Please help me choose a camera

BrentC said:
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

My issue is you saying the sensor has poor overall performance. Low light is not everything. I can count on my hands the time that low light has been an issue for my type of shooting. The Oly has great IQ and colours. Once again, I have said that every system has there pros and cons and you buy into the system that works for you. But is disagree that its an overall bad performer.

Well, maybe I define "poor overall" as something that is way below contemporary leading models. Perhaps you have not noticed that in the link I provided, in the expanded test results section, the Olympus comes in dead last in multiple categories...like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity, Signal To Noise Ratio Peformance, and Dynamic Range. Weaker color, poorer tone response, worse SNR, and narrower dynamic range. To me that is "poor" performance; and NOT just in "low light", but across multiple, easily measurable performance metrics.

To me, that is poor overall, and the buyer has $2,400 Euro to spend; why not buy a better performing camera at such a high price point?View attachment 145948View attachment 145949 View attachment 145950View attachment 145951

Compare apples to apples. For wildlife/action would you recommend the Nikon D500 to someone? This is one of the top recommended cameras for Wildlife. Price is the same as the EM1 MKII. The EM1 MKII was aimed for wildlife/action. I have not heard anybody saying the D500 is a poor performer. Compare the DxOmark between the two. They are very close except for ISO sensitivity.

I don't think the EM1 has poor performance just the D610 has excellent performance. But then if someone wants to shoot wildlife they would be going for the D500 not the D610.

The OP wanted a light, compact system for travel which M43 or Fuji would have been more than adequate and ARE good to great performers. But you just sold him on a larger, heavier system that he wasn't looking for and probably doesn't need that sensor quality.

To me a good performing sensor sits far below a D610. You as a professional photographer, that makes money from photography, I can see wants the best of the best. But photographers are producing excellent quality photos from sensors that are no where near as good as the D610.

I would never say that a M43 sensor would ever compare to todays best FF sensor's but you can't say, these days, that they are poor performers.

DanOstergren blows us away with his model images. He is using a Canon 5D MKI and that sensor performance comes no where near a D610.

I guess what I am trying to say is the bar for a good performing sensor is below a D610. And when someone is requesting camera recommendations with specific criteria help him find a good camera with those criteria.
When I was looking for a camera, light weight, a smaller was near the top of my list but yet people where still trying to sell me on a DSLR. I would have bought a D500 if I didn't mind big and heavy. Hell I would be one of the firsts to jump on the new D850 if it wasn't an issue. But doesn't fit my requirements and the EM1 sensor performance was more then good enough.
 
I thought you were going to get the XT2?
I still probably am but until the right eBay deal comes along I am waiting. Don't need it right this instant so.....
 
I looked at your Flickr. The main thing that stands out is you don't really seem to be an action shooter.

With that in mind I still recommend an Olympus OMD if some kind. If weather sealing is important, the EM5 mk ii is tidy, has amazing ibis, a great interface and Olympus and Panasonic do lovely small fast lenses, some are inexpensive.

It was said for years glass is more important than the body. That is not entirely true, but the smaller system means more chance of actually bringing the camera. It's all about balance
 
BrentC said:
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II vs Sony A7R II vs Nikon D610 | DxOMark

My issue is you saying the sensor has poor overall performance. Low light is not everything. I can count on my hands the time that low light has been an issue for my type of shooting. The Oly has great IQ and colours. Once again, I have said that every system has there pros and cons and you buy into the system that works for you. But is disagree that its an overall bad performer.

Well, maybe I define "poor overall" as something that is way below contemporary leading models. Perhaps you have not noticed that in the link I provided, in the expanded test results section, the Olympus comes in dead last in multiple categories...like Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity, Signal To Noise Ratio Peformance, and Dynamic Range. Weaker color, poorer tone response, worse SNR, and narrower dynamic range. To me that is "poor" performance; and NOT just in "low light", but across multiple, easily measurable performance metrics.

