• We are delighted to introduce GiftBot 2.0, the next generation of our popular gifting feature. To celebrate, we'll be giving away some incredible prizes over the coming weeks in one big Giveaway Extravaganza!

CamERA Equipment |OT| Photon Capturing Comparison Club

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
I think they said 12 lenses are coming this year and we know one of them is the 135mm f/1.8, but people have been clamoring for a 35mm f/1.8 for years, so I bet it's coming soon. If it turns out to be really good and still portable, I'll probably sell my f/2.8 and f/1.4 35mm lenses and just go with it.
That would certainly be worth the inevitable Sony tax! I’d get it in a heartbeat. Canon offering a 35/1.8 out of the gate on RF should help nudge Sony along.
 

Custódio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,200
Brazil, Unaí/MG
I have an old cheap wobly tripod that worked well enough with my P&S but can barely hold my camera with the 24-105, even less with the camera in a vertical position. People say to look for a heavy steady one, but do you guys have a more specific recomendation?
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
I have an old cheap wobly tripod that worked well enough with my P&S but can barely hold my camera with the 24-105, even less with the camera in a vertical position. People say to look for a heavy steady one, but do you guys have a more specific recomendation?
Yeah don't put your heavier camera on something not weight recommended for it. Good tripod's are expensive. There are Manfrotto's you can get but they're quite costly.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
I've had my trusty Manfrotto 055XPROB for over a decade and love it. It's heavy, but it's built like a tank, withstands anything I throw at it. I desperately need an Arca ballhead for it though, still rocking my original 486RC2 style head, and while it works perfectly, the world has definitely moved on from RC2.

I regularly throw my body + 100-400 lens in portrait on there with zero fear.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
There are times where I have no idea what the hell Sony prioritizes. They want to make all of this front page grabbing stuff, yet it takes them forever to supply the basics.
Canon dropping a $499 35mm that seems alright honestly is pretty enticing to me with an affordable RP. My main problem with the Sony's in general is the lack of affordable good glass. A lot of pros in this thread it seems so I get the priority on Sony in the ff realm and Fuji in the crop realm, but if you can get good results with Canon and m43 in the crop space for less money, well, there it is I suppose.

A huge part of the equation for me, and I imagine a lot of other people, is affordable good glass. M43 is absolutely nuts in that regard, and ff mirrorless anyway is nuts expensive. And as a Hobbyist I have absolutely no desire to get into traditional ff dslrs. They are just too fucking big and that's not my jam. I throw a small bag into a small messenger bag. A giant camera I would never use. Fuji glass also isn't cheap and its also generally huge, which imo defeats the purpose of most of their pretty compact bodies. I can actually throw an m43 with a 20mm 1.7 in a jacket pocket, and that's hugely important.
 
Last edited:

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
Canon dropping a $499 35mm that seems alright honestly is pretty enticing to me with an affordable RP. My main problem with the Sony's in general is the lack of affordable good glass. A lot of pros in this thread it seems so I get the priority on Sony in the ff realm and Fuji in the crop realm, but if you can get good results with Canon and m43 in the crop space for less money, well, there it is I suppose.
Other than the 35mm f/1.8 lens, which doesn't currently exist in Sony-land, the Sony lens prices are very comparable (if not often favorable) to the modern lenses on the Canon EOS R and Nikon Z mirrorless systems.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
A huge part of the equation for me, and I imagine a lot of other people, is affordable good glass. M43 is absolutely nuts in that regard, and ff mirrorless anyway is nuts expensive. And as a Hobbyist I have absolutely no desire to get into traditional ff dslrs. They are just too fucking big and that's not my jam. I throw a small bag into a small messenger bag. A giant camera I would never use. Fuji glass also isn't cheap and its also generally huge, which imo defeats the purpose of most of their pretty compact bodies. I can actually throw an m43 with a 20mm 1.7 in a jacket pocket, and that's hugely important.
What are some examples of really affordable "good" glass on M43 in your mind? The ones I've seen honestly don't jump out to me as huge bargains, especially when you consider the results you will get with them compared to if you went with APS-C or full frame. The M43 pro bodies (Panasonic GH5 and G9, Olympus OMD E-M1 Mark II) are certainly more affordable at around $1300 ~ $1600 or so, but not by that much compared to an A7 III or X-T3, for example.

