M4/3 Cameras

[Auroka]

I've been thinking about getting a m4/3 camera for awhile and I'm just wondering what you guys would recommend.

At first I was leaning towards the GF1, then it was discontinued causing the price to rise... :/

So now I've been leaning towards the EPL2.

What do you guys think? Get a EPL2, a different m4/3, or wait?

[crazzy88ss]

What are your needs for wanting one? They're typically more expensive than comparable DSLRs/P&S cameras.

[Auroka]

What are your needs for wanting one? They're typically more expensive than comparable DSLRs/P&S cameras.

Well I mainly want one for it's size & photo quality.

I've been borrowing my school's Cannon Rebel XS w/ 18-55mm lens and it's not the greatest street photography shooting experience. :/

Right now I'm kinda all over the place, street photography one day, nature the next...

I've never shot any sports yet though, and I understand m4/3s aren't as fast as DSLRs.

[crazzy88ss]

What about the XS do you not like? Be specific, because I can't imagine a M4/3 camera being better than the XS, at least with a comparable lenses.

[Argote]

I'd look into the Sony NEX cameras too, their bigger APS-C sensor makes then deliver better Image Quality (though it also means bigger lenses).

[Auroka]

What about the XS do you not like? Be specific, because I can't imagine a M4/3 camera being better than the XS, at least with a comparable lenses.

- Plastic build - EPL2 is plastic to so yea... can't complain about plastic to much

- Size - Only reason this is a problem is because its not my camera so I haven't invested in a camera bag. A m4/3 looks appealing to me because I can put a 20mm on it an fit it in a coat pocket.

I have been looking at other Canon DSLRs though - which would you say is the best in the $700 below range?

If you haven't noticed already... I'm all over the place :/

[Draconian Guppy]

I agree with crazzy, IMO mirrorless cameras aren't quite there yet, lens selections is limited, granted there are more options, but still it really limits you. Say in the future you want add an external flash, the flash will probably be bigger than the camera itself, not to mention performance is not up to par with full body dSLR as pointed out above. BUTT if I were to go down that road, i'd go the Olympus road seeing as how their "kit" lens perform really well.

[crazzy88ss]

Yea I really have to go against the M4/3. You'll out grow it in a year or so. And if you don't outgrow it, it's probably because it was "too much" camera for you to begin with.

What exactly don't you like about the plastic? The exterior build or interior? Cuz even $5000 cameras have plastic on the outside. You don't get metal interiors, at least on DSLRs, until above the $1000 range.

Size is the only thing the M4/3 cameras have, but then why not get a Canon G12 (or 11, or 10, or 9. Used of course) or a Nikon P7000. They're about $400 but still offer good performance a tiny size.

[Auroka]

Yea I really have to go against the M4/3. You'll out grow it in a year or so. And if you don't outgrow it, it's probably because it was "too much" camera for you to begin with.

What exactly don't you like about the plastic? The exterior build or interior? Cuz even $5000 cameras have plastic on the outside. You don't get metal interiors, at least on DSLRs, until above the $1000 range.

Size is the only thing the M4/3 cameras have, but then why not get a Canon G12 (or 11, or 10, or 9. Used of course) or a Nikon P7000. They're about $400 but still offer good performance a tiny size.

Then what $500~$700 DSLR would you recommend?

[crazzy88ss]

Nikon D5000 (or soon to be released D5100?).

Nikon D90 used.

Canon D50 used.

Canon t2i (used? Iunno if they make these new still).

[Draconian Guppy]

crazzy, after learning that flash commander is actually useful, I for one, don't recommend nikon neutered entry level cameras :( ( And not to mention the competitors like sony, canon and pentax( I think) have said features ) It's not till you want to use a missing feature that you realize you need it :/ but hey, you live and learn

[crazzy88ss]

Ok but his price range is $500-700...

And I don't use the pop up commander on my D90 any more. It's typically not good enough for what I need. I use an SB800 or 900 or my cybersyncs.

[Draconian Guppy]

because you shot mostly sports right? But for stationary subjects it ok. When you use a flash commander are response times faster?

[Argote]

DSLRs I'd consider at that price range:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos1100d&products=sony_slta33&products=sony_dslra560&products=pentax_kr&products=nikon_d3100

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T3-Digital-18-55mm/dp/B004J3Y9U6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301539271&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B003ZYF3LO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1301539339&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-r-3-0-Inch-18-55mm-Black/dp/B00427Z7N2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1301539198&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Megapixels-Camera-18-55mm-F3-5-5-6/dp/B0048CFV6O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301539149&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SLTA33L-Translucent-Technology-Panorama/dp/B0043B3DH4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301539165&sr=8-1

[crazzy88ss]

No, I'm not talking about flash and sports. For sports I use the cybersyncs, but that's not what I was refering to.

Response times are just as fast using the Pop-up or the SB900. The difference is the Pop-up is tiny and can only point in 1 direction. The SB900 goes 360 degrees and can be zoomed to 200mmDX or 300mmFX.

The only time I'm shooting w/ the Pop-up is if I'm in a small room using 1 light.

[SojIrOu]

I'd say a compact DSLR like the D3100 ($600 with kit lens) would fit your budget nicely and give you access to quality lenses. You don't need very high fps to shoot sports as it is the faster lenses that gives you the faster shutter speeds and better autofocusing to capture the moment.

