X-T10? X-M1?

[dasminimalist]

So, my ultimate question is this. Is mirrorless too advanced/simple for a beginner like myself to learn photography? Is it cost-effective? Too specialized for first camera?

After shooting with my cell phone camera for the past few years, I have finally decided to pick up a bigger camera and start investing more time and money into photography.

Long story short, total beginner, likes to take pictures of landscapes, structures, people, close-up of foods/plants, very interested in mirroless system(the idea of lightweight camera you can bring anywhere), budget is at $500~800 which means I will end up spending $900. Current equipment is a samsung Note4, Gopro Hero4 Silver, and an iPod touch if that matters at all.

I want to take better versions of these.

 

[cherylynne1]

So, my ultimate question is this. Is mirrorless too advanced/simple for a beginner like myself to learn photography? Is it cost-effective? Too specialized for first camera?

After shooting with my cell phone camera for the past few years, I have finally decided to pick up a bigger camera and start investing more time and money into photography.

Long story short, total beginner, likes to take pictures of landscapes, structures, people, close-up of foods/plants, very interested in mirroless system(the idea of lightweight camera you can bring anywhere), budget is at $500~800 which means I will end up spending $900. Current equipment is a samsung Note4, Gopro Hero4 Silver, and an iPod touch if that matters at all.

I want to take better versions of these.

I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.

Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.

 

[Derrel]

You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.

 

[Gary A.]

Fuji makes a very high quality camera. I own a number of them. Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor. The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens. The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.

 

[dasminimalist]

I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.

Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.

Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info.

You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.

Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though

Fuji makes a very high quality camera. I own a number of them. Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor. The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens. The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.

Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands.

Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?

 

[jcdeboever]

Those are very nice cell phone images. You seem to have a good eye. I can't speak to the video and I don't have a MILC yet. As far as image makers and the vast research I have done (looking to buy one) @Gary A. seems to hit it on the head. Having the ability to interchange lens is a good thing and that 18-55 is a darn nice lens that would fit perfect for your shooting genre. Little over your budget but well worth it IMO. Might be able to snag a Sony a6000 with a lens around your budget too. Keep in mind they also make adapters for these cameras that are reasonable and give you frugal lens options (older, manual focus lens).

 

[dasminimalist]

Those are very nice cell phone images. You seem to have a good eye. I can't speak to the video and I don't have a MILC yet. As far as image makers and the vast research I have done (looking to buy one) @Gary A. seems to hit it on the head. Having the ability to interchange lens is a good thing and that 18-55 is a darn nice lens that would fit perfect for your shooting genre. Little over your budget but well worth it IMO. Might be able to snag a Sony a6000 with a lens around your budget too. Keep in mind they also make adapters for these cameras that are reasonable and give you frugal lens options (older, manual focus lens).

I started shopping for the 18-55 and the price of any lens is jaw-dropping. It definitely is over my budget, but then I started to thinking if I bought an X-M1 instead of an X-T10 then I should be able to afford it. Would I be cheaping out and regret it in a few months? The only big difference I can see is the 51,000 ISO vs 6,400 ISO.

I am even considering of buying a second-hand body as well, but even a used body+new lens seems to end up in the similar price range. May be it's time to hit a blackjack table.

 

[jcdeboever]

Those are very nice cell phone images. You seem to have a good eye. I can't speak to the video and I don't have a MILC yet. As far as image makers and the vast research I have done (looking to buy one) @Gary A. seems to hit it on the head. Having the ability to interchange lens is a good thing and that 18-55 is a darn nice lens that would fit perfect for your shooting genre. Little over your budget but well worth it IMO. Might be able to snag a Sony a6000 with a lens around your budget too. Keep in mind they also make adapters for these cameras that are reasonable and give you frugal lens options (older, manual focus lens).

I started shopping for the 18-55 and the price of any lens is jaw-dropping. It definitely is over my budget, but then I started to thinking if I bought an X-M1 instead of an X-T10 then I should be able to afford it. Would I be cheaping out and regret it in a few months? The only big difference I can see is the 51,000 ISO vs 6,400 ISO.

I am even considering of buying a second-hand body as well, but even a used body+new lens seems to end up in the similar price range. May be it's time to hit a blackjack table.

Still great image quality but no viewfinder, so if that is not a problem for you, it's a good choice.

 

[cherylynne1]

I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.

Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.

Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info.

You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.

Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though

Fuji makes a very high quality camera. I own a number of them. Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor. The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens. The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.

Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands.

Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?

Haha, I'm sure you've done your homework, it's just a matter of knowing which websites you can trust and which ones are being paid to advertise products. There are always biases, of course, but a few websites tend to be more reliable than others.

