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

[dyous87]

How do mirrorless differ from DSLR when it comes to autofocus? All the reviews I've read of the a6000 for example claim the is has really fast autofocus. Is this not really the case?

 

[Gary A.]

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?

mmmmhhhh ... okay here's the long story. I used to be a professional photog, a photo journalist. When I was shooting for a living, camera size didn't matter. You used what was required to get the job done. It didn't matter if the camera weighed 15 pounds or five pounds ... it is what it is, the only thing that mattered was the final photograph ... the only person that cared about the effort was your Mom and she wasn't signing your checks.

Now I'm a hobbyist. For a long long time I was shooting FF (1Ds). I always used the best and I wanted the best. Then I snagged a GF1 just as a fun camera. It was a great little camera ... up to an 8x10 there wasn't a significant difference between the GF1 and my 1Ds. Then Oly came out with the EM5 that that was a game changer for me. Good high ISO, sharp and fast lenses with much much greater resolution. The camera couldn't track, but with the lighting fast SAF I could still shoot action, it was harder and I got a few less keepers ... but what the hell. It was a quarter the size and a fifth of the price and for what I shoot and how I shoot the differences in IQ was not significant.

Then one day I was in the camera store and I stopped this sexy little number. I got my hands on it and if felt so good, it was solid, the controls were where I left them on my film camera. So I purchased X-Pro1 on the whim of looks alone (Yes, I am that shallow.) After I looked at a few of the images I softly whistled and thought "Man, this thing can take a hell of a picture." The XP1 was slow. It does everything slow, a real dog. When the sun went down that dog started howling. The EVF and AF were simply terrible in low light ... which is quite unfortunate because the high ISO IQ is as good as my FF. I loved the camera so much that I worked at making the camera work for me. My 1Ds and EM5 are very fast performing cameras. You can shoot them in a near reactionary manner ... you see a shot and boom, boom, boom you got it. The Fuji was a fraction of a second slower, but that fraction is like night and day in an uncontrolled environment. So I had to go back to my roots, back to my film days and anticipatory shooting methodology. With the original Fuji I had to be extremely alert, I have to spot the image before it occurs, move to the best sport, set-up ... wait for it ... wait for it ... then boom. I got less keepers but the keeper I did capture had exceptional IQ, (Fuji lenses are wonderful hunks of glass and the sensor renders a bit different than your Bayer sensor.), and the image slightly better composition because I had to give it more thought. After my initial frustration of working with the slow first generation camera, I actually appreciated that Fuji made me exercise my old skills and that exercise actually made for superior images.

Now I'm shooting with second generation Fuji. The Fuji's AF is as least equal to the Oly EM1. (Oly has better tracking and face detection.) X-T1 has better controls and a much much better EVF. The bottom line is always the final image and Olympus images, to my eye look very digital-ish, while the Fuji images look film-esque (the 1Ds look somewhere inbetween Oly and Fuji.) The difference between Oly and Fuji images isn't glaring ... but I can see it. I shoot a lot of high ISO stuff and Fuji kicks butt at higher ISO. At 3FPS and less, both the Oly and Fuji EVF's appear to be seamless. You can dial in auto levels and the EVF will pretty much keep an even EVF image regardless of ambient light and camera settings or you can dial out auto EVF levels and the EVF will reflect what the camera sees. If you're underexposed, then the EVF will be dark, et cetera. (Sure you can use the LCD on a dSLR for this, but with the EVF you can see you exposure in real time on the fly.)

When you look at mirrorless ILC's you have to remember that mirrorless is different than a dSLR. Not different good or different bad ... just different. It took me a lot of shooting time to get comfortable with my mirrorless and I still haven't harmonized with my Fuji's, which is ultimately where I want to be.

I like having a non-mainstream camera. I like having sexy equipment. While I still have a mindset of the only thing that matters is the final image, I definitely appreciate the significant weight reduction of two Fuji's as opposed to two IDs.

Gary

PS- dyous87, if you're in SoCal I'd be happy to meet up and you can play with the EM1, X-T1, X-E2, X-Pro1 and/or X100s.
G

 

[Gary A.]

How do mirrorless differ from DSLR when it comes to autofocus? All the reviews I've read of the a6000 for example claim the is has really fast autofocus. Is this not really the case?

