Going to M43 from full frame
Discussion
I’m thinking about buying a micro 4/3 camera primarily for travel after a recent trip to Canada. My trusty Canon 5d mk3 didn’t get out of the bag much as it’s a bit of a lump and gets in the way of our very active 5 year old.
After (too much) looking about I think an Olympus OM-10 IV or M5 III would fit the bill.
I can get a new OM10 or used M5 for the £500 ish I can spend.
Both would be using something like the 12-32 lens for maximum packability. I’ll maybe pick up a wide prime for night shots too.
Anyone using M43 for night/star shots and general landscape/s? My main concern is after 10 years with the 5d I’m used to its capabilities and it fits nicely in my hand but need something easier to carry with me so I can use it more. My photography has pretty much stopped for the last few years and I’d like to get it going again!
After (too much) looking about I think an Olympus OM-10 IV or M5 III would fit the bill.
I can get a new OM10 or used M5 for the £500 ish I can spend.
Both would be using something like the 12-32 lens for maximum packability. I’ll maybe pick up a wide prime for night shots too.
Anyone using M43 for night/star shots and general landscape/s? My main concern is after 10 years with the 5d I’m used to its capabilities and it fits nicely in my hand but need something easier to carry with me so I can use it more. My photography has pretty much stopped for the last few years and I’d like to get it going again!
I went from FF to MFT because I needed to reduce the weight I was carrying. The camera bodies are not that much lighter, but the lenses are. Had I not jumped, I would have happily remained with FF.
Firstly, there is no significant drop in quality. I have a G9 and G9ii, and the video on the latter is class-leading regardless of FF or MFT. You've probably seen a film where it provided B-roll.
Noise: modern MFT has addressed much of the problem and software in post can get rid of most of the little that remains.
Quality: for me, using images and video for YouTube and illustrating online articles, it is more than I need. I've had 16mp MFT images used as the cover of an A4, four-colour magazine, and one was cropped by about 15%. My G9ii is 25mp, and there are many other enhancements. I have an A1 image in my living room that gains a lot of positive comment. I have an A0 that looks great as well, although my wife thinks an image of a car, even a TVR, should not be in a living room. Quality is excellent for all prosumer use.
The OM is great going by its reviews but I have had no personal experience. OM cameras certainly look better than Panasonics.
Lenses: I have a 12-60, that is 24-120 in 'old money', f3.5 kit lens and it is great quality. If I was going to do what you are, I would take my all-but-weightless, f1.4, 25mm (50mm) lens and crop, especially if I might be taking photos in low-light conditions. It is my favourite lens and not only because of its quality. It also give good bokah if that is your thing. In addition I have a 14-140mm, 45mm macro prime, 80mm macro prime and 100-300mm, giving a range of, in FF, from 24mm to 600mm. I could not have afforded all them in FF. One thing which is not often mentioned is the cost of equivalent lenses. Compare the 100-300mm (200-600) Panasonic lens to a FF max 600mm.
With regards macro, 1:1 is more like 1:2 (or is that 2:1?) in MFT. Whatever, images are twice as close/twice the size.
As I said, I would not have gone for MFT if I could have remained with FF, but I have lost nothing in the change, apart from what I lost with selling the FF gear.
Downsides is limited to other photographers telling you why they think their particular choice of camera is so much better. I expect that goes for everyone else.
I've also got a Google Pixel 8 Pro. It's what I would use for general travel photography unless there were specific situations where one would need something a bit more flexible.
Firstly, there is no significant drop in quality. I have a G9 and G9ii, and the video on the latter is class-leading regardless of FF or MFT. You've probably seen a film where it provided B-roll.
Noise: modern MFT has addressed much of the problem and software in post can get rid of most of the little that remains.
Quality: for me, using images and video for YouTube and illustrating online articles, it is more than I need. I've had 16mp MFT images used as the cover of an A4, four-colour magazine, and one was cropped by about 15%. My G9ii is 25mp, and there are many other enhancements. I have an A1 image in my living room that gains a lot of positive comment. I have an A0 that looks great as well, although my wife thinks an image of a car, even a TVR, should not be in a living room. Quality is excellent for all prosumer use.
The OM is great going by its reviews but I have had no personal experience. OM cameras certainly look better than Panasonics.