As for depth of field, in most cases, yes, nearly any set-up can stop down to the same depth of field as a phone. The only time you might need specialized equipment is for macro shots. It's easy for a phone camera to get really close to an object. Not all lenses will focus when they're too close, unless they're a designated macro lens. But that's probably not something you'll need to worry about for awhile.

As for video...well, honestly, yes. Fuji video on those older cameras is pretty bad. Moire, noise in the shadows, autofocus hunting, inability to change ISO or aperture, the list goes on and on. It has improved in their newer cameras, though, so if it's only a stepping stone until later, then it's no big deal.

My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.

That being said, Fuji probably has the best jpeg files of anybody, so most people that use it probably do so because they don't like processing pictures themselves and want the camera to do it for them.

Looking at your photos, you definitely have an eye for composition and seem to understand the importance of good light. I wish there were raw files of those photos, though, because some post processing could take them from "nice" to "wow."

Here's my take: If you don't want to spend any of your time in front of the computer, Fuji is your best bet. They have amazing lenses, they're just more expensive and heavier than other mirrorless choices. If a small form factor is your highest priority, look at micro four thirds camera from Panasonic and Olympus (Olympus has the edge in stills, Panasonic has the edge in video.) If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.

 

[Ysarex]

My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.

Adobe fully supports Fuji raw (RAF) files in both Photoshop (ACR) and Lightroom.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.

The Fuji cameras use the same Sony sensors as Sony uses in the a6xxx series cameras. The sensor is the primary determinant of dynamic range and low-light performance. If anything the Fuji X-Trans CFA tips a slight low-light advantage to the Fujis.

Joe

 

[cherylynne1]

My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.

Adobe fully supports Fuji raw (RAF) files in both Photoshop (ACR) and Lightroom.

Joe

Yeah, it looks like I had outdated information on that. The person I was talking to a few weeks ago had an outdated version of Lightroom, not CC. It looks like they have fixed that in the newer versions.

As far as dynamic range, I meant that more in comparison to m43s. Fuji and Sony are very similar because they both use Sony sensors, as you said.

 

[dasminimalist]

I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.

Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.

Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info.

You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.

Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though

Fuji makes a very high quality camera. I own a number of them. Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor. The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens. The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.

Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands.

Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?

Haha, I'm sure you've done your homework, it's just a matter of knowing which websites you can trust and which ones are being paid to advertise products. There are always biases, of course, but a few websites tend to be more reliable than others.

As for depth of field, in most cases, yes, nearly any set-up can stop down to the same depth of field as a phone. The only time you might need specialized equipment is for macro shots. It's easy for a phone camera to get really close to an object. Not all lenses will focus when they're too close, unless they're a designated macro lens. But that's probably not something you'll need to worry about for awhile.

As for video...well, honestly, yes. Fuji video on those older cameras is pretty bad. Moire, noise in the shadows, autofocus hunting, inability to change ISO or aperture, the list goes on and on. It has improved in their newer cameras, though, so if it's only a stepping stone until later, then it's no big deal.

My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.

That being said, Fuji probably has the best jpeg files of anybody, so most people that use it probably do so because they don't like processing pictures themselves and want the camera to do it for them.

Looking at your photos, you definitely have an eye for composition and seem to understand the importance of good light. I wish there were raw files of those photos, though, because some post processing could take them from "nice" to "wow."

Here's my take: If you don't want to spend any of your time in front of the computer, Fuji is your best bet. They have amazing lenses, they're just more expensive and heavier than other mirrorless choices. If a small form factor is your highest priority, look at micro four thirds camera from Panasonic and Olympus (Olympus has the edge in stills, Panasonic has the edge in video.) If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.

This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much for your detailed answer.

Ok, so then I shouldn't be expecting much video from Fujifilm, but since you mentioned older cameras, how old are we talking about here?

Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?

Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?

 

[dasminimalist]

Still great image quality but no viewfinder, so if that is not a problem for you, it's a good choice.

I will most likely go with the X-M1, unless I find other alternatives or reasons not to get the M1. Thank you!

 

[cherylynne1]

I definitely wouldn't say mirrorless is too advanced for a beginner. In fact, it can be really helpful in learning how to expose properly because you can see the effect you have on the picture in real time on the viewfinder.

Here's my favorite site for gear reviews: 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 They're comparing all ILCs in that price range, but you can just read the reviews on mirrorless. They're very thorough and fair.

Wow, now I feel like I didn't do my homework well. Thank you so much for a great info.