To me, that is poor overall, and the buyer has $2,400 Euro to spend; why not buy a better performing camera at such a high price point?View attachment 145948View attachment 145949 View attachment 145950View attachment 145951

Compare apples to apples. For wildlife/action would you recommend the Nikon D500 to someone? This is one of the top recommended cameras for Wildlife. Price is the same as the EM1 MKII. The EM1 MKII was aimed for wildlife/action. I have not heard anybody saying the D500 is a poor performer. Compare the DxOmark between the two. They are very close except for ISO sensitivity.

I don't think the EM1 has poor performance just the D610 has excellent performance. But then if someone wants to shoot wildlife they would be going for the D500 not the D610.

The OP wanted a light, compact system for travel which M43 or Fuji would have been more than adequate and ARE good to great performers. But you just sold him on a larger, heavier system that he wasn't looking for and probably doesn't need that sensor quality.

To me a good performing sensor sits far below a D610. You as a professional photographer, that makes money from photography, I can see wants the best of the best. But photographers are producing excellent quality photos from sensors that are no where near as good as the D610.

I would never say that a M43 sensor would ever compare to todays best FF sensor's but you can't say, these days, that they are poor performers.

DanOstergren blows us away with his model images. He is using a Canon 5D MKI and that sensor performance comes no where near a D610.

I guess what I am trying to say is the bar for a good performing sensor is below a D610. And when someone is requesting camera recommendations with specific criteria help him find a good camera with those criteria.
When I was looking for a camera, light weight, a smaller was near the top of my list but yet people where still trying to sell me on a DSLR. I would have bought a D500 if I didn't mind big and heavy. Hell I would be one of the firsts to jump on the new D850 if it wasn't an issue. But doesn't fit my requirements and the EM1 sensor performance was more then good enough.

Thanks for the reply, I agree with you entirely.
This isn't a m43 vs aps-c vs ff thread, it's a " please help me choose a camera that is right for me".
Of course it's good to explain the difference in performance but I think enough about that is already said.
In the end it's up to me to choose a system that comes closest to everything that I need, at this moment the perfect camera still doesn't exist. I have to weigh the negatives and positives of the camera within budget.
Ideally I would go Sony because mirrorless and ff, but I'm hesitant to because of the lens selection and underbelly feeling.
 
Just remember ff Sony needs fx lenses. Mirrorless lenses are not smaller, fx is fx, large lenses
 
I looked at your Flickr. The main thing that stands out is you don't really seem to be an action shooter.

With that in mind I still recommend an Olympus OMD if some kind. If weather sealing is important, the EM5 mk ii is tidy, has amazing ibis, a great interface and Olympus and Panasonic do lovely small fast lenses, some are inexpensive.

It was said for years glass is more important than the body. That is not entirely true, but the smaller system means more chance of actually bringing the camera. It's all about balance

The Flickr fotos are all taking this Holliday in Sweden, because we have the Samsung since right before we went there
And the 50mm doesn't lend itself well for the birds and deer I see when walking near my home, even with the crop I'm not getting close enough... the only "wildlife" I came close enough to was that friendly duck and even then a crop was needed :) I would love to be able to.

I haven't been in contact with sports yet, hockey starts next week and I haven't yet snowboarder since getting the camera
 
Just remember ff Sony needs fx lenses. Mirrorless lenses are not smaller, fx is fx, large lenses
That's exactly my hesitation towards Sony ff
 
My recommendation would be, since you want something for travelling, is to go to a camera store and hold all the cameras you might be interested in. Ergonomics, how it feels in your hand, is a big factor as well. Take a look at the different lenses you would want for that camera and see what it would take to travel with them. Would you need a small camera bag, large or backpack? Will the weight be too much to carry for long periods? Once you have and idea of the different camera system size and wights you can then start looking at specs and features and see what are must haves and what you would compromise on and start narrowing things down.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top