New Semi-Pro Needs a New Camera (Mirrorless, maybe?) - Help!

[thinkscotty]

See the poll above for a quick way to help!

I've learned photography (taken courses, spent a lot of time, etc.) over the past year in order to produce great material for my advocacy nonprofit's social media and print programming. Storytelling via images and video, creating an engaging multimedia experience that changes people's hearts and minds, etc.

Turns out, though, that I was more than just decent at photography. I get great reviews on my pictures, and I want to start getting into photography as a professional side gig. I already use the skills at work every day anyway. I could use the money, I already have the photo and lightroom/photoshop skills...and why the hell not, right?

Now, up to this point I've been 100% using my Nonprofit's crop-sensor Canon DSLR with a couple of medium-quality primes.

It's time for me to get my own system.

Given that I travel a lot, like street photography, have generally disliked using the large DSLRs I've rented (they take some of the soul out of the process for me personally), I'm about 90% convinced that I want a mirrorless camera.

I know all the pros and cons - believe me, I've done my homework. Choosing a DSLR basically comes down to having an optical viewfinder and more camera and lens options - not good enough reasons for me. I also GENERALLY know differences between options within in the mirrorless world. But I wanted others' opinions too since I've never even used a micro 4/3 camera. Yes, I'll try one before buying. Please note that price IS an object for me, though I could swing the basics for all these systems (just probably fewer and cheaper lenses for the A7ii).

So it's down to these systems:
-Sony A7ii (Full-Frame)
-Panasonic GX-8 (Micro 4/3)
-Olympus OMD EM5ii (Micro 4/3 - probably won't get)
-FujiFilm XT-1 (APS-C - probably won't get)

I'm really leaning toward the Panasonic GX-8, but keep questioning myself. I like that the 4/3 system is small-ish, has a lot of "soul", is full featured, is much less expensive as a system, and still produces great images, at least from what I've seen. I especially like that the GX-8 is brand new technology (actually not even available for another week or so).

Major Questions:
1) Can you really do pro photography with Micro 4/3. If so - why does everyone use a Canon or Nikon still?
2) Is the reduced Bokeh in Micro 4/3 a big deal?
3) How much am I missing by skipping the full frame?
4) Any general advice for a semi-pro looking to build a system.

My usage will mainly be for portraits, pets, street, event, and travel photography.

 

[PaulWog]

Words from a not pro:

- Full frame is worth the expense if you need what it has to offer. Any technology can be a waste of money if you don't need what the tech offers.
1) I think the answer is yes, but it depends on your needs, your expectations, your style. Personally, I wouldn't want to do pro work with a Micro 4/3 system as my only camera.
2) To me, yes... but it depends on your style & needs.
3) You're missing out on a fair bit of high ISO performance. That may or may not matter to you, just depends again on what sort of work you're doing.
4) Again, not a pro here: I like to be able to produce a very shallow DoF. I intensely enjoy having the freedom to play with high ISO. Your camera body will matter to an extent... a considerable extent... but your lens lineup also matters a whole lot.

Personally, for paid work, I would lean to a full frame system. The lenses you buy into *do* matter. I think the lens lineup should be a much more significant factor to your purchasing decision.

I haven't grown into my style enough to know how I would transition into paid work, but if I were doing events I would likely want to shoot with two camera bodies strapped on me. I would want a 2.8 trinity of zoom lenses, and at least 3 different prime focal lengths (ideally 24 or 28, 35, 50, and 85). Obviously you take the gear you need, one camera if you don't need two, and one or two lenses if you don't need all of them. If I needed it (depending on the types of venues), a macro lens as well. And then there's the flash system as well (couldn't imagine someone doing events getting by without at least one flash).

But, I don't do paid work. And so a small camera like the Sony A7ii sounds amazing. But as soon as you transition into paid work, big lenses come into play. I'm sure some paid work calls for less intrusive, smaller gear. I'm sure many photographers do very well with 4/3 systems, or small lenses that keep them less noticed. But it's worth thinking about: What lenses will you end up needing, and how important will camera size be in the end? Possibly consider Nikon/Canon still.

