Grad gift: DSLR camera versus one of these newfangled "mirrorless" cams
June 4, 2013 7:57 PM Subscribe
Middle school is behind us and Mrs. Corrocio and I want to reward our girl with a camera. But what to get?
Our daughter has a strong interest in photography and film making. We have point and shoot cameras, but nothing that allows changing lenses or other more advanced features. She's also keen on stop motion animation. I've been looking into entry level ( <$600 ) DSLR cameras like te Canon EOS T3, but am also finding a lot about the new breed of "mirrorless" cameras that have interchangeable lens capability (eg Canon EOS M). With the surfeit of info out there I'm basically, well, confused.
Do any MePhoto-phytes out there have comparative experience with these two species of camera?
In addition to capabilities, I'm weighing the size/simplicity aspects. Ie larger DSLR vs more portable mirrorless. Would smaller be better for a young teen?
I also get the feeling the mirrorless will be coming on strong vs. traditional DSLR in the near future. Thoughts?
Final bonus round: Easily compatible with Boinx istopmotion softaware.
Our daughter has a strong interest in photography and film making. We have point and shoot cameras, but nothing that allows changing lenses or other more advanced features. She's also keen on stop motion animation. I've been looking into entry level ( <$600 ) DSLR cameras like te Canon EOS T3, but am also finding a lot about the new breed of "mirrorless" cameras that have interchangeable lens capability (eg Canon EOS M). With the surfeit of info out there I'm basically, well, confused.
Do any MePhoto-phytes out there have comparative experience with these two species of camera?
In addition to capabilities, I'm weighing the size/simplicity aspects. Ie larger DSLR vs more portable mirrorless. Would smaller be better for a young teen?
I also get the feeling the mirrorless will be coming on strong vs. traditional DSLR in the near future. Thoughts?
Final bonus round: Easily compatible with Boinx istopmotion softaware.
Why not tell her you'll give her x amount of money toward a camera and let her do the legwork? It's an essential skill for this sort of work to be able to understand the gear and the market, and make decisions accordingly.
posted by victory_laser at 8:15 PM on June 4, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by victory_laser at 8:15 PM on June 4, 2013 [10 favorites]
I agree that you should suggest she do some research. Give her a price point and maybe point her in the direction of some resources, and then do your own legwork (taking advice here and wherever else you can find it) so you can check her sources with some confidence. Take her to brick and mortar camera stores to talk to salespeople, have her ask her own questions on photography forums, and let her work with you to find the right camera.
It can only help her in the future when she doesn't have you to guide her at all, much less make the purchase on her behalf.
I will say in terms of size, we have a Nikon 7000 that was very wellpriced at Costco, but I find it rather bulky and inconvenient and almost never feel like using it much, and I'm a fairly small woman. But I'm also not all that motivated by the extra quality.
posted by padraigin at 8:22 PM on June 4, 2013
It can only help her in the future when she doesn't have you to guide her at all, much less make the purchase on her behalf.
I will say in terms of size, we have a Nikon 7000 that was very wellpriced at Costco, but I find it rather bulky and inconvenient and almost never feel like using it much, and I'm a fairly small woman. But I'm also not all that motivated by the extra quality.
posted by padraigin at 8:22 PM on June 4, 2013
Response by poster: Thanks so far! To answer:
I was actually planning on letting her make the decision, but do want to know more to get the ball rolling.
posted by ecorrocio at 8:32 PM on June 4, 2013
I was actually planning on letting her make the decision, but do want to know more to get the ball rolling.
posted by ecorrocio at 8:32 PM on June 4, 2013
To people saying: get her to the research - I totally concur. My parents did this to me with my first camera. This exercise taught me consumer research skills and a lot about how cameras work through understanding, then comparing all the features. Each time I buy a camera now, I think back to those days slogging through the photography mags in the school library.
