Micro 4/3 again. The Oly 75mm is a special lens. And the 17.5 is the right focal length for lots of shots with enough speed to work with kids indoors (a plus for me) and it is small. I don’t have much use for the Oly 12mm and it was really expensive. I have the fancy Leica/Panasonic 25mm and I love the color on it and how close I can get to the subject but it seems to stay in the bag.
I’m mourning the death of my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 with a speed booster, which made it a 39mm (80mm on m4/3) f.9. That was nice. It weighed a ton but I loved it. 10 years ago I got it for $45 on eBay. They go for a lot more now. Something came loose inside mine and it is dead. Vintage lenses with speed boosters are super duper fun on m4/3.
for amount of light f0.95 is better than anything else. but for depth of field, on a 4/3 sensor it’s effectively an f1.8-equivalent lens. Otherwise I agree there is something inexplicable about how some lenses mate with a sensor. I have a cheap 25/2.8 permanently affixed to an old Panasonic GF1 m4/3 and have made some very nice snaps with it.
I’m thinking of getting a modern-ish mirrorless camera soon. most of my limited photo experience has been phone + various dabbling with disposable film cameras (which I love!) and a hand-me-down Minolta XG-1 with a 45mm prime, though to be honest I didn’t know anything about lenses until I started researching getting a new camera. most of my interest is in “street” photography, nature/travel photos when I go camping, portraits of friends, and having a decent way to document live performances (nothing special, just would like something that does acceptable video, esp in lower light).
might be a dumb question, but is the relative lack of micro 4/3 love here due to the smaller sensors? I do really like the idea of having lots of lens options (especially used), but knowing myself I’ll likely find one or two things, likely just primes, and stick with them. one of them will probably be something old and/or weird, like a holga lens + adapter.
my main motivation in getting something with interchangeable lenses is to experiment with various lens options, especially those older/weirder ones. would I maybe be better off with a larger sensor camera for that use? the compact aspect is what attracted me to the MFT format (easy to carry means I’ll have it with me more/always day-to-day + I like to pack light when backpacking/bikepacking), but it seems that some of the Fujis and Sonys are basically the same physical size as MFT options anyway. reading the positive feedback about the Fuji film simulations is making me consider them since I am not the sort of person who wants to spend a ton of time editing in post for all my shots, and the immediacy of the controls is something I hadn’t noticed until reading this thread but that is very appealing.
my main considerations:
will do some video, but no need for ultra-pro results at the moment
want to use lenses with “personality”
compact is a necessity - not interested in options that are nearly DSLR in size, and I’d really like it to be smaller in all dimensions than my old SLR/prime with whatever my primary lens ends up being (which I’d expect to be <50mm equivalent)
budget <$500 for a used body and used prime lens (or at least adapter to let me use my Minolta lens to start)
idk how important image stablization is, but if I could do some 0.5s+ exposures without a tripod that would be amazing, and it seems like some of the modern MFTs can do that acceptably
relative ease of controls is important, especially since I’ll likely use it a lot with manual focus lenses (I guess focus peaking helps here? new to that concept). minimal/no menu diving for common controls is definitely preferable
viewfinder = essential
was leaning towards a Panasonic GX85 with the 12-32mm kit lens or a ~20mm prime (40mm equiv.) before this thread and might still go that route but looking forward to any recommendations folks have! thanks y’all!
I think this is the main consideration, and the answer is yes—purely for the tradeoffs you’ll make in field of view (crop factor). unless you want to work with a predominantly narrow field of view, adapting old cheap rangefinder or SLR lenses will be a bit of a hassle.
a Fuji XE-2 or -3 might be a good place to look, given your criteria.
side note: I personally try to go as light as humanly possible for backpacking cameras. I’m excited for the new Ricoh GRiii.
I actually have a Ricoh GX200 that I’ve shot only a couple hundred photos on but I think I got sand in the lens mechanism and it won’t work anymore…turns on but gives an error message and won’t take photos. I did really like it until it stopped working, but it was also my first/only decent digital so I have little to compare it to. I should see if it is able to be repaired, at least to have as a more compact option for backpacking/pocket use!
as someone who also uses a minolta rokkor-x 45/2 and recently purchased a replacement a6000 body for under $500, have you considered it?
bc of the crop factor the 45/2 becomes like a 62.5mm equivalent but my copy is really nice and i’ve gotten great photos with it. i haven’t taken this lens backpacking but i have taken the a6000 on many hikes and overnights. I agree with others that the Ricoh GR is a more ideal form factor but i got what i got.
the minolta 45 on a m4/3 sensor is going to be an even longer equivalent focal length so make sure that’s okay w you.
on a sony a7 series the 45mm would be 45mm and imo and excellent combo.
DO check out the fuji mirrorless cameras I think they are great and have some more backpackable lens choices
Looking at buying a mirrorless for travel etc. Leaning towards the Fuji Xs… Three or four real options…
XT1 body… Display model from shop $650CAD (would likely get a 27mm 2.8 pancake used one available local for $300CAD)
XT100… New $800CAD w/15-45 2.8… or body for $650CAD and do the same pancake as above.