You will have a lot of fun with a nice MILC. The deep depth of field shots thart the iPhone can captue will be much harder, but low-light shots will be better due to the larger sensor and better higher-ISO performance of the MILC versus the iPhone. You've got this.

Do you need a specific set of equipments for the iphone-like deep depth of field shots or is it all about the knowledge and experience? That confidence boost though

Fuji makes a very high quality camera. I own a number of them. Both cameras use the same 16mp sensor. The X-T10 comes with a viewfinder and a better kit lens. The XF 18-55 kit lens is a wonderful sharp kit lens and is an f/2.8 which means you can capture images in less light than with the XC 16-50 kit lens that comes with the X-M1 and is a F/3.5.

Honestly, they are very eye-catching. I love the way they look and feel in the hands.

Have you done much of video recording on those? I know I probably will not be doing much of video, but is it SO bad that every article that I read about the Fuji mirrorless system have to mention that?

Haha, I'm sure you've done your homework, it's just a matter of knowing which websites you can trust and which ones are being paid to advertise products. There are always biases, of course, but a few websites tend to be more reliable than others.

As for depth of field, in most cases, yes, nearly any set-up can stop down to the same depth of field as a phone. The only time you might need specialized equipment is for macro shots. It's easy for a phone camera to get really close to an object. Not all lenses will focus when they're too close, unless they're a designated macro lens. But that's probably not something you'll need to worry about for awhile.

As for video...well, honestly, yes. Fuji video on those older cameras is pretty bad. Moire, noise in the shadows, autofocus hunting, inability to change ISO or aperture, the list goes on and on. It has improved in their newer cameras, though, so if it's only a stepping stone until later, then it's no big deal.

My biggest problem with Fuji is the incompatibility of their RAW files with Lightroom. I do a lot of post processing, and I usually start in LR, switch to Photoshop for any composites or layer work, then swing back into LR to finish up and keep my folders organized. With any other camera, this is no big deal. But with Fuji, you have to either work with a DNG file or use something other than Lightroom. Not using Lightroom means that to switch into Photoshop you have to save, export, open, etc. It would ruin my workflow.

That being said, Fuji probably has the best jpeg files of anybody, so most people that use it probably do so because they don't like processing pictures themselves and want the camera to do it for them.

Looking at your photos, you definitely have an eye for composition and seem to understand the importance of good light. I wish there were raw files of those photos, though, because some post processing could take them from "nice" to "wow."

Here's my take: If you don't want to spend any of your time in front of the computer, Fuji is your best bet. They have amazing lenses, they're just more expensive and heavier than other mirrorless choices. If a small form factor is your highest priority, look at micro four thirds camera from Panasonic and Olympus (Olympus has the edge in stills, Panasonic has the edge in video.) If you want maximum post processing power (both in dynamic range and high ISOs) then look at Sony.

This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much for your detailed answer.

Ok, so then I shouldn't be expecting much video from Fujifilm, but since you mentioned older cameras, how old are we talking about here?

Here is where I am a little bit confused. If you don't have to touch the picture afterwards, doesn't that mean that the camera is really good? Or does that mean that the camera 'does the job' digitally for me?

Except for the attachments 'd' and 'e', all photos are straight from my phone->facebook->tpf without any filtering. But I am assuming that already means that they are not raw files right? If you pull out the file directly from the phone/ipod, is that a raw file then?

I think the x-t2 has good video reviews, I'm not sure I've seen any others with good ones. Maybe the upcoming x-t20.

No, there aren't raw files on iPhone/iPod. Here's how that works: When you take a picture, the camera records all the available light that it's able to. How much it can record depends on the lens, setting, sensor, etc. Now, if you want to keep all of that information, you tell the camera to give you the raw file. You can then decide if you want to lift the shadows, drop the highlights, add more or less contrast, etc. Because you have all the information, you have a lot of options. Then when you get it the way you like it, you convert it to jpeg for use on the web or to print or whatever.

When you tell the camera to provide jpegs instead of raw files, the camera makes all those decisions for you. It looks at the picture and decides how bright/dark/contrasty things should be. Then it deletes the rest of the information and gives you a finished jpeg file. Now, this is great if you always like the way the camera renders the image. But if you don't like something and want to change it, the raw file is gone. You can still edit the jpeg, but there is much less information available to work with than in the raw file.

You could get around this by always shooting in raw+jpeg, that way you get the jpegs and have the raw file in case the jpeg isn't the way you like it. But it takes up more space on your memory card, if that matters to you.

A lot of people really like the way Fuji renders jpegs, and if you feel that way, then great! It's a great system, and most Fuji users are very happy.