There is definitely a size advantage when it comes to the effective reach with the lenses, but obviously that comes at a big depth of field and sensor noise cost, so it's all a balance. I've got a tiny pocketable 1" sensor RX100 V with a 24-70 equivalent zoom reach that takes cracking photos when the light is great, and while it's a huge step above a smartphone, it's still not going to compete with larger sensor sizes when it matters.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
Canon dropping a $499 35mm that seems alright honestly is pretty enticing to me with an affordable RP. My main problem with the Sony's in general is the lack of affordable good glass. A lot of pros in this thread it seems so I get the priority on Sony in the ff realm and Fuji in the crop realm, but if you can get good results with Canon and m43 in the crop space for less money, well, there it is I suppose.

A huge part of the equation for me, and I imagine a lot of other people, is affordable good glass. M43 is absolutely nuts in that regard, and ff mirrorless anyway is nuts expensive. And as a Hobbyist I have absolutely no desire to get into traditional ff dslrs. They are just too fucking big and that's not my jam. I throw a small bag into a small messenger bag. A giant camera I would never use. Fuji glass also isn't cheap and its also generally huge, which imo defeats the purpose of most of their pretty compact bodies. I can actually throw an m43 with a 20mm 1.7 in a jacket pocket, and that's hugely important.
Most of the Fuji glass actually isn't that badly priced if you buy used. Granted the zooms aren't too small, but the very nature of zooms aren't really compact. There are a good amount of pocket friendly M43 primes but at the same time you really don't get the same amount of light gathering/DOF. Though I will admit the Sony stuff isn't too pocket friendly though. Most of the reason for this is the used market isn't that big and the mount is still fairly new. You can cop some good deals on DSLR lenses, but that's because the stuff is older. I think once E mount starts to gather more third party support the lens prices will get more tolerable. regarding pocketable FF...you can go Leica, but none of that is even realistically affordable. You can only do but so much and keep it small. Even with as affordable as some of the M43 stuff is I don't see that many in the wild and I'm in a tourist trap city, keep in mind I see a bit of everything, I just see more DSLR's and Sony than anything else with the occasional Lumix, Olympus and Fuji to round everything out. Pentax is like a Unicorn sighting.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
What are some examples of really affordable "good" glass on M43 in your mind? The ones I've seen honestly don't jump out to me as huge bargains, especially when you consider the results you will get with them compared to if you went with APS-C or full frame. The M43 pro bodies (Panasonic GH5 and G9, Olympus OMD E-M1 Mark II) are certainly more affordable at around $1300 ~ $1600 or so, but not by that much compared to an A7 III or X-T3, for example.

There is definitely a size advantage when it comes to the effective reach with the lenses, but obviously that comes at a big depth of field and sensor noise cost, so it's all a balance. I've got a tiny pocketable 1" sensor RX100 V with a 24-70 equivalent zoom reach that takes cracking photos when the light is great, and while it's a huge step above a smartphone, it's still not going to compete with larger sensor sizes when it matters.
Panny 20mm 1.7 started as a Leica lens, it's crazy sharp. Oly and panny 25mm 1.7/1.8 are also very good. 17mm Oly 1.8 is very nice. For zooms plenty of options up to 300mm ff equivalent that are sharp and relatively fast. I can get down to ff 18mm equiv with sharp results for roughly $150. Oly 9-18 is great too. I could go on. Show me a Fuji or ff lens 18mm ff equiv and how much it costs. Show me a 600mm ff zoom or equiv on Fuji and how much it costs, and also how insanely large it is.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
Yeah the myth of good light lenses on m4/3 is just that. Their pro glass is in the thousands of dollars per lens and doesn’t balance on their bodies at all.

Lenses like the 17/1.8 are fine, but be real about it. That’s an f3.6 lens. It’s fine for the platform but doesn’t compete optically with the larger ff brethren.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
Yeah the myth of good light lenses on m4/3 is just that. Their pro glass is in the thousands of dollars per lens and doesn’t balance on their bodies at all.