 

[thinkscotty]

Words from a not pro:

- Full frame is worth the expense if you need what it has to offer. Any technology can be a waste of money if you don't need what the tech offers.
1) I think the answer is yes, but it depends on your needs, your expectations, your style. Personally, I wouldn't want to do pro work with a Micro 4/3 system as my only camera.
2) To me, yes... but it depends on your style & needs.
3) You're missing out on a fair bit of high ISO performance. That may or may not matter to you, just depends again on what sort of work you're doing.
4) Again, not a pro here: I like to be able to produce a very shallow DoF. I intensely enjoy having the freedom to play with high ISO. Your camera body will matter to an extent... a considerable extent... but your lens lineup also matters a whole lot.

Personally, for paid work, I would lean to a full frame system. The lenses you buy into *do* matter. I think the lens lineup should be a much more significant factor to your purchasing decision.

I haven't grown into my style enough to know how I would transition into paid work, but if I were doing events I would likely want to shoot with two camera bodies strapped on me. I would want a 2.8 trinity of zoom lenses, and at least 3 different prime focal lengths (ideally 24 or 28, 35, 50, and 85). Obviously you take the gear you need, one camera if you don't need two, and one or two lenses if you don't need all of them. If I needed it (depending on the types of venues), a macro lens as well. And then there's the flash system as well (couldn't imagine someone doing events getting by without at least one flash).

But, I don't do paid work. And so a small camera like the Sony A7ii sounds amazing. But as soon as you transition into paid work, big lenses come into play. I'm sure some paid work calls for less intrusive, smaller gear. I'm sure many photographers do very well with 4/3 systems, or small lenses that keep them less noticed. But it's worth thinking about: What lenses will you end up needing, and how important will camera size be in the end? Possibly consider Nikon/Canon still.

Great things to consider PaulWog! I just wish I knew all my needs - I mean I NEVER shoot at ISO above 3200. Just...never. But I could imagine an event (dark weddings, etc.) where I'd need to do so. Obviously full frame would give me better quality at anything higher than 1600 or so. But would I really use it that often? And will it make enough difference to matter? Or would I be investing in a full frame sensor that would improve my photos 1/100 of the time? I just am having such a hard time telling.

I suppose cost is just a pretty big consideration for me starting off. If I'm going crop, well I'd probably just to 4/3 crop because the lenses are cheaper, smaller, plentiful, and very high quality. With the 4/3, I'll have the top-end lenses. With full frame, I'll have mid range. That's what's in my budget. If I did go full frame, the A7ii is just flat out cheaper than comparable Nikon or Canon full frame DSLRs. It has to be to compete. I just don't like it's lens options - though it can use Nikon, Canon, etc with an adapter - and like you say, it really won't be much smaller given the lens sizes.

I can't tell who's being more realistic on the full frame vs. crop debate. Full frame gives nicer photos, no doubt. But discernibly nicer - really - in most situations? That's harder to tell. What do you think of this video on the subject?

 

[Derrel]

You ought to check out The Visual Science Lab, Kirk Tuck's blog. He's a longtime Austin, Texas professional shooter, and he's been using the Panasonic system for a few years now; it seems to have the best video feature set for professional-grade video, especially with two cameras that need to be easily time-coided and footage integrated without hassles. His blog **was**, not too long ago, an amazing resource; but then he did the unthinkable (to many of us), and he TRASHED a lot of the old articles, and began fresh.

 

[PaulWog]

Great things to consider PaulWog! I just wish I knew all my needs - I mean I NEVER shoot at ISO above 3200.

