find that ff users tend to look down on them even with the advancement of the sensors. There are dslr's out there with worse performance.

Sorry but I actually agree with Derrel, I had the Panasonic G7 and it low light performance was disappointing, about 400iso and I already had to struggle with grain, I was forced to use prime lens most of the time and eventually after few weeks of test and true attempt to like this system I sold it and got a Sony a6300. MFT is ok for travel but only in ideal lighting conditions, once the sun is going down or indoors and image quality is suffering.

That's a G7. I have no issues going to 4000 iso. Once again people are looking at the older sensors. The technology has improved greatly with the new top end models for the last few years.

G7 is older but not by much, its pretty much same sensor in the G85 with new processor, low light performance can improve but not by 2 full stops
When I bought the G7 the reviews were pouring love on the camera comparing it to APS-C, well its not touching APS-C,
Camera performance is a complex this, its about sensor technology, sensor size, processor and lenses.
Sensor size is one factor which is not changing, its about the ability to collect light, the more light you collect the cleaner the image will be.
Its mainly about expectation of user, I had 4 APS-C cameras, one FF and one MFT and the jump from one camera to another is very noticeable to me, my standards are very high, if user is more flexible then me then MFT can be ok I guess, in any case this is my experience and I will not buy an MFT camera again for pictures, video maybe but not pictures.

There is no doubt that most ff dslr's have better iso performance. But saying, like derrel said, poor overall performance is not the case. There are professionals using M43 with great success. Nobody looks at their images and say "they must have used a M43 camera, it would look much better if they used ff dslr's". The fact is today when people see an image they can't tell if it was shot M43, aps-c or dslr. No matter what system you use you can produce incredible looking images. Hell cell phones today can produce amazing images.

No one who wants a lighter, smaller system should be shamed to going M43 as of the are going to take terrible pictures. These days, no matter what system, it's the photographer not the camera.
Every system has their pros and cons and you buy into one that fits your needs. For me M43 works amazingly well. I can go on traveling and hikes and take all my lenses with me and not be worried that the camera is not up to task.

I agree with everything you say, I did get very nice pictures with my G7 but overall I found it to be so poor in low light situation and the dynamic range was just a joke, so the question isn't if you can get good results with a MFT because you absolutely can, the question is what is the best system I can get for my needs. I think you can buy today a Sony a6000 with just kit lens and get a very small flexible system with APS-C camera, its definitely not perfect but still is very good and surpasses MFT due to its APS-C sensor.

This is my Flickr: Jonah Nieuwenhuizen
Just posted some photos I took this Holliday, including two low light pics, without tripod.
Advice is very welcome!

At the moment I daily check eBay for secondhand camera's

 

[Derrel]

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

My issue is you saying the sensor has poor overall performance. Low light is not everything. I can count on my hands the time that low light has been an issue for my type of shooting. The Oly has great IQ and colours. Once again, I have said that every system has there pros and cons and you buy into the system that works for you. But is disagree that its an overall bad performer.

Well, maybe I define "poor overall" as something that is way below contemporary leading models. Perhaps you have not noticed that in the link I provided, in the expanded test results section, the Olympus comes in dead last in multiple categories...like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity, Signal To Noise Ratio Peformance, and Dynamic Range. Weaker color, poorer tone response, worse SNR, and narrower dynamic range. To me that is "poor" performance; and NOT just in "low light", but across multiple, easily measurable performance metrics.

To me, that is poor overall, and the buyer has $2,400 Euro to spend; why not buy a better performing camera at such a high price point?

 

[goodguy]

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

My issue is you saying the sensor has poor overall performance. Low light is not everything. I can count on my hands the time that low light has been an issue for my type of shooting. The Oly has great IQ and colours. Once again, I have said that every system has there pros and cons and you buy into the system that works for you. But is disagree that its an overall bad performer.

Well, maybe I define "poor overall" as something that is way below contemporary leading models. Perhaps you have not noticed that in the link I provided, in the expanded test results section, the Olympus comes in dead last in multiple categories...like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity, Signal To Noise Ratio Peformance, and Dynamic Range. Weaker color, poorer tone response, worse SNR, and narrower dynamic range. To me that is "poor" performance; and NOT just in "low light", but across multiple, easily measurable performance metrics.

To me, that is poor overall, and the buyer has $2,400 Euro to spend; why not buy a better performing camera at such a high price point?View attachment 145948View attachment 145949 View attachment 145950View attachment 145951

Derrel pretty much covered it all here.
The point is not if you can make good pictures with a MFT because obviously you can, the point is that there are other better options, Sony today makes APS-C sensors that ahs amazing performance, Sony FF sensors are just superb, on the other hand MFT sensor are meh.
The charts Derrel was nice enough to provide prove that.
When processing the G7 RAW files again and again I was disappointed by the unimpressive dynamic range and of course poor low light performance.

 

[JohanNew]

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

My issue is you saying the sensor has poor overall performance. Low light is not everything. I can count on my hands the time that low light has been an issue for my type of shooting. The Oly has great IQ and colours. Once again, I have said that every system has there pros and cons and you buy into the system that works for you. But is disagree that its an overall bad performer.

Well, maybe I define "poor overall" as something that is way below contemporary leading models. Perhaps you have not noticed that in the link I provided, in the expanded test results section, the Olympus comes in dead last in multiple categories...like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity, Signal To Noise Ratio Peformance, and Dynamic Range. Weaker color, poorer tone response, worse SNR, and narrower dynamic range. To me that is "poor" performance; and NOT just in "low light", but across multiple, easily measurable performance metrics.

To me, that is poor overall, and the buyer has $2,400 Euro to spend; why not buy a better performing camera at such a high price point?View attachment 145948View attachment 145949 View attachment 145950View attachment 145951

Derrel pretty much covered it all here.
The point is not if you can make good pictures with a MFT because obviously you can, the point is that there are other better options, Sony today makes APS-C sensors that ahs amazing performance, Sony FF sensors are just superb, on the other hand MFT sensor are meh.
The charts Derrel was nice enough to provide prove that.
When processing the G7 RAW files again and again I was disappointed by the unimpressive dynamic range and of course poor low light performance.

I agree with the both of you, but I personally don't like the Sony a6*** series, if i would buy a Sony it would be the a7 ii.

 

[JohanNew]

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

My issue is you saying the sensor has poor overall performance. Low light is not everything. I can count on my hands the time that low light has been an issue for my type of shooting. The Oly has great IQ and colours. Once again, I have said that every system has there pros and cons and you buy into the system that works for you. But is disagree that its an overall bad performer.

Well, maybe I define "poor overall" as something that is way below contemporary leading models. Perhaps you have not noticed that in the link I provided, in the expanded test results section, the Olympus comes in dead last in multiple categories...like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity, Signal To Noise Ratio Peformance, and Dynamic Range. Weaker color, poorer tone response, worse SNR, and narrower dynamic range. To me that is "poor" performance; and NOT just in "low light", but across multiple, easily measurable performance metrics.

To me, that is poor overall, and the buyer has $2,400 Euro to spend; why not buy a better performing camera at such a high price point?View attachment 145948View attachment 145949 View attachment 145950View attachment 145951

Charts never lie, well sometimes, but these don't ;-). Thanks for posting them it shines a new light on the choice between one or the other. Which better performing camera and lens would you advice?
Btw. Thanks for all the replies on my thread but also the many others, it must take a lot of time!

 

[SquarePeg]

I thought you were going to get the XT2?