Give her a budget and let her decide after she researches and presents her case to you about which camera she wants.
posted by Kerasia at 8:36 PM on June 4, 2013
Give her a budget and let her decide after she researches and presents her case to you about which camera she wants.
posted by Kerasia at 8:36 PM on June 4, 2013
My biggest beef with the mirrorless models like the EOS M or say the Lumix G1 is that they are mirrorless--they lack a true optical viewfinder. Some have a large screen on the back of the camera, some have an electronic viewfinder, some have both. But in all cases, you're limited to the resolution of that display, and this makes a lot of shots very difficult or impossible. Trying to get any kind of precision out of a manual focus shot is dicey, at best. What you gain in a smaller, lighter, more portable body you lose in flexibility. A friend who has a G1 says that his biggest problem is battery life. With his Nikon DSLR, he can shoot and shoot and shoot, but because the Panasonic G1 relies on an electronic viewfinder (or the large screen), which must always be on to see what you're doing, battery life suffers dramatically.
Get some hands-on with both, just for comparison, but try to do some macro shots or long- and close-range manual focus with the mirrorless models, and they'll quickly fall behind.
Now, this may all change as displays improve (see the Retina displays on the newer iPhone/iPad), but until they're standard equipment on these cameras and battery life is on par with a DSLR, really, you're trading an awful lot of capability and flexibility for a few ounces of weight.
posted by xedrik at 8:42 PM on June 4, 2013
Get some hands-on with both, just for comparison, but try to do some macro shots or long- and close-range manual focus with the mirrorless models, and they'll quickly fall behind.
Now, this may all change as displays improve (see the Retina displays on the newer iPhone/iPad), but until they're standard equipment on these cameras and battery life is on par with a DSLR, really, you're trading an awful lot of capability and flexibility for a few ounces of weight.
posted by xedrik at 8:42 PM on June 4, 2013
Do any MePhoto-phytes out there have comparative experience with these two species of camera?
I have only used DSLR and point-and-shoot, not MILC. Feel free to weigh my input accordingly. Generally speaking, I agree with encouraging your daughter to do her own research and buy (choose) her own device. Rental options for digital cameras are abundant and excellent, especially for researching before buying.
Would smaller be better for a young teen?
I don't think it matters in that respect. I think size matters in (1) more general, not-specific-to-the-person respects, and (2) more personal, not-specific-to-the-type-of-person respects. Depending on your habits as a photographer, this is an object that you may be carrying with you everywhere. When you're a passenger in the car, it will be sitting in your lap. When you're at a restaurant, it might be on the table beside you. In different circumstances, the object's size and bulk and conspicuousness will matter in different ways. And there's a spectrum between a small point-and-shoot versus a full-frame DSLR with a telephoto zoom lens: what photos you can take, what's small versus smaller versus tiny versus large, etc. Which tradeoffs make sense for you?
I don't think it's an issue you can create a rule of thumb about, is what I'm saying.
I also get the feeling the mirrorless will be coming on strong vs. traditional DSLR in the near future. Thoughts?
I agree, and I'll suggest an analogy. You might be aware that Adobe recently announced moving all their professional-level graphics and design software to a cloud-based subscription model. Many photographers are furious about paying monthly for Photoshop. But the other side of the coin is that Adobe has committed to keeping Lightroom available for licensed purchase. For years, Photoshop has been built for professionals but used by everybody. I think Adobe's plan going forward is to more deliberately target Photoshop to professionals, and to make Lightroom better and more powerful and used by everybody.
This is roughly where I see camera hardware heading. DSLRs won't disappear, but they will be increasingly treated as a small, professionals' market. Canon's 1D and 5D cameras aren't going anywhere; but the Rebel series? Kiss those goodbye in maybe five years. MILCs are the hardware equivalent of Lightroom. Their capabilities will get better, bodies and lenses both, and the manufacturers are going to increasingly focus on MILCs when looking at consumers and hobbyists.