Lenses: I have a 12-60, that is 24-120 in 'old money', f3.5 kit lens and it is great quality. If I was going to do what you are, I would take my all-but-weightless, f1.4, 25mm (50mm) lens and crop, especially if I might be taking photos in low-light conditions. It is my favourite lens and not only because of its quality. It also give good bokah if that is your thing. In addition I have a 14-140mm, 45mm macro prime, 80mm macro prime and 100-300mm, giving a range of, in FF, from 24mm to 600mm. I could not have afforded all them in FF. One thing which is not often mentioned is the cost of equivalent lenses. Compare the 100-300mm (200-600) Panasonic lens to a FF max 600mm.
With regards macro, 1:1 is more like 1:2 (or is that 2:1?) in MFT. Whatever, images are twice as close/twice the size.
As I said, I would not have gone for MFT if I could have remained with FF, but I have lost nothing in the change, apart from what I lost with selling the FF gear.
Downsides is limited to other photographers telling you why they think their particular choice of camera is so much better. I expect that goes for everyone else.
I've also got a Google Pixel 8 Pro. It's what I would use for general travel photography unless there were specific situations where one would need something a bit more flexible.
I have the Olympus EM10 Mk IV as I wanted it for the available housing options that I can use for underwater photography...
Its my first Mirrorless so I can't compare to how it works against another mirrorless / DSLR but what I can say is the size is a huge bonus - I have done a few photography courses / trips and the size difference in what I'm travelling with compared to everyone else is huge
the pancake lens it comes with is fantastic but i've added:
12-44 F2.8 PRO
40-150mm F4-5.6
8mm F1.8 fish eye pro
and most recently added a 12-40mm F2.8 pro
the picture quality is incredible and it seems pretty straight forward to use.. would defo reccomend
Its my first Mirrorless so I can't compare to how it works against another mirrorless / DSLR but what I can say is the size is a huge bonus - I have done a few photography courses / trips and the size difference in what I'm travelling with compared to everyone else is huge
the pancake lens it comes with is fantastic but i've added:
12-44 F2.8 PRO
40-150mm F4-5.6
8mm F1.8 fish eye pro
and most recently added a 12-40mm F2.8 pro
the picture quality is incredible and it seems pretty straight forward to use.. would defo reccomend
Derek Smith said:
I went from FF to MFT because I needed to reduce the weight I was carrying. The camera bodies are not that much lighter, but the lenses are. Had I not jumped, I would have happily remained with FF.
Firstly, there is no significant drop in quality. I have a G9 and G9ii, and the video on the latter is class-leading regardless of FF or MFT. You've probably seen a film where it provided B-roll.
Noise: modern MFT has addressed much of the problem and software in post can get rid of most of the little that remains.
Quality: for me, using images and video for YouTube and illustrating online articles, it is more than I need. I've had 16mp MFT images used as the cover of an A4, four-colour magazine, and one was cropped by about 15%. My G9ii is 25mp, and there are many other enhancements. I have an A1 image in my living room that gains a lot of positive comment. I have an A0 that looks great as well, although my wife thinks an image of a car, even a TVR, should not be in a living room. Quality is excellent for all prosumer use.
The OM is great going by its reviews but I have had no personal experience. OM cameras certainly look better than Panasonics.
Lenses: I have a 12-60, that is 24-120 in 'old money', f3.5 kit lens and it is great quality. If I was going to do what you are, I would take my all-but-weightless, f1.4, 25mm (50mm) lens and crop, especially if I might be taking photos in low-light conditions. It is my favourite lens and not only because of its quality. It also give good bokah if that is your thing. In addition I have a 14-140mm, 45mm macro prime, 80mm macro prime and 100-300mm, giving a range of, in FF, from 24mm to 600mm. I could not have afforded all them in FF. One thing which is not often mentioned is the cost of equivalent lenses. Compare the 100-300mm (200-600) Panasonic lens to a FF max 600mm.
With regards macro, 1:1 is more like 1:2 (or is that 2:1?) in MFT. Whatever, images are twice as close/twice the size.
As I said, I would not have gone for MFT if I could have remained with FF, but I have lost nothing in the change, apart from what I lost with selling the FF gear.
Downsides is limited to other photographers telling you why they think their particular choice of camera is so much better. I expect that goes for everyone else.
I've also got a Google Pixel 8 Pro. It's what I would use for general travel photography unless there were specific situations where one would need something a bit more flexible.