X100F… New $1650CAD
X100T… Used $800CAD
okay I’m not a fuji user but think they are great cameras and the lens selection is fantastic. so:
really how much do you want to spend?
I’d advise against the XT1 and X100T as they have 16mp sensors and the prices aren’t low enough for me to say hey that’s alright for that price.
the processor on the X100F is better than the XT100 and its definitely way cooler looking but it’s up to you whether that’s worth the CADs.
obviously I can’t comment on lenses I haven’t used but I would take that pancake everywhere. my main thing with a camera is that it’s gotta be something you want to (and can) take with you everywhere. I don’t have any zoom lenses either so that’s just me.
Ya I think I would be fine with a fixed focal length. But for the price difference between the XT100 & X100f it becomes interchangeable lenses vs optical viewfinder/style. Don’t think the budget is there for the X100f anyway.
you learn the lens, and the 23mm (35 equivalent) is a very “social” focal length
the lens is pretty good
“see in the dark” sensor
in-camera raw processing and the jpegs that come out are fantastic
couple of less nice things
x-trans dsp hates foliage
for face detection it simply isn’t a Sony
all this is valid for the first X100, and for S(econd), T(hird), and F(ourth). If I was getting one today, I’d go for the F, which has a larger sensor, is faster to focus and doesn’t try to reacquire focus between shots. That’s not to say you’d hate the T. Just a different kind of “personality”.
I’ve been a Fuji X shooter since it came out and love the system.
If you ever plan to get into the interchangeable lenses, then consider the lenses an investment and the body as a potential upgrade over time.
I started with the X-Pro1 and bought a number of great lenses… eventually I got the X-Pro2 body and the lenses are still great
For example, if you get the X-T100 now and bust some lenses… if you love the system you could eventually get an X-T2 (or whatever is current) and those lenses are still a good investment.
I haven’t use the X-T100, but it looks like a great option from what I’ve seen. And I can’t say enough nice things about the system in general. Fuji’s in camera jpegs and film simulations are phenomenal.
In case anyone’s thinking about a mirrorless camera for video as well as stills… I’ve recently switched careers and started working as a producer on documentary films & TV. I really wanted to learn to self-shoot, so I ended up buying myself a second-hand Sony A7S about a month ago.
I got a mk1 model, which means I could put together a useable shooting setup (including a pair of prime and autofocus cine lenses, some vintage lens adapters, tripod, mic, massive SD card etc etc) for about 800 quid. It’s been the perfect camera to learn on - surprisingly easy to get to grips with, but perfectly capable of professional-level footage, and genuinely insane low-light performance, goes up to something absurd like 409,000 ISO.
The only downside is that I can’t shoot 4K, but that wasn’t a dealbreaker for me (the updated A7Sii costs twice as much, even second-hand). Can recommend it for anyone else looking for something similar.
I went mirrorless in 2014 I think and haven’t looked back. First I got Olympus OM-D E-M10 and couple of cheap Sigma primes, it was a fine set and I really liked the body despite it being on the low end of the lineup. Last winter I upgraded to 35mm sensor with used a7, Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 and Zeiss Batis 25mm and oh my is it amazing. I’m not a pixel peeper, but the quality is on a whole other level and it’s a joy to shoot with. I didn’t even consider switching back to DSLR as for me EVF is superior to any optical viewfinder, I can’t stand the idea of relying on the light meter or chimping to check the exposure anymore. The smaller size is just a nice bonus.
I’m inches from selling off all my Nikon crop-factor kit and going Fuji. I am currently torn between the XT-2 (secondhand) and… something the size down, so T-20/30/E-3. I am lost in a sea of cameras.
It’s mainly the ergonomics, for me: I have small hands, but the T-30 just feels small, and the joystick is in a stupid place. The T-2 is… chunky, and perhaps oversize for what I need, but so many things just fall under my hands. Then again, I’m coming from a D7000, and the moment I pick that up after some time holding an X-T2, I just wonder if I was fine with the larger Fuji.
I plan to use it remarkably simply: most of my pictures are handheld, aperture priority, with short zooms or primes. I like hiking with a camera. I think it’s going to end up being a T2…
As a note, I’m also at the point where cameras are Good Enough: lowlight is magic these days, and my main problem is keeping enough storage onhand for increasingly large RAW files.
Oh, that reminds me: Fuji shooters, what are you processing in/with/at all?
(In an ideal world, I’d have a K1000 or FM2 with a digital back and all would be right with the world, but the only way to head that way seems to be at the top end of the market, not the bottom. sigh.)
In my experience the Fuji jpegs and film modes are hard to beat. I used to process my own raw files in Lightroom, but switched completely to the Fuji in camera jpegs. I setup my favorite film modes, tweaked their settings, and put them on a quick access button. It feels a lot more like shooting film, and the jpegs still give you more than enough processing leeway if you want to do some adjustments in post.
Lots of people talking about the X-T### but I much prefer the X-Pro2 for ergonomics, size, and shooting style. Worth a look if you ever lusted after a Leica or other rangefinder.