I'm not necessarily encouraging you to go the MILC route. As I said, I shoot DSLR and I have no plans to try MILC. It's not for me: larger sensors and better lenses have benefits that I actually use, so they have value to me. On the contrary, I'm investing more in DSLR. However, my needs aren't everybody's, and I tend to think that MILCs probably do, and increasingly will, make sense for more photographers than DSLRs do.
If you decide to look into MILCs, it's my understanding that Sony currently leads that pack, with Nikon chasing and Canon lagging. The Olympus has generated a lot of buzz but if it were me, I'd start by looking at Sony and probably limit serious consideration to Sony and Nikon.
posted by cribcage at 8:54 PM on June 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have only used DSLR and point-and-shoot, not MILC. Feel free to weigh my input accordingly. Generally speaking, I agree with encouraging your daughter to do her own research and buy (choose) her own device. Rental options for digital cameras are abundant and excellent, especially for researching before buying.
Would smaller be better for a young teen?
I don't think it matters in that respect. I think size matters in (1) more general, not-specific-to-the-person respects, and (2) more personal, not-specific-to-the-type-of-person respects. Depending on your habits as a photographer, this is an object that you may be carrying with you everywhere. When you're a passenger in the car, it will be sitting in your lap. When you're at a restaurant, it might be on the table beside you. In different circumstances, the object's size and bulk and conspicuousness will matter in different ways. And there's a spectrum between a small point-and-shoot versus a full-frame DSLR with a telephoto zoom lens: what photos you can take, what's small versus smaller versus tiny versus large, etc. Which tradeoffs make sense for you?
I don't think it's an issue you can create a rule of thumb about, is what I'm saying.
I also get the feeling the mirrorless will be coming on strong vs. traditional DSLR in the near future. Thoughts?
I agree, and I'll suggest an analogy. You might be aware that Adobe recently announced moving all their professional-level graphics and design software to a cloud-based subscription model. Many photographers are furious about paying monthly for Photoshop. But the other side of the coin is that Adobe has committed to keeping Lightroom available for licensed purchase. For years, Photoshop has been built for professionals but used by everybody. I think Adobe's plan going forward is to more deliberately target Photoshop to professionals, and to make Lightroom better and more powerful and used by everybody.
This is roughly where I see camera hardware heading. DSLRs won't disappear, but they will be increasingly treated as a small, professionals' market. Canon's 1D and 5D cameras aren't going anywhere; but the Rebel series? Kiss those goodbye in maybe five years. MILCs are the hardware equivalent of Lightroom. Their capabilities will get better, bodies and lenses both, and the manufacturers are going to increasingly focus on MILCs when looking at consumers and hobbyists.
I'm not necessarily encouraging you to go the MILC route. As I said, I shoot DSLR and I have no plans to try MILC. It's not for me: larger sensors and better lenses have benefits that I actually use, so they have value to me. On the contrary, I'm investing more in DSLR. However, my needs aren't everybody's, and I tend to think that MILCs probably do, and increasingly will, make sense for more photographers than DSLRs do.
If you decide to look into MILCs, it's my understanding that Sony currently leads that pack, with Nikon chasing and Canon lagging. The Olympus has generated a lot of buzz but if it were me, I'd start by looking at Sony and probably limit serious consideration to Sony and Nikon.
posted by cribcage at 8:54 PM on June 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I just traded my mirror-full DSLR to a mirrorless in antipication of an upcoming trip; I am happy with it.
It's true, an electronic viewfinder is not yet as good as optical, but the difference to me was a lot smaller than when I last checked a few years ago on the earliest models.
The convenience in size is a huge factor for me; I have no complaints about the battery life in my Panasonic G5 (but I was coming from a pentax k-x which had AA batteries, so my benchmark is low...).
Lens quality seems as good or better for price than my pentax lenses, and the mirrorless cams have a few nifty features my mirror-full didn't - couldn't - have (like silent shutter).
Further more, there are some *crazy* good deals on mirrorless cameras atm. Specifically, the camera I purchased (panasonic g5) and the Panasonic GX1. Insanely good deals for cameras that are not very old in the scheme of things. I was very happy to put my savings towards some glass.