In good light the EM1 and XT1 focuses lighting fast. The better MFT and the Fuji's use a combined PDAF and CDAF for AF. PDAF is faster and predictable (tracking). CDAF is slower but more accurate than PDAF (no need for micro adjustments). As stated before the difference in focus speed between a dSLR's PDAF AF and a mirrorless CDAF only AF is a fraction of a second. In low light the Fuji's PDAF shuts down leaving you only CDAF AF. Can't speak to the Sony AF.

 

[Derrel]

When shopping for a camera, it's a great idea to actually lay hands on the prospective choices. I used to sell photo/video at retail, and have sold literally hundreds and hundreds of people their cameras and lenses. There are a number of things about a camera/camera system that qualify as "intangibles".

As far as APS-C versus m4/3 sensor size, I think the added depth of field the smaller sensor delivers is actually an advantage in many situations. The smaller the sensor, the more depth of field there is at each equivalent picture angle. So, the m4/3 cameras deliver more in-focus than say the FF Sony A7 series do. Same with the APS-C sensor size cameras--they give more in-focus than the FF cameras do when making the same pictures. The smaller sensors allow you to make more "deep focus" shots than do FF sensor cameras, and that is true at all apertures.

There's a good bit of nonsense floating around on the internet in the area of what is called "equivalence", with a lot of BS articles that talk about total light captured, and so on, and the issue is often clouded by poor word choices, as well as misunderstanding, and Gary A referenced part of this area of misunderstanding a ways back when he stated that f/2.8 at 1/125 second is the SAME exposure value, and the same actual exposure level, no matter the size of the sensor, and that much is true. Because smaller sensors have MORE depth of field, meaning MORE in-focus, when one wants to throw the background out of focus, that requires a wider-aperture setting on a m4/3 than it does on an APS-C sensor, and even wider still than on a FF sensor camera. Conversely, the smaller sensor cameras allow us to get MORE depth of field at wider aperture settings, which to a great extent, mitigates the loss of sensor performance at higher ISO levels, and allows the m4/3 user to shoot at wider f/stops, and STILL be able to make good pictures. That is, provided the lens performance is good.

Lens performance with the better Panasonic/Leica, Olympus, and Fujinon lenses is one of the things that has really made it finally feasible to shoot onto a smaller sensor, such as an m4/3 sensor (APS-C in the case of the Fujis), and is I think the reason the mirrorless cameras are finally starting to gain traction among the more "serious" picture-makers. And that brings up the final issue: you can go with a system that has a proprietary, ONE-brand lens mount, like Fuji or Samsung have, or go with a camera that is using the shared lens mount system.

 

[elemental]

I fretted a lot about the technical limitations of MFT sensor size before buying an OM-D E-M10 for travel and general use. I previously shot Pentax and Nikon APS-C (well, I guess the NIkon stuff is still in a bag in my closet), and I've got no regrets about moving. The OM-D produces excellent images that don't look compromised, it's a joy to use (as someone who wished for a digital K1000 for years, I'm amazed how close we've come), and MFT has a wide selection of glass, including decent availability for used glass. As a bonus, it works great with manual focus lenses of all sorts, and they feel at home on the vintage-style body. Fuji mirrorless is appealing for all of the same reasons, but more limited lens availability and entry point for a viewfinder (X-E2) turned me away.

The EVF was my second biggest concern, and I'm amazed by how little it bothers me (or doesn't). And I really underestimated the value of a live histogram and level in the viewfinder.

This is not to say you should get an MFT camera, but rather that you shouldn't get caught up in the "smaller senor" rhetoric for most photographic situations. Ultimately, the only camera that matters is the one you're using, and the time spent shooting is what's really going to make you a better photographer, more so than any equipment. There are tons of great systems out there today, and few truly bad decisions. Now if only I could take my own advice.

 

[dyous87]

I really appreciate all the help and advice from everyone. I think at this point in the game it doesn't really pay for me to go with FF. There seems to be merits to FF and cropped sensors and it looks like professional and seasoned photographers are getting great results from smaller sensored mirrorless cameras. I really want to get mirrorless which means I'm going with ASP-C or MFT unless I go with the Sony A7.

I think what I need to do is go to B&H and play around with the options and figure out which feels right.