I am familiar with that video. Ignore it. Completely. He doesn't actually site any numbers, or show any performance differences. He's arguing a point from a slant to prove a point: Sensor size is often over-valued, when one is comparing full frame to APS-C or 4/3. However, try watching that video over again and look for any substance: You will find absolutely none. He will say there is a slight difference in ISO performance, a slight difference in depth of field, but his go-to phrase is "But, not *that* much." Then he smacks his twig against something bigger. His argument crumbles back in on him really: He only points out the physical size of sensors in order to demonstrate how similarly APS-C performs in comparison to full frame. That would be like me taking out a picture of Mars and putting it beside Mount Everest (to scale) and saying climbing Mount Everest is a breeze because Mars is so big in comparison... The performance difference between APS-C and full frame is big enough: Full frame tends to perform over twice as well at high ISO, full frame tends to produce better image quality overall (dynamic range, colors, recoverability of the RAW file), and full frame DOES get a noticeable difference in depth of field over crop (honestly for something like weddings I think this matters).

Imagine a scenario at a wedding where you don't want to (or are restricted from) using your flash. You want to get a shot off at 130mm at f2.8, but you're getting 1/50 of a second shutter at ISO 1600. You can raise your shutter speed up to 1/100 at ISO 3200, but people are moving. You would prefer 1/160 or even 1/200, but going closer to ISO 6400 will get fairly noisy. Crop, or full frame? I could argue to the contrary, and in the end I haven't been in a paid scenario, but those are some things to think about.

I think Sony's A7ii looks really cool. I have only read a little on it, so I can't say much. Consider Nikon's D750. I know Canon has released some new stuff, it's pretty pricey, I don't think they've released something to compete with the A7ii or D750 yet.

I am biased toward full frame by the way... I would personally do general work with full frame over APS-C. That's speaking from the perspective from someone who has lots of experience doing whatever he wants, but never on a paid job.

 

[thinkscotty]

Great things to consider PaulWog! I just wish I knew all my needs - I mean I NEVER shoot at ISO above 3200.

I am familiar with that video. Ignore it. Completely. He doesn't actually site any numbers, or show any performance differences. He's arguing a point from a slant to prove a point: Sensor size is often over-valued, when one is comparing full frame to APS-C or 4/3. However, try watching that video over again and look for any substance: You will find absolutely none. He will say there is a slight difference in ISO performance, a slight difference in depth of field, but his go-to phrase is "But, not *that* much." Then he smacks his twig against something bigger. His argument crumbles back in on him really: He only points out the physical size of sensors in order to demonstrate how similarly APS-C performs in comparison to full frame. That would be like me taking out a picture of Mars and putting it beside Mount Everest (to scale) and saying climbing Mount Everest is a breeze because Mars is so big in comparison... The performance difference between APS-C and full frame is big enough: Full frame tends to perform over twice as well at high ISO, full frame tends to produce better image quality overall (dynamic range, colors, recoverability of the RAW file), and full frame DOES get a noticeable difference in depth of field over crop (honestly for something like weddings I think this matters).

Imagine a scenario at a wedding where you don't want to (or are restricted from) using your flash. You want to get a shot off at 130mm at f2.8, but you're getting 1/50 of a second shutter at ISO 1600. You can raise your shutter speed up to 1/100 at ISO 3200, but people are moving. You would prefer 1/160 or even 1/200, but going closer to ISO 6400 will get fairly noisy. Crop, or full frame? I could argue to the contrary, and in the end I haven't been in a paid scenario, but those are some things to think about.

I think Sony's A7ii looks really cool. I have only read a little on it, so I can't say much. Consider Nikon's D750. I know Canon has released some new stuff, it's pretty pricey, I don't think they've released something to compete with the A7ii or D750 yet.

I am biased toward full frame by the way... I would personally do general work with full frame over APS-C. That's speaking from the perspective from someone who has lots of experience doing whatever he wants, but never on a paid job.

Thanks so much! That makes a lot of sense. I've seen a lot of debate on that video in recent months, but your explanation helped clarify a few things for me.

You're getting me back interested in the DSLRs, questioning the mirrorless route again. So if you don't mind I'd love to pick your brain a little more. I've been doing A LOT of photography over the past year, largely for my job. And I've taken a few courses in my off-time as well. But my whole experience with anything beyond smartphone photography has been in just that one year. Which means while I (think I) have skills, I don't have experience.