The other thing is that mirrorless cameras can use adaptors to take virtually any lens mount out there (sans autofocus in most cases) - this is a great, cheap way of exploring different lens qualities.
tl;dr, I can't see myself going back to a mirrored camera.
posted by smoke at 9:31 PM on June 4, 2013
It's true, an electronic viewfinder is not yet as good as optical, but the difference to me was a lot smaller than when I last checked a few years ago on the earliest models.
The convenience in size is a huge factor for me; I have no complaints about the battery life in my Panasonic G5 (but I was coming from a pentax k-x which had AA batteries, so my benchmark is low...).
Lens quality seems as good or better for price than my pentax lenses, and the mirrorless cams have a few nifty features my mirror-full didn't - couldn't - have (like silent shutter).
Further more, there are some *crazy* good deals on mirrorless cameras atm. Specifically, the camera I purchased (panasonic g5) and the Panasonic GX1. Insanely good deals for cameras that are not very old in the scheme of things. I was very happy to put my savings towards some glass.
The other thing is that mirrorless cameras can use adaptors to take virtually any lens mount out there (sans autofocus in most cases) - this is a great, cheap way of exploring different lens qualities.
tl;dr, I can't see myself going back to a mirrored camera.
posted by smoke at 9:31 PM on June 4, 2013
Best answer: I am just a camera hobbyist and trying to learn more about the basic adjustable functions of more complex cameras. I bought a new camera and opted for the MILC (a Sony NEX C3) and I am extremely happy with it. It is much easier to carry around than the larger cameras, and it was way cheaper.
I felt that if I could use this camera as a trainer to learn about the different types of lenses and different camera functions, and I felt like I was getting good with them, at that point I would step up to a fancier/more expensive MILC such as the Sony NEX 5R. And if I got good with the 5R, eventually someday I might graduate to owning a DSLR.
But you know, even using the auto setting with the C3 takes such fantastic photos compared to my old point and shoot (especially given that I have not attached a flash or used any other lens aside from the standard one it came with, which has minimal zoom capability). The photos look so good without effort that it is making me lazy about continuing to learn...
posted by treehorn+bunny at 9:48 PM on June 4, 2013
I felt that if I could use this camera as a trainer to learn about the different types of lenses and different camera functions, and I felt like I was getting good with them, at that point I would step up to a fancier/more expensive MILC such as the Sony NEX 5R. And if I got good with the 5R, eventually someday I might graduate to owning a DSLR.
But you know, even using the auto setting with the C3 takes such fantastic photos compared to my old point and shoot (especially given that I have not attached a flash or used any other lens aside from the standard one it came with, which has minimal zoom capability). The photos look so good without effort that it is making me lazy about continuing to learn...
posted by treehorn+bunny at 9:48 PM on June 4, 2013
Best answer: For years I shot with a full-frame DSLR (Canon 5D Mk 1) and loved the output but it was heavy, the gear was clunky, and I hated lugging it around. I finally broke down and sold it to buy an Olympus OM-D E-M5 and haven't looked back. I love it. My site is linked in my profile and if you can pinpoint when I switched from Canon to Olympus I'll give you an Internet Dollar.
I love the micro 4/3rds lens mount and how it allows me to buy just about any old legacy manual-focus lens from KEH and throw it on there for a tenth of the cost of what a new lens for the Canon would have cost.
The OM-D's buttons and interface are customizable to the point of absurdity. At this point I don't think I could pick up anyone else's and make it work because I have mine tweaked to function exactly how I like it. Case in point: I took the Fn2 button on the top of the body directly beside the shutter button and set it to the 2x digital zoom feature. Now when I'm focusing with those old manual-focus lenses I pop on 2x zoom, nail the focus, un-do the zoom, and take the shot. It became second nature within a single day of shooting.
Of course the OM-D is probably a bit higher in cost than your budget but you can look at the Olympus PEN E-PL5 which is going to function very much the same and would be a killer starter camera.
