Fujifilm X-T10 vs. Sony Alpha 6000 vs. Olympus OMD E-M10 - Which one to buy?

[FXA]

This will fix the weight problem.
http://www.50plusplusfit.com/images/howto_pics/two_arm_standing_extension.jpg
http://www.50plusplusfit.com/images/howto_pics/two_arm_curl.jpg

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

The DSLRs in my price range are the D5500 and the 750D. IMO the only real advantages are the better and cheaper lenses and the better AF when using the viewfinder. On the other hand they are still bigger and heavier, they have got an OVF (I prefer EVF), worse Contrast AF(Nikon) and worse sensor performance (Canon).

So it appears smaller and lighter is the attraction. Then why not one of the even smaller mirrorless models that look like rangefinder cameras? Some of them are available with eye level electronic finders. Even my point and shoot has such a finder. It is smaller than a cell phone. The finder probably smaller than the ones in the mirrorless SLR type models but the monitor on the back should be about the same. If I were starting from scratch I would probably embrace the mirrorless concept but I have thousands of dollars worth of Nikkor lenses for the F mount so I would have to wait for a mirrorless that would accept them.

I don't need least size possible. I just don't see why a DSLR would fit my needs better than a mirrorless camera.

 

[table1349]

This will fix the weight problem.
http://www.50plusplusfit.com/images/howto_pics/two_arm_standing_extension.jpg
http://www.50plusplusfit.com/images/howto_pics/two_arm_curl.jpg

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

The DSLRs in my price range are the D5500 and the 750D. IMO the only real advantages are the better and cheaper lenses and the better AF when using the viewfinder. On the other hand they are still bigger and heavier, they have got an OVF (I prefer EVF), worse Contrast AF(Nikon) and worse sensor performance (Canon).

So it appears smaller and lighter is the attraction. Then why not one of the even smaller mirrorless models that look like rangefinder cameras? Some of them are available with eye level electronic finders. Even my point and shoot has such a finder. It is smaller than a cell phone. The finder probably smaller than the ones in the mirrorless SLR type models but the monitor on the back should be about the same. If I were starting from scratch I would probably embrace the mirrorless concept but I have thousands of dollars worth of Nikkor lenses for the F mount so I would have to wait for a mirrorless that would accept them.

I don't need least size possible. I just don't see why a DSLR would fit my needs better than a mirrorless camera.

When people talk about weight being a issue, unless they have a physical infirmity, when the weights are in the single digit range it sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

 

[sashbar]

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

Because with DSLRs you have either an uninspiring crop system where most modern lenses are nothing more than just capable plastic primes or slow boring zooms, or a bulky like a bus and heavy like hell full frame system that should be better left to pro photogs with a truck.

Or you buy a crop camera and use it with a full frame lense that was not made for it. Just check this forum and you will see how often beginners with crop bodies get this advice: "buy full frame lenses, it will make it easier for you to move to full frame later".

This is exactly how Nicanon marketing strategy works: beginners buy a crop camera and when the initial excitement fades away they realise that the "real" gear is full frame. The best lenses are full frame. The best cameras are full frame.

But what do you do if your shooting style is incompatible with a full frame system?

With FUJI X line you at least get the "real" APS-C gear: an excellent camera AND, most importantly, pro quality modern fast zooms and exciting primes that are second to none.

Or you buy a Leica.

 

[fmw]

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

Because with DSLRs you have either an uninspiring crop system where most modern lenses are nothing more than just capable plastic primes or slow boring zooms, or a bulky like a bus and heavy like hell full frame system that should be better left to pro photogs with a truck.

Or you buy a crop camera and use it with a full frame lense that was not made for it. Just check this forum and you will see how often beginners with crop bodies get this advice: "buy full frame lenses, it will make it easier for you to move to full frame later".

This is exactly how Nicanon marketing strategy works: beginners buy a crop camera and when the initial excitement fades away they realise that the "real" gear is full frame. The best lenses are full frame. The best cameras are full frame.

But what do you do if your shooting style is incompatible with a full frame system?

With FUJI X line you at least get the "real" APS-C gear: an excellent camera AND, most importantly, pro quality modern fast zooms and exciting primes that are second to none.

Or you buy a Leica.

I still have some Leicas but they aren't digital. I guess I need to part with them some day. I view them as industrial art as much as cameras. I think one advantage of mirrorless is that they can produce wide angle lenses that don't require a retrofocus design. That is what makes the Leica rangefinder wide angles so amazing.

 

[sashbar]

When people talk about weight being a issue, unless they have a physical infirmity, when the weights are in the single digit range it sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Believe it or not, but each and every time I go to the photo shop just to look at the stuff and grab some new, latest and greatest full frame camera, or just any large camera like D7200 with a zoom, I think "Oh, no! You must be kidding!". It just feels funny, really. I just can not justify carrying around that bulky box any more when there is a much smaller and lighter one of a similar quality.

A pro photog just has to live with it, a weekend amateur who drives on a Sunday morning to the nearby river feels great with such a camera on a passenger seat, but there is nothing good not for a street shooter who takes his camera bag on his 1 hour + way to the office (bus+train+underground) at 6 am, then after work spends several hours on the streets shooting before heading back home.

The difference is the one between carrying a large camera bag and a small messenger bag, between having 1 or 3 lenses, between carrying a camera on your neck like a brick, or just in your hand or in your pocket, between shooting with one hand or two hands etc.

By the end of the day in most cases it is all about what you shoot, how you shoot, how often and how long, not about your physical condition.

 

[sashbar]

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

Because with DSLRs you have either an uninspiring crop system where most modern lenses are nothing more than just capable plastic primes or slow boring zooms, or a bulky like a bus and heavy like hell full frame system that should be better left to pro photogs with a truck.

Or you buy a crop camera and use it with a full frame lense that was not made for it. Just check this forum and you will see how often beginners with crop bodies get this advice: "buy full frame lenses, it will make it easier for you to move to full frame later".

This is exactly how Nicanon marketing strategy works: beginners buy a crop camera and when the initial excitement fades away they realise that the "real" gear is full frame. The best lenses are full frame. The best cameras are full frame.

But what do you do if your shooting style is incompatible with a full frame system?

With FUJI X line you at least get the "real" APS-C gear: an excellent camera AND, most importantly, pro quality modern fast zooms and exciting primes that are second to none.

Or you buy a Leica.

I still have some Leicas but they aren't digital. I guess I need to part with them some day. I view them as industrial art as much as cameras. I think one advantage of mirrorless is that they can produce wide angle lenses that don't require a retrofocus design. That is what makes the Leica rangefinder wide angles so amazing.

Yes, short flange distance allows for a true lense design.
There are other small things, like AF - it may be slower but it has no AF mirror, so by definition has no back/forth issues and focuses dead on even with a wide open 1.2 or 1.0 lense. EVF v OVF is also debatable. X-T1 has a huge EVF, larger than most full frame DSLRs, you see your exposure, no need for guessing - great for beginners, and at night when OVF is useless, an EVF illuminates the scene and it is clear as day.
I have never had a Leica lense, but FUJI X lenses are real deal, just ask Zeiss who tried to compete but had to stop manufacturing their X-mount lenses. All they could produce was more expensive lenses with "sterile" feel compared to excellent FUJI glass.