Equipment Micro 4/3 kits - alternatives to a DSLR?

So i find my self having less and less time to bring out my full dslr kit and i am thinking of downsizing to a micro 4/3's kit. But i am completely clueless what to go with. I currently don't have any loyalty to a current system as i will be selling my current canon gear. Any ideas or pointers to reviews for particular models would be great.

 

Here's one I made earlier - http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=214677

Same boat as yourself - tired of lugging a backpack around, but unhappy to sacrifice too much in terms of IQ or functionality

The NEX series are very nice, and compact, Olympus PENs are nice, but getting a bit behind the times for the cost IMO, Fuji x100 is hard to ignore, if you can live with a permanent fixed lens. I discounted 4/3 quite early on in favour of the larger APS-C sensor though.

 

I think the Panasonic Lumix GH2 is regarded as the best micro 4/3 camera currently available - the stills/video combination is ahead of anything else. You also get the flippable screen (and touch control) which is always handy. I have the GH1 and have been very happy with it.

The GH cameras and lenses are expensive, and ultimately you'll always know that a larger camera can theoretically provide more range in the stills department, but if you're sure you want micro 4/3 then I think you certainly should consider it. The G3 is also well regarded, but is not the premium offering compared to the GH2.

 

^ erm

 

erm what?

 

There was a spambot, it got nuked along with the offending post.

 

I don't get this.

Ok, I don't have either right now. I'm considering a purchase before a return to the Alps for another winter in a few months.

With all the reading I've done, I can't see what any mirrorless system offers. The sensors are generally smaller (though not always) and the bodies are smaller, but the lenses aren't. You have the possible exception of the Pana 20mm pancake, but aside from that you're still carrying bulky lenses. So why not just stick with SLR?

As far as I can make out, it either fits in a pocket, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, it may as well be SLR. Am I missing something?

 

The point, realistically, is lightness and a decreased number of accessories.

Even my 1100D, as a pretty small SLR body, is easily twice the size of the NEX-5 my Dad has. The NEX without lens is the same size as a decent compact, stick a pancake on it and it's a very usable smallish camera. The 18-55 is quite a bit smaller and lighter than my stock one, and the zooms are similarly shrunk.

Packaged up together for a day out it's all a lot smaller - and comfortably fits into a small shoulder bag with filters etc and comes in at a couple of kg at most, rather than needing something like a backpack.

 

problem with mirrorless camera is the lack of view finder. you'd have to pay premium like NEX-7 for a half botched electronic view finder.

some say mirrorless is the future, but i think the sensor isn't there yet. need much higher dynamic range sensors that can produce what we would see on Optical VF's

 

Agreed, I find it very limiting to try and snap on his NEX compared to even my crappy SLR, all down to lack of VF.

 

I don't care about viewfinders. I come from a point and shoot background and I'd prefer decent live view if it was as good as a standard viewfinder. Especially as a specs wearer and for more stealthy shots when I don't want to interfer with the subject(s) or sneak those every-now-and-again candid shots that don't happen when you have a camera pressed against your face and you actually look like you're taking a photo.

My point is, surely a bag is a bag? If I can't carry it on me all the time, I may as well have an SLR, no?

Is there a mirrorless camera with a pancake lens that can take a decent range of photographs AND fit in my pocket, with noticeably better IQ than a Canon S100 or similar??

 

sadly no, because there is a lens mount, you will have to suffer the large dimension because of lens sticking out of the camera.

the view finder is probably a relic that only photographers who've used film would want. i am even considering to install a split focusing screen on my DSLR.

i had no problem being stealthy with my DSLR and a massive super zoom lens. but that was on busy streets, i can see where you are coming from.

 

I would hate not having a viewfinder, makes taking photos much more, interesting to me, no idea why, just feels weird if using live view.

 

And so would you agree that you may as well have an SLR and that mirrorless cameras are merely a lower quality, higher priced compromise that holds no point for the vast majority of people?

 

The point you don't distinguish is that a 4/3rds fits into a much smaller, more convenient bag. If you can't appreciate the difference between carrying a manbag for a 4/3rds and a much larger near-backpack for an SLR+2 lenses etc then there's no point carrying on.

 

I'd say horses for courses here.

For example I added together the weights of the NEX-5N body & all the lenses that were available on the Sony site, which include:

Nex-5N body: 260g
16mm f/2.8: 67g
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6: 192g
18-200mm f/3.5-6.3: 524g
30mm f/3.5 macro: 138g
55-210mm f/4.5-6.3: 345g
24mm f/1.8: 225g
50mm f/1.8: 202g
Total: 1953g

And to compare it with a fraction of my kit:

Canon 1Ds MkII: 1215g
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II: 1490g
Total: 2705g

So it depends on what you look for in a camera. The comparison isn't "fair" because of the totally different systems and specs other than weight, but like I said, it depends on what you want. Weight is definitely one of the strong suits of a mirrorless system, but they are not for me (at least as my first camera choice).

 

I think that's largely my point, yeah.

I carry heavy bags when skiing or walking anyway. So it's a bit lighter. So what? It's not any more convenient and I still need *A* bag of some kind.

Darkened basically nails it. Where they ARE good is weight. But with the corresponding drop in quality and the continued requirement of a bag of some sort, I wonder just how useful they are for the vast majority of people. They're also bloody expensive for what they are.

But sure, if you're looking save a couple of pounds in weight, fill your boots.

In terms of suggestions for the OP, I'd be looking at retaining the SLR and getting a Fuji X100 as an "everyday" camera. Or if budget is tighter:
Canon S100
Pana LX7
Olympus XZ-1 (which is mentally cheap at the moment)
Sony RX100

 

I'd say that they fill the gap between DSLRs and point-and-shoots quite well.

Mirrorless cameras actually created a whole new segment in between DSLRs and rangefinders like Leica M-series. The main issue I see is that this segment isn't fully matured yet, resulting in awkward user experience. Also the technology (EVF etc.) isn't quite there yet, or like anything else in this world, the technology is probably already there, but utilizing it in a consumer product isn't viable yet.

The idea is good, providing a camera which is definitely smaller and lighter than a DSLR, but with close to similar IQ. At least even the 4/3rds cameras offer a bigger sensor than most of the point-and-shoots do. Add interchangeable lenses (not to mention easily adaptable manual lenses) to the mix and it isn't a bad combination. Is it ready for professional use...I'd say not yet, but I'm still open to the possibility that they might be in the future. Maybe even in near future.

For professional use I'd expect them to look quite a bit different than the current models, since let's face it, they'd have to actually be bigger physically for use with wide aperture lenses, which aren't getting any smaller because of the laws of physics. Still I don't expect cameras to have mirrors or pentaprisms for too long now, they add weight and the mirror adds vibrations and a possibly breakable part inside the camera, so getting rid of them doesn't sound such a bad idea once the EVF technology can provide a viable option to an OVF.

 

I'm going to come in with a whole hearted reply

iPhone 4S, the camera on mine is pretty damn good and for just capturing memories rather then something you want to print/sell/blow up the size of a house it does the job & its on me all the time.

 

I'd go with this I now refuse to buy a replacment to my knackered compact as the s3 camera is good enough for simple captures when I'm not carrying the DSLR.