The point of all this is to say that DSLRs are awesome, of course, but the new breed of micro 4/3rds are giving photographers a new effective alternative.
posted by komara at 10:20 PM on June 4, 2013
I love the micro 4/3rds lens mount and how it allows me to buy just about any old legacy manual-focus lens from KEH and throw it on there for a tenth of the cost of what a new lens for the Canon would have cost.
The OM-D's buttons and interface are customizable to the point of absurdity. At this point I don't think I could pick up anyone else's and make it work because I have mine tweaked to function exactly how I like it. Case in point: I took the Fn2 button on the top of the body directly beside the shutter button and set it to the 2x digital zoom feature. Now when I'm focusing with those old manual-focus lenses I pop on 2x zoom, nail the focus, un-do the zoom, and take the shot. It became second nature within a single day of shooting.
Of course the OM-D is probably a bit higher in cost than your budget but you can look at the Olympus PEN E-PL5 which is going to function very much the same and would be a killer starter camera.
The point of all this is to say that DSLRs are awesome, of course, but the new breed of micro 4/3rds are giving photographers a new effective alternative.
posted by komara at 10:20 PM on June 4, 2013
I love my Sony nex 5n. Dslr size sensor in a tiny body. I just got the 16-50 powerzoom lens and when attached it fits in my old canon compact's case.
posted by JonB at 10:30 PM on June 4, 2013
posted by JonB at 10:30 PM on June 4, 2013
I agree that it would be good to let her make the decision.
I worry that the mirrorless cameras are a fad and won't last, and paying nearly DSLR money and buying lenses for something that isn't as good just seems wrong. But DSLR is likely to be around for quite some time yet. I would nudge her in the direction of a DSLR.
posted by gjc at 10:55 PM on June 4, 2013
I worry that the mirrorless cameras are a fad and won't last, and paying nearly DSLR money and buying lenses for something that isn't as good just seems wrong. But DSLR is likely to be around for quite some time yet. I would nudge her in the direction of a DSLR.
posted by gjc at 10:55 PM on June 4, 2013
Suggestion: a Nikon D3200 ought to last her until she is out of high school, at least.
posted by gjc at 10:56 PM on June 4, 2013
posted by gjc at 10:56 PM on June 4, 2013
Another suggestion: Print this page for your daughter. She will at least learn that some features appeal to some people.
posted by Cranberry at 11:43 PM on June 4, 2013
posted by Cranberry at 11:43 PM on June 4, 2013
Best answer: I have been shooting for decades, and I've never had as much fun as I have with my OM-D. My 5D mark 2 and L lenses currently have a formidable coat of dust on them, and it's only a matter of time before they go up on ebay.
Though I'm not a professional, I do sell wall decor (I'm not comfortable calling my own work "fine art") prints, and the image quality of modern micro four thirds sensors paired with prime lenses is more than good enough. I standardize on the 16"x20" size for my prints.
The intended use is a huge factor in this decision, for two reasons.
The first is that current mirrorless cameras do not have phase detect autofocus. What this means in non-nerd terms is that they are not as good at keeping focus locked on a moving subject. So if you are shooting sports, or fast moving wildlife, or other similar subjects, DSLR will carry a rather important advantage.
The other issue is the lenses available to the system. Canikon DSLR have more complete lens lineups than any mirrorless system. In mirrorless, micro four thirds has the most complete lens lineup. Legacy lenses from almost any system can be adapted, but the crop factor is 2x -- and since it's very tough to find legacy lenses wider than 24mm, this option is not realistic for anything other than normals and telephotos.
For specialty cases a system might be missing a lens that's critical to have, for example the outstanding Fuji X system is lacking in telephotos. The sony NEX system doesn't have a good selection of high quality primes. Micro four thirds seems to be missing mid-range zoom lenses. There is a 24-70 and 70-200 equivilent from panasonic now, at the cost of >$1000 each. Below that, you are in cheap kit lens territory. The 12-50 that comes with the OM-D is passable, but not especially impressive.