Lenses like the 17/1.8 are fine, but be real about it. That’s an f3.6 lens. It’s fine for the platform but doesn’t compete optically with the larger ff brethren.
They are not f whatever equiv. There's more to it than that. And they're not "just fine." Go look at some print m43 and ff meter prints. Whatever. It's not worth talking about on here. Bring up m43 and you just get shit on. It can just be a Fuji and Sony ff forum I guess as legit that's all that's talked about on here and if you bring anything else up well here's 6 posters to shit on you. Have fun with your several thousand dollar systems. Was trying to make a point for folks who can't afford that. But I guess I can't even do that. You can build a 18mm-300mm ff equiv kit with very good results for well under a grand. Good luck doing that with another system.

There are people coming in here asking for affordable options even with body price ranges under $600 and always the answer is Fuji xt-2s or Sony ff. That doesn't make any sense. You think if they can only drop $600 on a body they are going to drop half that or more on lenses each? It's stupid.
 
Last edited:

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
They are not f whatever equiv. There's more to it than that. And they're note "just fine." Go look at some print m43 and ff meter prints. Whatever. It's not worth talking about on here. Bring up m43 and you just get shit on
It is equivalent, though. There's no escaping that. Don't talk about focal length equivalents if you're not going to apply crop factor to the aperture, too.

I don't think there is anything wrong with M43, per se. It has its advantages, but we need to acknowledge the trade offs, too. If we're going to say that full frame is big and heavy, then we can't just pretend that M43 has some advantage in terms of physics. It doesn't.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
They are not f whatever equiv. There's more to it than that. And they're not "just fine." Go look at some print m43 and ff meter prints. Whatever. It's not worth talking about on here. Bring up m43 and you just get shit on. It can just be a Fuji and Sony ff forum I guess.
I had m4/3 for YEARS. I'm not talking out of my ass. I had the 17/1.8, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8. It's a decent platform if you want to run small, cheap primes for sure, but they aren't world beaters and posting like they are CONSTANTLY is disingenuous at best and annoying at worst. I got tired of bad bokeh, shit AF, and uber-small bodies...the platform on a whole is definitely more suited to AF-S casuals who aren't shooting any action to speak of, and once you get into pro-spec bodies and lenses, you're spending just as much as a MUCH better APS-C setup.

Oh, and Zefah just because I'm a pedantic little bitch, there really are no analogs to the RF launch lens in the Sony world except for the 24-105...which Sony just raised the price of theirs so it's now $300 more than the RF Canon.

There's no Sony version of the 50/1.2, 24-70/2, or 35/1.8.
 
Last edited:

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
Alright. This is a pro forum. Label it as such. Maybe I'll make a beginner/hobby thread. The e-peen and lack of concern about $ in here is pretty insufferable.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
Oh, and Zefah just because I'm a pedantic little bitch, there really are no analogs to the RF launch lens in the Sony world except for the 24-105...which Sony just raised the price of theirs so it's now $300 more than the RF Canon.

There's no Sony version of the 50/1.2, 24-70/2, or 35/1.8.
True, indeed. I didn't realize that Sony raised the price of the 24-105 G. I wonder if it was selling really well (which would surprise me considering how popular the Tamron zoom has been).

I guess it just says more about how bad of a value offer the Nikon Z 24-70 is for nearly the same price as the Canon 24-105.

Alright. This is a pro forum. Label it as such.
It's not at all, though... It's just the pro-grade gear is completely affordable now. People who come in with budgets get reasonable advice. Someone on a budget under $1500 would do well to look into a M43 system and we see a lot of Panasonic G85 and G4 recommendations as such. It's just that most people have higher expectations or a desire to "upgrade" down the road.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
I guess it just says more about how bad of a value offer the Nikon Z 24-70 is for nearly the same price as the Canon 24-105.
Let us never speak of the Zed system again =)

If we get prices of those 5 new RF lenses this upcoming week, I'll be happy to eat crow and say Sony is cheaper on the pro lengths.

Alright. This is a pro forum. Label it as such. Maybe I'll make a beginner/hobby thread. The e-peen and lack of concern about $ in here is pretty insufferable.
This is some major projection, my dude. All of us constantly suggest buying used and buying the best you can afford. We are also realists that this is not a hobby you can drop $500 on and get great results. If the best you can afford is m4/3 and that gets your foot into the door of the hobby, that's awesome. It's true the regular posters in here have more expensive kits, but most of us are still just hobbyists.
 