I'd recommend a refurbished D90 over the D3100 if your budget affords you to do so because you can then buy all the great AF-D lenses too.

On the Canon side, the T2i is a great camera and you can buy them refurbished for around $650 with kit lens or $700 new for the body only.

Once you decide on your body then save up to buy some fast glass.

[the evn show]

The problem with the Micro 4/3s cameras is that they're a really strange mix of features. They have the enthusiast controls over exposure which are lost on people that would typically want a "good" point and shoot, but they lack a lot of the flexibility that a proper dSLR provides and so would be questionably useful for a serious photography enthusiast.

I've got one of the Olympus M4/3s (EP-1): for what it is i think it's great. It replaced my old "walk around" rig (450d+nifty fifty) because it provided similar quality in a much smaller/lighter package and the autofocus speed is much better. The problem is the price: at about $800 with a 50mm equivalent lens you're well into entry-level DLSR territory and that's a really hard sell. It'll take great photos for something that size but a lot of people aren't willing to deal with the limitations involved in a camera that doesn't have a flash nor any sort of zoom functionality. It's the sort of thing I'll keep in my pocket when I know I'm going to want pictures (like a party or walking around a city on vacation) but don't really plan to be "out taking photos". As soon as I switch to photographer mode I'm going to want my DLSR: they take better pictures, have access to better glass, are more easily customized to the environment, and function a lot better ergonomically (bigger camera+lens is going to be more stable hand-held and less awkward on a tripod).

Once you take your 4/3s camera and start bolting on a flash and a general purpose zoom lens (17-48mm) or maybe a short telephoto lens the thing gets so bulky that you may as well just grab the DSLR. The value proposition drops off really quickly if you're not using one with a fast pancake lens (the 17mm or 25mm f/2.8s). The only other lens option (IMO) is the 14-35 F/2.0 (similar field of view to the canon lens you were using but much brighter) but the package ends up having no size advantage over a Rebel T#i and it's not any cheaper when you factor in the cost of glass/flash.

I have absolutely no complaints about the build quality: the only plastic you can feel are the buttons and the screen on the back: the rest is a big slab of metal. They feel great in your hands as you'd expect from a piece of kit that's probably closer to $1000 once you factor in a flash, case, and memory cards. The on screen interface and controls feel weird to me but that's a mix of being used to canon's controls and the compromise of using a small camera. It's not hard to use, but it takes a bit longer to adjust your exposure compensation is than it would with dual jog dials and a couple more dedicated buttons.

TL/DR: If you have a DSLR and want a smaller pocketable camera I'd absolutely recommend one if you're not put-off by the price. If it's your first step beyond a point-and-shoot then you're going to be much happier with a dSLR from Canon or Nikon.

[Draconian Guppy]

The problem with the Micro 4/3s cameras is that they're a really strange mix of features. They have the enthusiast controls over exposure which are lost on people that would typically want a "good" point and shoot, but they lack a lot of the flexibility that a proper dSLR provides and so would be questionably useful for a serious photography enthusiast.

I've got one of the Olympus M4/3s (EP-1): for what it is i think it's great. It replaced my old "walk around" rig (450d+nifty fifty) because it provided similar quality in a much smaller/lighter package and the autofocus speed is much better. The problem is the price: at about $800 with a 50mm equivalent lens you're well into entry-level DLSR territory and that's a really hard sell. It'll take great photos for something that size but a lot of people aren't willing to deal with the limitations involved in a camera that doesn't have a flash nor any sort of zoom functionality. It's the sort of thing I'll keep in my pocket when I know I'm going to want pictures (like a party or walking around a city on vacation) but don't really plan to be "out taking photos". As soon as I switch to photographer mode I'm going to want my DLSR: they take better pictures, have access to better glass, are more easily customized to the environment, and function a lot better ergonomically (bigger camera+lens is going to be more stable hand-held and less awkward on a tripod).

Once you take your 4/3s camera and start bolting on a flash and a general purpose zoom lens (17-48mm) or maybe a short telephoto lens the thing gets so bulky that you may as well just grab the DSLR. The value proposition drops off really quickly if you're not using one with a fast pancake lens (the 17mm or 25mm f/2.8s). The only other lens option (IMO) is the 14-35 F/2.0 (similar field of view to the canon lens you were using but much brighter) but the package ends up having no size advantage over a Rebel T#i and it's not any cheaper when you factor in the cost of glass/flash.

I have absolutely no complaints about the build quality: the only plastic you can feel are the buttons and the screen on the back: the rest is a big slab of metal. They feel great in your hands as you'd expect from a piece of kit that's probably closer to $1000 once you factor in a flash, case, and memory cards. The on screen interface and controls feel weird to me but that's a mix of being used to canon's controls and the compromise of using a small camera. It's not hard to use, but it takes a bit longer to adjust your exposure compensation is than it would with dual jog dials and a couple more dedicated buttons.

TL/DR: If you have a DSLR and want a smaller pocketable camera I'd absolutely recommend one if you're not put-off by the price. If it's your first step beyond a point-and-shoot then you're going to be much happier with a dSLR from Canon or Nikon.

What he said :p