Personally I'm somewhat of a minimalist and I roll with a wide angle prime, a standard prime, and a portrait prime. The 14mm, 25mm, and 45mm micro four thirds lenses are the perfect kit for me, and I couldn't dream of having anything more. But some people, especially those new to photography, would want zoom lenses.
posted by robokevin at 4:38 AM on June 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
Though I'm not a professional, I do sell wall decor (I'm not comfortable calling my own work "fine art") prints, and the image quality of modern micro four thirds sensors paired with prime lenses is more than good enough. I standardize on the 16"x20" size for my prints.
The intended use is a huge factor in this decision, for two reasons.
The first is that current mirrorless cameras do not have phase detect autofocus. What this means in non-nerd terms is that they are not as good at keeping focus locked on a moving subject. So if you are shooting sports, or fast moving wildlife, or other similar subjects, DSLR will carry a rather important advantage.
The other issue is the lenses available to the system. Canikon DSLR have more complete lens lineups than any mirrorless system. In mirrorless, micro four thirds has the most complete lens lineup. Legacy lenses from almost any system can be adapted, but the crop factor is 2x -- and since it's very tough to find legacy lenses wider than 24mm, this option is not realistic for anything other than normals and telephotos.
For specialty cases a system might be missing a lens that's critical to have, for example the outstanding Fuji X system is lacking in telephotos. The sony NEX system doesn't have a good selection of high quality primes. Micro four thirds seems to be missing mid-range zoom lenses. There is a 24-70 and 70-200 equivilent from panasonic now, at the cost of >$1000 each. Below that, you are in cheap kit lens territory. The 12-50 that comes with the OM-D is passable, but not especially impressive.
Personally I'm somewhat of a minimalist and I roll with a wide angle prime, a standard prime, and a portrait prime. The 14mm, 25mm, and 45mm micro four thirds lenses are the perfect kit for me, and I couldn't dream of having anything more. But some people, especially those new to photography, would want zoom lenses.
posted by robokevin at 4:38 AM on June 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I also get the feeling the mirrorless will be coming on strong vs. traditional DSLR in the near future.
The future is now. Olympus PEN series, as mentioned above, is a very nice camera system.
Another alternative - you can find deals on the Samsung NX 1000 - camera, flash and lens under $400. It takes a great photo and is easy to use, and has a large stable of lenses (and lens adapters) if she decides to branch out. Surprisingly small.
Canon doesn't seem to have committed to their mirrorless system yet... Sony makes some great mirrorless bodies, but the lenses for the system have largely been a disappointment.
Another option is a large-sensor compact; the Sony RX100 or Ricoh GR - they have the guts of an APS-C DSLR, but a non-removable lens and a very compact form factor. They have lots of options for advanced photographers and videographers, but fewer moving pieces to worry about.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:50 AM on June 5, 2013
The future is now. Olympus PEN series, as mentioned above, is a very nice camera system.
Another alternative - you can find deals on the Samsung NX 1000 - camera, flash and lens under $400. It takes a great photo and is easy to use, and has a large stable of lenses (and lens adapters) if she decides to branch out. Surprisingly small.
Canon doesn't seem to have committed to their mirrorless system yet... Sony makes some great mirrorless bodies, but the lenses for the system have largely been a disappointment.
Another option is a large-sensor compact; the Sony RX100 or Ricoh GR - they have the guts of an APS-C DSLR, but a non-removable lens and a very compact form factor. They have lots of options for advanced photographers and videographers, but fewer moving pieces to worry about.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:50 AM on June 5, 2013
Response by poster: Really great stuff people! Thank you very much. This gives me good info to present to her. She will make the ultimate decision, but I sure like what I hear about the mirrorless. Seems to me these are poised to be the next wave of serious hobbyist level cameras. I don't think they are a fad, but a good response to the market and to new technology/design trends. Thanks.