Last edited:

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
True, indeed. I didn't realize that Sony raised the price of the 24-105 G. I wonder if it was selling really well (which would surprise me considering how popular the Tamron zoom has been).

I guess it just says more about how bad of a value offer the Nikon Z 24-70 is for nearly the same price as the Canon 24-105.



It's not at all, though... It's just the pro-grade gear is completely affordable now. People who come in with budgets get reasonable advice. Someone on a budget under $1500 would do well to look into a M43 system and we see a lot of Panasonic G85 and G4 recommendations as such. It's just that most people have higher expectations or a desire to "upgrade" down the road.
What's affordable? I've seen probably a dozen posters come in here in the last couple weeks shocked at how expensive this is and/or asking for $600 or so recommendations and they get recommended into fujis with most lenses in the $300+ range. And then I've seen the response, lol, that's photography. It really doesn't have to be if you aren't a pro, which the people you're talking to clearly aren't.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
I had m4/3 for YEARS. I'm not talking out of my ass. I had the 17/1.8, 45/1.8, and 75/1.8. It's a decent platform if you want to run small, cheap primes for sure, but they aren't world beaters and posting like they are CONSTANTLY is disingenuous at best and annoying at worst. I got tired of bad bokeh, shit AF, and uber-small bodies...the platform on a whole is definitely more suited to AF-S casuals who aren't shooting any action to speak of, and once you get into pro-spec bodies and lenses, you're spending just as much as a MUCH better APS-C setup.

Oh, and Zefah just because I'm a pedantic little bitch, there really are no analogs to the RF launch lens in the Sony world except for the 24-105...which Sony just raised the price of theirs so it's now $300 more than the RF Canon.

There's no Sony version of the 50/1.2, 28-70/2, or 35/1.8.
Just to clarify, that seems like a godly keg lens.
Alright. This is a pro forum. Label it as such. Maybe I'll make a beginner/hobby thread. The e-peen and lack of concern about $ in here is pretty insufferable.
Stop labeling us as something that a lot of us are not. Menelaus is a passionate landscape photographer that has system changed a lot trying to chase the images that pleases him. Zefah takes pics of his kids and the Japanese scenery that sparks his interest. I'm an event and headshot photographer and videographer for a collegiate university on top of being a street and street fashion photographer that has only been a photographer for 3 years and change. There are certain things I like and dislike about everything I have, but I do my best not to be deaf to the complaints around them. There are certain things I like and dislike about M43, but none of the likes put it above any of my current systems so it just turns into why would I buy this. It works for you, this is great, it's great to find a camera system that speaks to you, but it's not for everybody. Sometimes I still feel like I'm trying to find what speaks to me, but at the same I love everything I have for various reasons and I regret NONE of my purchases.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
What's affordable? I've seen probably a dozen posters come in here in the last couple weeks shocked at how expensive this is and/or asking for $600 or so recommendations and they get recommended into fujis with most lenses in the $300+ range. And then I've seen the response, lol, that's photography. It really doesn't have to be if you aren't a pro, which the people you're talking to clearly aren't.
I think the recommendation is to buy used. Almost everyone has a high end smartphone these days. A decent investment needs to be made, especially in lenses, to get results that are far better than they can already get with the device in their pocket.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
I think the recommendation is to buy used. Almost everyone has a high end smartphone these days. A decent investment needs to be made, especially in lenses, to get results that are far better than they can already get with the device in their pocket.
Yep, and that's the main reason I left m4/3. Phones have gotten really damn good and portrait mode is a great cheater tool that can save someone $700 on a mediocre m4/3 setup.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
What's affordable? I've seen probably a dozen posters come in here in the last couple weeks shocked at how expensive this is and/or asking for $600 or so recommendations and they get recommended into fujis with most lenses in the $300+ range. And then I've seen the response, lol, that's photography. It really doesn't have to be if you aren't a pro, which the people you're talking to clearly aren't.
You really can't walk around with a budget of $500 asking for a mirrorless that can do every god damn thing under the sun. You can pretty much go buy a G7, which I tend to do recommend or at least I was recommending that last year. Prices shift, technology shifts and sometimes something better gets really close to other recommendations. I didn't want to buy a camera at first many years ago because I thought it would be a waste of money. One of my coworkers came to me asking for a good cheap camera and I recommended her an RX100vIII. I showed her a G7 and she didn't want anything to do with that because she didn't want to buy more lenses. Photography as a whole isn't fucking cheap. I could run around all day recommending used D3300's but I don't because not everybody wants one and I tend to not recommend stuff I wouldn't want to buy myself. Most of the stuff made within the last three years if not beyond (D4 is from 2012) will take a good image, but at times we do try to do our best to make sure that people would be happy with what we recommend, we don't take this shit that lightly you know. Sometimes it's more than what they want to spend (I would know I've been that guy at the old forum), but it's better to spend that money once, then go through multiple cameras trying to find what makes you happy because that adds up.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
Yep, and that's the main reason I left m4/3. Phones have gotten really damn good and portrait mode is a great cheater tool that can save someone $700 on a mediocre m4/3 setup.
Here's some m43 portraits (from 2014) https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-my-portrait-work-with-m43-can-it-hang-with-the-big-boys-by-spatulaboy.58189/

