Looking for new camera and conflicted - MFT or APS-C

[dyous87]

I've been doing some research on mirrorless cameras and am trying to decide on which new camera system to buy. Ideally I want to start investing in a system that I will stick with going forward.

My family currently has a Nikon D5200 which is used as our go to camera but I want to invest in a mirrorless system that can sort of be my own personal camera.

I am currently trying to decide between the following:

• Olympus OM-D E-M10 kit with M.Zuiko 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 II R lens
• Sony Alpha a6000 (body only)

I recently got a Sony Alpha a3000 as a cheap body with kit lens to play around with. It actually takes amazingly nice photos for the price but I really want to get a body that can more easily keep up with the D5200 from a performance standpoint.

If I go for the Sony a6000 body I wouldn't need to purchase it with a kit lens since I have an 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS E-mount Zoom Lens that came with my a3000.

This puts the Sony system 200 dollars cheaper then the Olympus with kit lens ($749.99 vs. $549.99). With that in mind what would you all suggest? Does it make sense to stay in the E-Mount world since I already have a pretty decent 18.55mm lens or is it wiser to invest in MFT as a more flexible system for the future?

 

[goodguy]

If going with mirrorless I would go with the Sony A7 which is a full frame camera, if you looking for the future I would want full frame, to me full frame is the best way to go and currently the Sony A7 is the only full frame mirrorless camera in the market and its actually a good camera, not as good as DLSR but still a very good camera.
Of the 2 on your list I would go with the a6000 because of the bigger sensor.
Micro 4/3 is good in good lighting condition but in low lighting you really want the biggest sensor you can get, also it has 24MP which for me is the minimum resolution I would go with.
I also heard the sensor on the a6000 is an amazing sensor.
So not only you are looking at the cheaper option but also I think the better choice but as I said I would go with the A7.

 

[dyous87]

I would eventually like to go with the full frame A7 but would my existing Sony E mount lens work on it? As far as I can tell, even though the A7 is E mount it has different lenses.

 

[goodguy]

I would eventually like to go with the full frame A7 but would my existing Sony E mount lens work on it? As far as I can tell, even though the A7 is E mount it has different lenses.

So, first of all if you see the A7 as your end goal investing in other system makes no sense, not photographically and not financially.
I think while still not in the DSLR level I think its the best current mirrorles system and a damn fine camera!!!
If the current lenses you have work on it or not, I dont know, I am not a Sony user but I am sure someone here knows and even if not I doubt this is a problem, just go to your local camera store and ask them.

 

[dyous87]

What I meant is if I decide to stay in Sony world the A7 would be my ultimate end goal. In MFT world I would eventually love to own a OM-D E-M1 or whatever the flagship MFT camera is at the time.

 

[goodguy]

What I meant is if I decide to stay in Sony world the A7 would be my ultimate end goal. In MFT world I would eventually love to own a OM-D E-M1 or whatever the flagship MFT camera is at the time.

Well there isnt a world of difference between MFT and crop sensor in low light (crop sensor of the a6000 is better in low light then the MFT) but compared to full frame the MFT is not on the same level, my advice to you if go for full frame or in the future go full frame, MFT will always stay MFT.
If ok in low light but the real deal is FF!!!

 

[dyous87]

Thanks goodguy that's very insightful. That sounds like I should save up for an A7 now and forget any MFT or the APS-C Sonys.

 

[Gary A.]

For most photographers, the system is as important as the camera. I haven't any experience with Sony still cameras. But I've heard that many of their camera lines are seriously deficient in the number and type of lenses.

I have migrated from FF to MFT and I'm pretty much settled and quite happy with mirrorless APS-C.

MFT sports a broad spectrum of premium, high quality glass ranging from fast wide angles to fast telephotos lenses. Primes and zooms, MFT has it all. I started with a Panasonic GF1, moved to EM5's and Now I have the EM1.

But, I have moved from MFT to Fuji mirrorless. I love the rendering delivered by the Fuji X-trans sensor. I love the build of the Fuji cameras, I love the Fujinon lenses and I love that Fuji stuffed an APS-C sensor into a MFT sized camera. I suggest you check out the Fuji X-T1.