posted by ecorrocio at 7:01 AM on June 5, 2013
posted by ecorrocio at 7:01 AM on June 5, 2013
Just chiming in with my own anecdote / report of personal preferences:
The Olympus OM-D is one of my current lust cameras. I want it: micro 4/3 lens mount, very capable (electric) viewfinder, super solid and abuse resistant construction, compact, classy design, lots to love. Twice in the last few months, I've walked into the local camera store to hold it in my greasy hands, play and shoot with it. But I've never pulled the trigger. Not because of the price - it isn't cheap by any means, mind you, but its within the budget, but because even though its getting on three years old, and has already been upgraded and supplanted in their line up, my Nikon D7000 is still a better camera.
Bigger, better sensor: means better low light performance.
Better, faster autofocus: I shoot mostly moving objects (fast moving people and animals) and all reviews are clear on this point being a weakness of mirrorless cameras in general and the OMD in particular.
Better battery -- weeks on a charge, hundreds of frames.
Far better and more diverse ecosystem of lenses.
At least as solid and weathertight a construction, which is key for me because I've very hard on my stuff, and I spend most of my camera time in high mountain / winter settings. Its been buried in snow countless times. Dropped. Hit with ice and rocks. Thrown out of a pack onto a rocky trail. Eaten by an elephant and then pooped out (could be lying about that).
Its heavier, sure. Definitely bigger. I don't carry it with me every where I go (I've a small pocketable camera for that), but when I am carrying it, I am more purposeful about pictures. To be honest, the OM-D isn't so much smaller that it occupies a different niche.
Now that the D7100 has arrived to replace it, the D7000 sells for almost half what I paid for it. It is however far from obsolete, beating what I consider the best of the Micro 4/3 cameras (I find the Panasonic M4/3 feel light and flimsy, and hate the way Sony handles its interfaces -- the Olympus cameras, both the E-P1 or P2 and the OM-D feel, look and act like "real" cameras). I say all this not to pump the Nikon's tires (there are equivalent Canons and Pentax's for sure): but to put the argument in favour of considering a good 'enthusiast-level' DSLR.
posted by bumpkin at 10:46 AM on June 5, 2013
The Olympus OM-D is one of my current lust cameras. I want it: micro 4/3 lens mount, very capable (electric) viewfinder, super solid and abuse resistant construction, compact, classy design, lots to love. Twice in the last few months, I've walked into the local camera store to hold it in my greasy hands, play and shoot with it. But I've never pulled the trigger. Not because of the price - it isn't cheap by any means, mind you, but its within the budget, but because even though its getting on three years old, and has already been upgraded and supplanted in their line up, my Nikon D7000 is still a better camera.
Bigger, better sensor: means better low light performance.
Better, faster autofocus: I shoot mostly moving objects (fast moving people and animals) and all reviews are clear on this point being a weakness of mirrorless cameras in general and the OMD in particular.
Better battery -- weeks on a charge, hundreds of frames.
Far better and more diverse ecosystem of lenses.
At least as solid and weathertight a construction, which is key for me because I've very hard on my stuff, and I spend most of my camera time in high mountain / winter settings. Its been buried in snow countless times. Dropped. Hit with ice and rocks. Thrown out of a pack onto a rocky trail. Eaten by an elephant and then pooped out (could be lying about that).
Its heavier, sure. Definitely bigger. I don't carry it with me every where I go (I've a small pocketable camera for that), but when I am carrying it, I am more purposeful about pictures. To be honest, the OM-D isn't so much smaller that it occupies a different niche.