And a lot of people coming in here asking for help ask specifically about landscapes from a beginner perspective. A lot of people don't even care about portraits. Whatever I'll just drop it and y'all can keep recommending ff and fujis to people on a budget.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
Here's some m43 portraits. https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-my-portrait-work-with-m43-can-it-hang-with-the-big-boys-by-spatulaboy.58189/

And a lot of people coming in here asking for help ask specifically about landscapes from a beginner perspective. A lot of people don't even care about portraits. Whatever I'll just drop it and y'all can keep recommending ff and fujis to people on a budget.
It says it was taken with a $600-ish lens... (Olympus 75mm f/1.8).

I'd sooner recommend a Sony a6000 and Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 lens for portraits under $1,000 personally.

Also, don't make me track down some incredible computational photography generated smartphone portraits :p.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
It says it was taken with a $600-ish lens... (Olympus 75mm f/1.8).

I'd sooner recommend a Sony a6000 and Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 lens for portraits under $1,000 personally.

Also, don't make me track down some incredible computational photography generated smartphone portraits :p.
$325 new on eBay. I have an a6000. I'd never recommend it over a newish Oly m43.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
$325 new on eBay. I have an a6000. I'd never recommend it over a newish Oly m43.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1311.R1.TR11.TRC1.A0.H0.Xolympus+75.TRS0&_nkw=olympus+75mm+1.8&_sacat=0

I only see that price as the current bid, not the Buy It Now price.

Anyway, it takes fine portraits obviously. Which newish Oly m43 would you recommend over the a6000 and for what reason? I'm genuinely curious, because the a6000 is dirt cheap at $375 new on Amazon right now (sub-$300 if you look used).
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
Agree to disagree but I’m an odd case :-P
Lol, I've spoken to you enough times to know your big handed situation. At least you switch systems, I keep them. My camera bag at work kept overflowing so I now store my stuff in my big lighting bag...seeing that stuff physically...yikes.
Here's some m43 portraits (from 2014) https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-my-portrait-work-with-m43-can-it-hang-with-the-big-boys-by-spatulaboy.58189/

And a lot of people coming in here asking for help ask specifically about landscapes from a beginner perspective. A lot of people don't even care about portraits. Whatever I'll just drop it and y'all can keep recommending ff and fujis to people on a budget.
A lot of these are perfectly fine and very well lit. M43 as far as I'm concerned is great for two things. Outside work and indoor portrait studio work where you can drop as much light on the sensor as you want. Some of the indoor stuff I've worked on wouldn't exactly go too well with M43. I buy primarily for my indoor event work since that's predominantly where I make my money. Considering that I've only done a handful of events for my job outside I don't plan my purchases around the sparse outside work I get. I plan for indoors and adjust from there. Even most of my freelance stuff has been indoors. Most landscape photographers wouldn't exactly jump to M43 as well just due to overall dynamic range (this is very important for landscape work), but M43 is serviceable for that as well mainly due to IBIS advancements on that front.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
I think M43 is awesome for stuff like handheld landscapes, too. Pretty much any situation where you planned to use F/5.6 or higher anyway on full frame and also when keeping the shutter speed high is not a priority. Combined with best-in-class IBIS and lens stabilization, you can get some killer results. You're starting to see Olympus do some cool stuff with computational photography on the OMD E-M1X, like handheld pixel shift high-res photos!
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1311.R1.TR11.TRC1.A0.H0.Xolympus+75.TRS0&_nkw=olympus+75mm+1.8&_sacat=0

I only see that price as the current bid, not the Buy It Now price.