So you keep recommending Nikon. My work camera is a Canon - mostly because there was a deal on the Canon when it was on sale. So Canon is what I know.

Why would I choose a Nikon over Canon? I can't seem to find any clear objective facts on this, so I'm soliciting personal opinions instead.

Thank you for your time - truly.

 

[jaomul]

This is i suppose a street type shot with m4/3 45mm lens at f1.8

Street music 3 by jaomul, on Flickr

Personally I like the image quality but the background is not that seperated from foreground as much as say this taken with a 50mm f1.8 on a nikon d200 aps-c

Barcelona signed by jaomul, on Flickr

The m4/3 is approx equal in ff terms to 90mm, the nikon is approx 75mm

As for noise, the m4/3 will approx be similar to the canon you were using, ff is better, only you can decide if the noise on the canon you use is good enough. I'm showing an Olympus shot m4/3, panasonic should be similar for stills but better than olly for video

This may be a better example. Olly 45mm f1.8, same subject as nikon

Boy by jaomul, on Flickr

 

[jaomul]

M4/3 at higher iso

@3200
Fira santorini by night (1) by jaomul, on Flickr

@1250
paris Arc triomphe stairs by jaomul, on Flickr

@2500

Paris by night by jaomul, on Flickr

 

[Ido]

I use a Micro Four Thirds kit exclusively, the specific camera and lenses are in my "signature" below. I mostly shoot landscape and a little bit of wildlife, mostly birds that pass through my country each year. I do not require shallow depth of field—in fact I avoid it on most of my photos, though I use my 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 lens wide open when I photograph wildlife and it's usually good enough for me. I'm also satisfied with my gear's capabilities in low light most of the time, and I have an f/1.8 standard prime for the odd occasion that requires better results in low light or shallower depth of field than I usually need.

You are asking very personal questions that can't be answered generally. Each photographer has different demands and expectations, so seemingly simple questions such as "Is the reduced Bokeh in Micro 4/3 a big deal?" are practically impossible to answer by another person—only you could possibly know that.
A way to judge it is via equivalence: If you see a photo that has the kind of shallow depth of field you want to get, look at its EXIF data. If, for example, it was shot on a full-frame camera at 85mm and f/2.8, you can easily divide each by two and find you'll need 42.5mm at f/1.4 on a Micro Four Thirds camera to get exactly the same look at the same focusing distance. That can be achieved with the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2, which costs over $1,000, but you can also get very close to that mark with the less expensive Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 or Olympus 45mm f/1.8.
If the depth of field you want is something crazy, like what can only be achieved with an 85mm lens at f/1.4, you can only get somewhat close to that in Micro Four Thirds with the manual-focus Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95, or an adapted Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux.

As for the GX8, I'm not sure it's all worth the hype. I looked at the results in DPReview's studio comparison tool, and I think the results in low light look worse than the 16MP sensors in the GH4 and E-M5 II. It's a bit of a shame for me, because I was really hoping the higher resolution sensors would maintain the current sensors' noise levels. And I was looking at a 16MP comparison on them, so the 20MP sensor was actually at an advantage—I didn't look at the pixel level for the GX8. You can take a look at the same comparison yourself:

Studio shot comparison Digital Photography Review

 

[tirediron]

Putting aside DoF and ISO considerations, the question really boils down to form-factor vs. choice. While there is a reasonable lens selection & accessory market for M4/3, it's minute compared to offerings from Canon & Nikon, however as you point out, (and as many "street" shooters cite), the compact form of the M4/3 makes it very desirable. I like the Nikon system because I know that if a new lens, photo-accessory or piece of software is released, it's almost certain to be available in a Nikon version, and there's almost nowhere I could go that I couldn't rent, borrow or steal Nikon gear I needed.

Most professionals gravitate to Nikon/Canon because of the lens & accessory market, but also because they build professional-grade cameras. There are lots of M4/3 units that produce excellent images, but NONE which are built to the quality of a Nikon D4 in terms of durabilty, weather-sealing, feature-set and life-expectancy.