Gary I would really take you up on that and I appreciate all your advice. Unfortunately I live on the east coast. I really do wish I was in Cali about now though .

One question to you guys though. I've been told my several people that I won't see much benefit from the A6000 over the A3000 I currently have. I was under the impression the IQ and performance would be much better. Do you guys think this is not the case?

 

[Gary A.]

Hey dyous87 ... with the Polar Express bearing down your way ... now not a bad time for a quick trip, get some surfing in, some landscapes at Yosemite, Kings Canyon or the Central Coast, toss in some wine tasting and real Mexican food and you have a nice photo expedition.

I think with all the good advice you're getting ... you're choices are actually increasing rather than decreasing. The bottom line with all this in my opinion is that you're in a win-win scenario. Either way you go, Sony, Oly or Fuji, you'll end up with a great camera. There isn't one perfect camera ... all cameras are compromises of one type or another. So not only look at what the camera does well but also look for the compromises and then overlay all the good and compromises with what you shoot and how you shoot.

Good Luck and Good Shooting,
Gary

 

[dyous87]

Thanks Gary, I may have to wait till its a bit colder and then make a trip You are right though, with all the advice I've gotten I definitely now have more choices then originally. I think at this point I'm deciding between the following:

• Sony A6000
• Sony A7
• Olympus OM-D E-M10
• FUJIFILM X-T1

I have no doubt that either of the above will make great systems and take amazing photos. I'm going to get down to a camera store and try to play with all of them and see what I "call" to me. I'll let you guys know how it goes but I think you've all given me incredible advice.

 

[sashbar]

FUJI X-T1 will be a serious upgrade compared to a baby Nikon DSLR. Both in operation and the image quality.
The choice really depends on your photography.

Thanks Gary, I may have to wait till its a bit colder and then make a trip You are right though, with all the advice I've gotten I definitely now have more choices then originally. I think at this point I'm deciding between the following:

• Sony A6000
• Sony A7
• Olympus OM-D E-M10
• FUJIFILM X-T1

I have no doubt that either of the above will make great systems and take amazing photos. I'm going to get down to a camera store and try to play with all of them and see what I "call" to me. I'll let you guys know how it goes but I think you've all given me incredible advice.

It is a nice choice. I would advice you to add a short list of additional lenses you will want to buy against each camera and calculate the overall costs. The overall costs will depend on how many lenses you will need. P. e. FUJI Х lenses are top notch, but not cheap. It's 50 mm 1,2 (which is a must buy IMHO) is a fabulous lense, Best lense of 2014. But it will cost you 5 times more than an excellent Nikon 50 mm 1,8. It will cost you almost as much as X-T1 body.

As for X-T1 - it will be an upgrade compared to baby Nikon your family is shooting with. Both in operation, fun factor and sheer IQ - IF you really care about the IQ.
I have both. Do not get it wrong , X-T1 is a serious camera for a serious photographer. And it's images have a special organic quality. It's EVF is miles ahead of a tiny "key hole" OVF of a 5xxx Nikon, its EVF is larger that the OVF of D750 which is a FF DSLR camera to go for at the moment. And it gives you all the info you need including the close up, focus assist, the picture of your shot as it will look on screen. AF is faster than Nikon D5xxx, although the AF depends on a lense. Yes top DSLRs are tracking better, but Nikon D5xxx sucks at tracking as well. But more importantly X-T1 AF is more precise. Where Nikon may have back or forth focus issues, or struggle on a wide open lense, here it is dead on, even wide open. The reason is - it focuses on the sensor directly, unlike a DSLR with its - let's be honest - outdated focus mirror system. DSLR cameras, as great as they are, represent a film era technology with a digital sensor stuck into it.
The other thing you need to bear in mind - mirrorless lenses have much shorter flange distance thanks to the lack of a mirror, which allow for a smaller, lighter and better quality glass. X-T1 has the same sensor size as D5xxx but the lenses are smaller and lighter. That is, apart from 50 mm, but you pay for real quality and 1,2 aperture here.

 

[Gary A.]

PS- The Fuji kit lens (18-55) is miles ahead of another other 'normal' consumer kit lens offered by any manufacturer in terms of sharpness and build quality. (Says another Fuji Fanboy.)