Anyway, it takes fine portraits obviously. Which newish Oly m43 would you recommend over the a6000 and for what reason? I'm genuinely curious, because the a6000 is dirt cheap at $375 new on Amazon right now (sub-$300 if you look used).
Ah I misread that. Either way could be had new for much less than $600 and a cheaper 1.7 45 would do well given the crop.

An em10ii or III if you need 4k. Either one much nicer dials, touch screen, better long exposure tech, better lens selection, and overall nicer to shoot with.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
Fair enough. I don't personally hate the a6000 ergonomics, but I know that's a point of displeasure for a lot of people. I'd much prefer the superior image quality and performance over having a touch screen and an extra dial and maybe some buttons. With lenses, it really comes down to what you want to shoot. Outside of ultra wide angle stuff, I wouldn't think M43 had a huge advantage, but again, it comes down to what you want to do.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
Sure, but what would make you recommend it over an a6000? Especially since it's more expensive?
Base ergonomics to begin with. I never liked how that camera felt to be honest. I consider the A6000 to be that "I have to have a cheap mirrorless camera" if all you look at is MSRP. I will always tell a person to track down a cheap X-T1 over it, but ehh, cheap noobie photographers with no budget don't budge on anything. That's the camera aimed at the demographic of people that will use the camera twice and it will collect dust...people like ghostemoji not withstanding because he gets great results out of it. I know this is a stupid blanket statement, but a lot of the main posters in here are truly passionate photographers.
Fair enough. I don't personally hate the a6000 ergonomics, but I know that's a point of displeasure for a lot of people. I'd much prefer the superior image quality and performance over having a touch screen and an extra dial and maybe some buttons. With lenses, it really comes down to what you want to shoot. Outside of ultra wide angle stuff, I wouldn't think M43 had a huge advantage, but again, it comes down to what you want to do.
It's like you read my mind.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
Fair enough. I don't personally hate the a6000 ergonomics, but I know that's a point of displeasure for a lot of people. I'd much prefer the superior image quality and performance over having a touch screen and an extra dial and maybe some buttons. With lenses, it really comes down to what you want to shoot. Outside of ultra wide angle stuff, I wouldn't think M43 had a huge advantage, but again, it comes down to what you want to do.
I'd say you truly underestimate touch screen focus while using the evf. It's amazing.
 

Zefah

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,514
Base ergonomics to begin with. I never liked how that camera felt to be honest. I consider the A6000 to be that "I have to have a cheap mirrorless camera" if all you look at is MSRP. I will always tell a person to track down a cheap X-T1 over it, but ehh, cheap noobie photographers with no budget don't budge on anything. That's the camera aimed at the demographic of people that will use the camera twice and it will collect dust...people like ghostemoji not withstanding because he gets great results out of it. I know this is a stupid blanket statement, but a lot of the main posters in here are truly passionate photographers.
Yeah, if you hate the ergonomics (as many do), then nothing will save the camera for you. For $375, though, it's easily the best performer in terms of autofocus and image quality.

I'd say you truly underestimate touch screen focus while using the evf. It's amazing.
I've only tried it on the EOS R and was not impressed. I'll take your word for it, though, because I know it's not going to be the same implementation with every manufacturer. My A9 will apparently get it in the next firmware update, but I'm not counting on Sony to deliver much in terms of touch screen functionality.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
Had to dig through my emails, but I actually rec'd an EM 10 MK II with 14-42 EZ to a friend who felt her T3i was too bulky. At the end of the day, she wanted something for general family photography that wouldn't break the bank and it was a good solution for her.