 

[goodguy]

For most photographers, the system is as important as the camera. I haven't any experience with Sony still cameras. But I've heard that many of their camera lines are seriously deficient in the number and type of lenses.

I have migrated from FF to MFT and I'm pretty much settled and quite happy with mirrorless APS-C.

MFT sports a broad spectrum of premium, high quality glass ranging from fast wide angles to fast telephotos lenses. Primes and zooms, MFT has it all. I started with a Panasonic GF1, moved to EM5's and Now I have the EM1.

But, I have moved from MFT to Fuji mirrorless. I love the rendering delivered by the Fuji X-trans sensor. I love the build of the Fuji cameras, I love the Fujinon lenses and I love that Fuji stuffed an APS-C sensor into a MFT sized camera. I suggest you check out the Fuji X-T1.

Indeed Sony A7 suffers from lack of fast glass, it is a new system and as long as Sony will stay commited to their product this thing will be resulve in time.
As for MFT indeed there are lots of lenses for them and as I said only drawback is that a MFT sensor collects 1/4 of the light FF sensor does thus is considerably less efficient in low light.
Fuji mirrorless, I heard only good things about these cameras!
Still I personally would go with FF but thats me.

 

[jaomul]

Why not another Nikon? You can use accessories, is the d5200 not good enough? A mft won't beat that Nikon on image quality, the Sony may match it

 

[dyous87]

Gary, the Fuji X-T1 looks interesting. I haven't considered it at all but lately I've been hearing a lot of good things abotu Fuji and this camera looking really interesting. I may have to add this to the list along with the Sony and Olympus.

Jaomul I'm not really that crazy about Nikon to tell you the honest truth. I've played with several APS-C Nikons and I've never been blown away by them. I mean don't get my wrong they definitely take beautiful pictures and perform well but something about them never really excited me much. Besides I really want a mirrorless system.

I'm just a little confused now because originally I thought an MFT or APS-C sensor would both be more then big enough but some people are making it seem like if you really want to be future proof FF is the way to go which means my only option is to invest in the Sony A7 system from now.

Gary you seem to have used the entire spectrum from FF-APS-C-MFT. What made you move originally from FF to MFT and were there any downsides in your opinion? Additionally if you liked MFT what was the reason that you jumped ship again and moved over to Fuji APS-C?

 

[Mr.Photo]

Why not another Nikon? You can use accessories, is the d5200 not good enough? A mft won't beat that Nikon on image quality, the Sony may match it

I agree with this comment. While MFT, and mirrorless camera's have come a long way in the past couple years in my opinion a D-SLR is still the way to go. I can't stand looking at things through an EVF (Electronic View Finder). There is so much lag when trying to pan to do action shots, and the AF systems (while they have gotten better) are still no match for the AF systems in modern D-SLR's especially in low light situations.

Also companies like Sony are out to make a quick profit. They have little experience with making a "system" camera and actually sticking with that one system. On another forum I frequent there were several photographers who jumped on the mirrorless/mft bandwagon, and now less than a year later are listing their stuff for sale so they can go back to a D-SLR as the quickly found out that mirrorless/mft has many limitations depending on the type of photography you're doing. D-SLR There's a reason that Nikon and Canon have been the leaders in the industry for the past 3-4 decades.

 

[Mr.Photo]

Why not another Nikon? You can use accessories, is the d5200 not good enough? A mft won't beat that Nikon on image quality, the Sony may match it

I agree with this comment. While MFT, and mirrorless camera's have come a long way in the past couple years in my opinion a D-SLR is still the way to go. I can't stand looking at things through an EVF (Electronic View Finder). There is so much lag when trying to pan to do action shots, and the AF systems (while they have gotten better) are still no match for the AF systems in modern D-SLR's especially in low light situations.

Also companies like Sony are out to make a quick profit. They have little experience with making a "system" camera and actually sticking with that one system. On another forum I frequent there were several photographers who jumped on the mirrorless/mft bandwagon, and now less than a year later are listing their stuff for sale so they can go back to a D-SLR as the quickly found out that mirrorless/mft has many limitations depending on the type of photography you're doing. D-SLR There's a reason that Nikon and Canon have been the leaders in the industry for the past 3-4 decades.