Now that the D7100 has arrived to replace it, the D7000 sells for almost half what I paid for it. It is however far from obsolete, beating what I consider the best of the Micro 4/3 cameras (I find the Panasonic M4/3 feel light and flimsy, and hate the way Sony handles its interfaces -- the Olympus cameras, both the E-P1 or P2 and the OM-D feel, look and act like "real" cameras). I say all this not to pump the Nikon's tires (there are equivalent Canons and Pentax's for sure): but to put the argument in favour of considering a good 'enthusiast-level' DSLR.
posted by bumpkin at 10:46 AM on June 5, 2013
Chiming in to say that if she narrows it down to two and still isn't sure, you can rent each for a few days to try them out. I do this when purchasing new lenses, and it has changed my mind on several.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:44 PM on June 5, 2013
posted by melissasaurus at 12:44 PM on June 5, 2013
I would like to present my counter-argument against bumpkin's post. Obviously he is well aware of his personal camera needs, has considered all the factors, and made a logical and informed choice. He's quite correct about this:
"Better, faster autofocus: I shoot mostly moving objects (fast moving people and animals) and all reviews are clear on this point being a weakness of mirrorless cameras in general and the OMD in particular."
I do not shoot much action at all, especially not fast action, so I don't mind. At this point 2/3rds of my frequent-use lens collection is made up of old manual-focus lenses so AF isn't an option at all, never mind fast AF.
Regarding his other point about the sensor size and its implication about image quality: I had forgotten I took these comparison images between the Canon 5D Mk 1 and the Olympus OM-D using more-or-less equivalent effective lens magnifications. Viewed at default size there's basically no difference. Viewed at full size there are some apparent differences, but nothing major. I realize that I'm comparing an older full-frame camera with a brand-new camera, and that sensors and image quality are always increasing, but still, I was quite pleasantly surprised with the results.
Regarding "Bigger, better sensor: means better low light performance" I've found that to my eye the OM-D looks better at ISO1600 than my 5D did, but I don't have comparison images for that. I never run it up past 1600 though I know it goes to some crazy-high ISO.
But honestly, I used to take pictures with one of the earlier models of Canon Digital Rebel XTs with something like a 6MP sensor that would put out an image at somewhere near 3500x2300. I have sent many of those images off to be printed at 20" x 30" and loved the results every time. The OM-D will put out files at 4600x3400 and I wouldn't hesitate for a second to print them at 20" x 30".
The point here is that bumpkin is right - you need to take into consideration what you intend to do with your gear and make sure it fits your requirements. He's found something that's perfect for him, I've found something perfect for me, and somehow you'll come out of this maze with something perfect for your daughter.
posted by komara at 1:36 PM on June 5, 2013
"Better, faster autofocus: I shoot mostly moving objects (fast moving people and animals) and all reviews are clear on this point being a weakness of mirrorless cameras in general and the OMD in particular."
I do not shoot much action at all, especially not fast action, so I don't mind. At this point 2/3rds of my frequent-use lens collection is made up of old manual-focus lenses so AF isn't an option at all, never mind fast AF.
Regarding his other point about the sensor size and its implication about image quality: I had forgotten I took these comparison images between the Canon 5D Mk 1 and the Olympus OM-D using more-or-less equivalent effective lens magnifications. Viewed at default size there's basically no difference. Viewed at full size there are some apparent differences, but nothing major. I realize that I'm comparing an older full-frame camera with a brand-new camera, and that sensors and image quality are always increasing, but still, I was quite pleasantly surprised with the results.
Regarding "Bigger, better sensor: means better low light performance" I've found that to my eye the OM-D looks better at ISO1600 than my 5D did, but I don't have comparison images for that. I never run it up past 1600 though I know it goes to some crazy-high ISO.
But honestly, I used to take pictures with one of the earlier models of Canon Digital Rebel XTs with something like a 6MP sensor that would put out an image at somewhere near 3500x2300. I have sent many of those images off to be printed at 20" x 30" and loved the results every time. The OM-D will put out files at 4600x3400 and I wouldn't hesitate for a second to print them at 20" x 30".
The point here is that bumpkin is right - you need to take into consideration what you intend to do with your gear and make sure it fits your requirements. He's found something that's perfect for him, I've found something perfect for me, and somehow you'll come out of this maze with something perfect for your daughter.
posted by komara at 1:36 PM on June 5, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
No idea which would be better for film making.
posted by geegollygosh at 8:07 PM on June 4, 2013