Most people that come in here looking for advice don't strike me as the same mindset, and as such, I'd never recommend such a solution. It has its place though.

I'd say you truly underestimate touch screen focus while using the evf. It's amazing.
I turn off touch screens cause my nose is as big as my hands and touch screens are a total liability. I'm jealous of people that can use them.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
Yeah, if you hate the ergonomics (as many do), then nothing will save the camera for you. For $375, though, it's easily the best performer in terms of autofocus and image quality.



I've only tried it on the EOS R and was not impressed. I'll take your word for it, though, because I know it's not going to be the same implementation with every manufacturer. My A9 will apparently get it in the next firmware update, but I'm not counting on Sony to deliver much in terms of touch screen functionality.
Olympus implementation works great, you can change the focus box size down to extremely small or quite large with the touch screen , and the touch screen is very responsive.
 

Ivalice

Member
Oct 25, 2017
926
Not a fan of the a6000 line but that grip is so so good. Makes it super easy to hold and I wish other companies would steal that design.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
Yeah, if you hate the ergonomics (as many do), then nothing will save the camera for you. For $375, though, it's easily the best performer in terms of autofocus and image quality.



I've only tried it on the EOS R and was not impressed. I'll take your word for it, though, because I know it's not going to be the same implementation with every manufacturer. My A9 will apparently get it in the next firmware update, but I'm not counting on Sony to deliver much in terms of touch screen functionality.
Yeah a lot of cameras just fit like a glove in a way, but not the A6000 series. I'm very used to DSLR ergos and that thing is just atrocious in regards to hand feel. The fatter gripped Oly and Panasonic cameras feel way better than the A6000 bodies. I almost got a Panasonic G7 until I learned how to change aperture on the X-T2 so there's nothing really wrong with the M43 cameras, they just don't stack up (for me) regarding event work since a lot of what I do for work isn't exactly strictly for my own personal consumption. I have done two ads, some website stuff and video work and I like for it to look a certain way. I am actually preferred over our freelancers because quite frankly their stuff isn't great looking or just looks like the photographer put 70% effort in at best.
 

Ivalice

Member
Oct 25, 2017
926
RE: 4/3

Was seriously considering an Olympus EPL9 a while back but the lack of EVF killed it for me. Camera companies really need to stop forgetting about viewfinders in their base models. It’s just silly.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,957
RE: 4/3

Was seriously considering an Olympus EPL9 a while back but the lack of EVF killed it for me. Camera companies really need to stop forgetting about viewfinders in their base models. It’s just silly.
Exactly this. I do not buy a camera that has no viewfinder and that doesn't have an ISO button. That's far too much menu diving for something very basic and essential.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,682
Exactly this. I do not buy a camera that has no viewfinder and that doesn't have an ISO button. That's far too much menu diving for something very basic and essential.
Loosely related, I'm loving having ISO set to the round wheel on the A7 back. Can actually control the whole triangle without looking away from the EVF, which I could never say for Canon.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,765
RE: 4/3

Was seriously considering an Olympus EPL9 a while back but the lack of EVF killed it for me. Camera companies really need to stop forgetting about viewfinders in their base models. It’s just silly.
Well yeah the epl9 is the very bottom of the Olympus line targeted towards super casuals. Omd side the em10ii or iii have evfs and aren't really more expensive than the super base pen models. The pen-f also has an evf and is super cheap refurbed off of Olympus site or new/used on eBay, and is quite possibly the most beautiful modern camera. Also all of the olympus evfs iircs are high res oleds, whereas panny skimps with LCDs.

Pen-f ii should be hitting pretty soon with with new 20mp sensor and hopefully pdaf. 1st gen does have the 20mp sensor but no 4k or other features from em1ii. Does have very cool monochrome modes though. Hands down takes the best b&w pics on the market. Olympus does have excellent color and unbeatable b&w jpegs. Olympus I would say in general is the very best system for in camera results if that's something you're into. Even highlights and shadows you can see the results before you hit the shutter. I rarely need to do any post honestly, especially given it so easy to make some quick tweaks if I'm not seeing what I like and just hit some more quick shots. Omd has monochrome too that you cans sort of tweak to be almost on the pen-f level but it's not quite there.

 
Last edited: