Which weapons for a noobie like me??

[Village Idiot]

you get much more bang for your buck with a starters DSLR kit...forget the mirrorless 3/4 sensors..., it almost costs as much as a DSLR but doesn't give you half of what a starters DSLR will give you.

Not always true, and not with some of the features in the mirrorless cameras. Oly's AF is faster than most of Canon's lineup now, IIRC. There's pros and cons of each system and if someone wants a small camera with DSLR quality that they can stow away in a coat poscket, purse, etc..., then a DSLR is not an option. I have a shoot coming up on the 7th that I'm going to take my OM-D to along with my 5D MKII. I'll edit a few to the same size and aspect ratio and see who can guess which is which. I have the Oly 45 f/1.8 and Canon 85 f/1.8, which have almost the exact FOV and the same wide aperture. I'll strip the EXIF and post some photos up.

 

[Solarflare]

Um, nope.

Sorry, but the price for best AF is going tol DSLRs, by FAR. Its not just a question of speed alone, you know.

Olympus OM-D's static autofocus, the AF-S, is lightning fast, thats true. Still not fast enough for action, though. Even if you only need 0.1 sec to focus, fast subjects like athletes and children might already be out of focus again.

For this you need a predictive autofocus, or continous autofocus, commonly abbrevated AF-C. And OM-D AF-C is completely useless. OM-D is contrast AF only. Contrast AF doesnt know where the subject is. It can only tell if something is in focus or not, but not in what direction to move or how far to move.

Nikon 1 cameras have a combined contrast and phase AF on chip. They focus much slower than the Olympus OM-D, yet as long as there is enough light for their Phase AF, they will beat the OM-D any day with action shots, because they can predict where the subject will be in the moment the picture is taken.

DSLRs have the mirror box with plenty of space for a grown out Phase AF system. This is what makes them superior. Not only being able to focus really fast, but more importantly being able to PREDICT where the subject will be in the next moment (which is what AF-C accomplishes). Which no other camera does so well, even in low light, as DSLRs.


P.s.: oh and besides, how fast a DSLR is with AF also always depends upon the lens used.

 

[n_icole26]

There's pros and cons of each system and if someone wants a small camera with DSLR quality that they can stow away in a coat poscket, purse, etc..., then a DSLR is not an option.

Well,that's basically what I'm really looking for. Is it wise to spend almost as much for a small camera with DSLR qualities??

No one said Life was a bed of roses.

 

[usayit]

Well,that's basically what I'm really looking for. Is it wise to spend almost as much for a small camera with DSLR qualities??

No one said Life was a bed of roses.

Mirrorless was never intended to be cheaper than a DSLR but intended to be a more compact alternative (both camera and LENS are much smaller).
Each has their disadv and adv, you have to weigh them youself in order to make a decision. You are the only one who can make that assessment.. no one else. people here can only answer questions.... but ultimately you only can know what fits your needs.

Anyone who makes a blanket statement that one is better than the other is clueless.

 

[n_icole26]

Mirrorless was never intended to be cheaper than a DSLR but intended to be a more compact alternative (both camera and LENS are much smaller).
Each has their disadv and adv, you have to weigh them youself in order to make a decision. You are the only one who can make that assessment.. no one else. people here can only answer questions.... but ultimately you only can know what fits your needs.

Anyone who makes a blanket statement that one is better than the other is clueless.

Thanks.

No one said Life was a bed of roses.

 

[Village Idiot]

There's pros and cons of each system and if someone wants a small camera with DSLR quality that they can stow away in a coat poscket, purse, etc..., then a DSLR is not an option.

Well,that's basically what I'm really looking for. Is it wise to spend almost as much for a small camera with DSLR qualities??

No one said Life was a bed of roses.

It depends on what you're shooting and when. There's more cons for the mirrorless cameras IMHO, but the size is something that can't be ignored for some people. I shoot with a Canon 5D MKII and a host of L lenses with a camera bag that weighs over 30lbs when loaded. This doesn't count my lighting gear and batteries. I also have an Olympus OM-D with two primes that probably weighs as much as the body of my 5D MKII. I was doing food/travel review for a site for a little while with most of my traveling being done on a motorcycle. The 5D MKII, two lenses, and a flash would take up an entire bag where the OM-D and two lenses takes up just a small amount of space. I also take it with me when I'm not shooting for clients as it's so much easier to carrier around. I had it at the Ocean City, MD classic car show and loved it. I felt that I didn't need my 5D and felt sorry for those people carrying around large DSLRs and lenses all over the place. Of course, some people want to look professional, so they enjoy it but that's not me.

And there are pros that shoot with mirrorless cameras.

My post from another similar thread:

Pro - Size

Con - Quality

With the exception of a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sized sensors, the Lumix and Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras have micro 4/3 sensors which are 2 times smaller than a full frame DSLR where an APS-C sized sensor is 1.5 to 1.6 times smaller. The larger your sensor, the bigger your pixels and the better noise handling and usually image quality. There's of course exceptions to this is you compare across generations where technology has improved, but that's the general census.

Pro - Size

Con - Lenses

The amount of lenses out for these systems does not compare with the lenses for long established DSLR brands. You can of course use legacy manual focus glass from other brands with adapters. I bought an Olympus OM-10 film camera with 50 f/1.8 on it and with a $20 adapter, I can use it on my Olympus OM-D. Also, certain brands are compatible, using the same mount. I use a Panasonic Lumix 20 f/1.7 on my Olympus OM-D.

Pro - Size

Con - Size

This is totally up to the person shooting here. Some people may find the smaller size ackwards to use. I find it difficult to use back button autofocus on my OM-D. My Canon 5D MKII fits great in my giant ham hocks.

Pro - Size

Con - Features

Not all of the features are there that are in bigger cameras. Most use contrast detection auto focus which can be less accurate than the AF in a DSLR. However, my OM-D focuses faster than my 5D MKII on most accounts. Most either use an electronic viewfinder or a rear LCD screen as the viewer. The electronics viewfinder does have some neat tricks like the ability to show you what the photo you take is going to look like vs. what you're actually seeing, zoom in on your target when manually focusing, show what's in focus, etc... or even brighten up a dark room. The resolution on these are not as good as viewing a scene with an optical viewfinder and they're sometimes laggy. I feel that this will of course improve over time.

As much as it sounds like I don't like EVIL cameras by my post, I do. The small form factor, detachable lenses, and good quality give me a camera that's way better than your average point and shoot that I can carry everywhere with me as opposed to a 30lb camera bag with a DSLR and my gear. Don't get me wrong, when I absolutely need the best quality or I'm working a job for a client, my heavy gear comes out, but generally when I'm shooting for me or traveling and need to stay light, I bring the Olympus OM-D with me.