 

[dyous87]

[
I agree with this comment. While MFT, and mirrorless camera's have come a long way in the past couple years in my opinion a D-SLR is still the way to go. I can't stand looking at things through an EVF (Electronic View Finder). There is so much lag when trying to pan to do action shots, and the AF systems (while they have gotten better) are still no match for the AF systems in modern D-SLR's especially in low light situations.

Also companies like Sony are out to make a quick profit. They have little experience with making a "system" camera and actually sticking with that one system. On another forum I frequent there were several photographers who jumped on the mirrorless/mft bandwagon, and now less than a year later are listing their stuff for sale so they can go back to a D-SLR as the quickly found out that mirrorless/mft has many limitations depending on the type of photography you're doing. D-SLR There's a reason that Nikon and Canon have been the leaders in the industry for the past 3-4 decades.

Isn't the only real difference between a DSLR and mirrorless the fact that they don't use a pentaprism to focus the image to a viewfinder? Aside from that I thought the technology was the same so long as they were using the same size image sensor.

 

[jaomul]

[
I agree with this comment. While MFT, and mirrorless camera's have come a long way in the past couple years in my opinion a D-SLR is still the way to go. I can't stand looking at things through an EVF (Electronic View Finder). There is so much lag when trying to pan to do action shots, and the AF systems (while they have gotten better) are still no match for the AF systems in modern D-SLR's especially in low light situations.

Also companies like Sony are out to make a quick profit. They have little experience with making a "system" camera and actually sticking with that one system. On another forum I frequent there were several photographers who jumped on the mirrorless/mft bandwagon, and now less than a year later are listing their stuff for sale so they can go back to a D-SLR as the quickly found out that mirrorless/mft has many limitations depending on the type of photography you're doing. D-SLR There's a reason that Nikon and Canon have been the leaders in the industry for the past 3-4 decades.

Isn't the only real difference between a DSLR and mirrorless the fact that they don't use a pentaprism to focus the image to a viewfinder? Aside from that I thought the technology was the same so long as they were using the same size image sensor.

There are differences. Dslrs generally do tracking with continuous focus better. You are looking through glass at real time images as you take them.

Mirrorless use an evf or no viewfinder, generally are extremely fast at single focussing but not so hot at continuous (they are getting better but it's still Dslrs rule here). Mirrorless are usually better at video.

The sensors equate to resolution and probably image quality but the tools or delivery are different.

What is better depends on your needs, there's no definite answer

 

[Gary A.]

For most photographers, the system is as important as the camera. I haven't any experience with Sony still cameras. But I've heard that many of their camera lines are seriously deficient in the number and type of lenses.

I have migrated from FF to MFT and I'm pretty much settled and quite happy with mirrorless APS-C.

MFT sports a broad spectrum of premium, high quality glass ranging from fast wide angles to fast telephotos lenses. Primes and zooms, MFT has it all. I started with a Panasonic GF1, moved to EM5's and Now I have the EM1.

But, I have moved from MFT to Fuji mirrorless. I love the rendering delivered by the Fuji X-trans sensor. I love the build of the Fuji cameras, I love the Fujinon lenses and I love that Fuji stuffed an APS-C sensor into a MFT sized camera. I suggest you check out the Fuji X-T1.

...
As for MFT indeed there are lots of lenses for them and as I said only drawback is that a MFT sensor collects 1/4 of the light FF sensor does thus is considerably less efficient in low light.

I don't get this. Yes, MFT collects 25% of the light that a FF collects ... that is because the sensor is 25% of the size of a full frame. I have FF, I have APS-C and I have MFT. If the ambient light requirement for a proper FF exposure is calculated at ... say ... ISO 3200 - 1/125 - f/2.8 then a proper exposure for a APS-C format is ISO 3200 - 1/125 - f/2.8 and the proper exposure for a MFT format is ISO 3200 - 1/125 - f/2.8.

That is why non TTL exposure meters (handheld) work.