 

[dyous87]

So it's starting to sound like the Fuji camera is the prefered option on my list and I definitely understand why. I currently have the "entry" level OM-D E-M 10 on my list but from all of your perspective how would you compare the OM-D E-M 1 to the X-TI? They are closer in price range so if I am going to be looking at the Fuji it makes sense to also consider the higher end Olympus.

Also to your point sashbar:

...AF is faster than Nikon D5xxx, although the AF depends on a lense. Yes top DSLRs are tracking better, but Nikon D5xxx sucks at tracking as well. But more importantly X-T1 AF is more precise. Where Nikon may have back or forth focus issues, or struggle on a wide open lense, here it is dead on, even wide open. The reason is - it focuses on the sensor directly, unlike a DSLR with its - let's be honest - outdated focus mirror system. DSLR cameras, as great as they are, represent a film era technology with a digital sensor stuck into it.
...

This is one of the main reasons I love the idea of getting mirrorless. It seems like the newer, up and coming, more cutting edge technology. Best of all it gives in many cases, comparable if not better photos than traditional DSLRs in a smaller more portable package. You are claiming that the autofocus on the X-T1 is superior to the Nikon D5200 which intrigues me. I have been told by people that DSLRs offer better autofocus in all cases and that mirrorless simply cannot compare just yet. You are however making it seem like mirrorless would have the advantage in autofocus since the focus is on the sensor directly so now I am a little confused.

By the way I think I'm going to take up some of this advice and make a list of each camera with the type of lenses I'd ultimately want. I think that's a great way of figuring out what works best for me.

 

[sashbar]

You are claiming that the autofocus on the X-T1 is superior to the Nikon D5200 which intrigues me. I have been told by people that DSLRs offer better autofocus in all cases and that mirrorless simply cannot compare just yet. You are however making it seem like mirrorless would have the advantage in autofocus since the focus is on the sensor directly so now I am a little confused.

By the way I think I'm going to take up some of this advice and make a list of each camera with the type of lenses I'd ultimately want. I think that's a great way of figuring out what works best for me.

DSLRs are different, some have better AF than others. In low light top DSLRs still have a faster AF than mirrorless. But it is wrong to say that DSLR as a class is superior to mirroless as a class in AF dept. Not any more.

Decide for yourself what you need, different photogs have different priorities. A good prosumer DSLR is a wonderful camera. As Gary said it is not better or worse, it is different. But do not look for one decisive factor whether it is FF or AF,size or weight, burst speed or finder etc, etc. In many cases the difference is much less in real life than what the marketing people are trying to convince us. Look for the whole package incl. lenses and decide what will work best for you.

 

[dyous87]

I really don't want to get another DSLR. I've wanted a good mirrorless system for a while. I loved my original E-PL1 and I am happy with the photos my current a3000 takes. I want to go for something a step up next. It is definately between Sony, Fuji and Oly now. I just need to play with the different systems and see which one speaks out to me.

 

[Derrel]

I really don't want to get another DSLR. I've wanted a good mirrorless system for a while. I loved my original E-PL1 and I am happy with the photos my current a3000 takes. I want to go for something a step up next. It is definately between Sony, Fuji and Oly now. I just need to play with the different systems and see which one speaks out to me.

Have you checked out sansmirror.com and all of the reviews that he has on the various mirrorless systems? There is some really good information there, in the form of in-depth lens and camera reviews, as well as analysis/commentary/comparison articles. One issue for example, is the way the Fuji X-Trans sensor's raw files are not handled all that well by Adobe software. And the Fuji lenses are, well, pretty SOLID, and well, kind of heavy. You really ought to get into a store and see how the merchandise feels, and how it handles, and how it fits together. Again, in-store demos bring those intangibles I mentioned a few posts back out into the open, for each prospective buyer. It's one thing to read spec sheets and equipment lists, but another thing to find out if a camera and its lenses agree with your ideas or not. Good luck!

 

[dyous87]

Thanks Derrel, I will check that out.

Once concern that I have is with AF speeds. I have read that the Fuji camera's, especially on some of the older models such as the X-E1 do not have great AF speeds. Apparently this has improved on the X-E2 and X-T1 but can anyone actually speak to this first hand.

Additionally does anyone know how the AF speeds compare to something like the Sony a6000 or Oly O-MD E-M10 in real life?