 

[Ido]

Most professionals gravitate to Nikon/Canon because of the lens & accessory market, but also because they build professional-grade cameras. There are lots of M4/3 units that produce excellent images, but NONE which are built to the quality of a Nikon D4 in terms of durabilty, weather-sealing, feature-set and life-expectancy.

True. And another reason is even simpler: that's what they have been using for years, and there's no reason for them to dump it all and buy something brand new to them, because what they have works. That's true for the professionals who started before mirrorless cameras got this good.

 

[robbins.photo]

Major Questions:
1) Can you really do pro photography with Micro 4/3. If so - why does everyone use a Canon or Nikon still?

People used to do professional photography with a wooden box and a plate covered with chemicals in the back. Most of the most amazing, famous, revered shots were taken with equipment that by modern standards would be considered junk. So yes, you can certainly do it with a micro 4/3.

Nikon and Canon are both well established companies and both have a ton of lenses available for them because the mounting systems they use are well established. That's a big selling point for a lot of us.

2) Is the reduced Bokeh in Micro 4/3 a big deal?

Depends on how much you like bokeh I guess. You can still achieve bokeh with a smaller sensor, but it's easier with a larger one.

3) How much am I missing by skipping the full frame?

Depends on what you use your camera for really. If you are shooting in good lighting any sensor can produce reliable, quality images. When you start losing light, that's when sensor size really starts making a huge, huge difference. The larger sensor will allow you to shoot at lower ISO's and maintain a quality image. Smaller sensors? Welll good idea to bring along a light source or two of your own to compensate.

There are generally other things as well of course, depending on the camera.. FX or full frame models are generally higher end, have better AF systems, etc that can all be important to your choice depending on what type of photography your doing.

4) Any general advice for a semi-pro looking to build a system.

My usage will mainly be for portraits, pets, street, event, and travel photography.

If your planning to shoot professionally, I would probably really consider going full frame. If your planning on just doing portraits outdoors or in a studio where you can control the lighting, a 4/3'rds would work fine. But a lot of what people pay for is event photography - so your going to be in a lot of situations where the larger sensor will make a huge difference in your end results. You'll also probably want some options on a fast telephoto lens to capture events properly, something most 4/3 systems don't offer.

The other thing to consider is the "mystique" of the big camera. Yes, I know this sounds silly, but it happens to be true. Show up an event with a cute little micro 4/3'rds and most people won't think your the professional they hired. Just walking around the zoo with my 7100 and a 70-200 F2.8 mounted I get asked all the time if I'm a professional photographer and if I'm there shooting for a paper or magazine.

It's crazy, I know - but it's just a fact of life.

 

[runnah]

My big issue with switching from Canon/Nikon to an alternative brand is the quality and quantity of good glass. With the exception of Leica and the $4000 Ziess lenses the offerings are pretty weak compared to a L lens.

 

[Ido]

My big issue with switching from Canon/Nikon to an alternative brand is the quality and quantity of good glass. With the exception of Leica and the $4000 Ziess lenses the offerings are pretty weak compared to a L lens.

I don't really know what you're talking about, there are some excellent lenses for cameras not made by Canon/Nikon that can definitely rival some of their best lenses. Especially those from Fuji, the prime lenses on Micro Four Thirds, and the high-end Sony primes.

 

[runnah]

My big issue with switching from Canon/Nikon to an alternative brand is the quality and quantity of good glass. With the exception of Leica and the $4000 Ziess lenses the offerings are pretty weak compared to a L lens.

I don't really know what you're talking about, there are some excellent lenses for cameras not made by Canon/Nikon that can definitely rival some of their best lenses. Especially those from Fuji, the prime lenses on Micro Four Thirds, and the high-end Sony primes.

If you say so. I haven't really seen any that give the "holy trinity" a run for their money. Primes are easier to make "good" compared to a zoom. Show me a 70-200 with IS that competes with the Canon/Nikon/Tamron versions and I'll change my tune.