Sorry as this is slightly off topic but I wonder if you have any sample shots taken with the 100-300 please?Firstly, there is no significant drop in quality. I have a G9 and G9ii, and the video on the latter is class-leading regardless of FF or MFT. You've probably seen a film where it provided B-roll.
Noise: modern MFT has addressed much of the problem and software in post can get rid of most of the little that remains.
Quality: for me, using images and video for YouTube and illustrating online articles, it is more than I need. I've had 16mp MFT images used as the cover of an A4, four-colour magazine, and one was cropped by about 15%. My G9ii is 25mp, and there are many other enhancements. I have an A1 image in my living room that gains a lot of positive comment. I have an A0 that looks great as well, although my wife thinks an image of a car, even a TVR, should not be in a living room. Quality is excellent for all prosumer use.
The OM is great going by its reviews but I have had no personal experience. OM cameras certainly look better than Panasonics.
Lenses: I have a 12-60, that is 24-120 in 'old money', f3.5 kit lens and it is great quality. If I was going to do what you are, I would take my all-but-weightless, f1.4, 25mm (50mm) lens and crop, especially if I might be taking photos in low-light conditions. It is my favourite lens and not only because of its quality. It also give good bokah if that is your thing. In addition I have a 14-140mm, 45mm macro prime, 80mm macro prime and 100-300mm, giving a range of, in FF, from 24mm to 600mm. I could not have afforded all them in FF. One thing which is not often mentioned is the cost of equivalent lenses. Compare the 100-300mm (200-600) Panasonic lens to a FF max 600mm.
With regards macro, 1:1 is more like 1:2 (or is that 2:1?) in MFT. Whatever, images are twice as close/twice the size.
As I said, I would not have gone for MFT if I could have remained with FF, but I have lost nothing in the change, apart from what I lost with selling the FF gear.
Downsides is limited to other photographers telling you why they think their particular choice of camera is so much better. I expect that goes for everyone else.
I've also got a Google Pixel 8 Pro. It's what I would use for general travel photography unless there were specific situations where one would need something a bit more flexible.
I have an OM-1, 8-16mm, and 60mm macro - all of which are great. I've tried a couple of longer lenses (300f4 and 100-400) but not got on that well with them... happy to answer any questions on the OM kit if the OP is interested
Thanks for the info.
I’m looking at Olympus/OM after spending the last couple of weeks looking at all the options, I’d initially thought something like a Panasonic LX100 would have done the job, but earlier models had dust issues and later models are £800!
So then the traditional man maths came into play and I started looking at cameras with interchangeable lenses. Must have a viewfinder and be reasonably pocketable.
I thought the Panasonic GX8 would do but the Olympus models are slightly smaller, newer and similar money.
It’s also nicely circular as my first proper camera was an Olympus OM-10 about 30 years ago!
I’ll keep my Canon as well, it’s still a great camera.
Most used lens is the 24-105, followed by a super wide 15mm for stars and a 150-600 for wildlife.
If I can replicate the 24-105 and 15mm in a small package I’ll be delighted. The 12-32 kit lens and a 7.5 (ish) prime will cover my needs. Just need to avoid man maths and things that say 2.8 pro on them…
I can also use a smaller tripod as the camera weighs about a third of the current setup.
Are M43 lenses fully interchangeable between brands? I’ve seen some conflicting information.
I’m looking at Olympus/OM after spending the last couple of weeks looking at all the options, I’d initially thought something like a Panasonic LX100 would have done the job, but earlier models had dust issues and later models are £800!
So then the traditional man maths came into play and I started looking at cameras with interchangeable lenses. Must have a viewfinder and be reasonably pocketable.
I thought the Panasonic GX8 would do but the Olympus models are slightly smaller, newer and similar money.
It’s also nicely circular as my first proper camera was an Olympus OM-10 about 30 years ago!
I’ll keep my Canon as well, it’s still a great camera.
Most used lens is the 24-105, followed by a super wide 15mm for stars and a 150-600 for wildlife.
If I can replicate the 24-105 and 15mm in a small package I’ll be delighted. The 12-32 kit lens and a 7.5 (ish) prime will cover my needs. Just need to avoid man maths and things that say 2.8 pro on them…
I can also use a smaller tripod as the camera weighs about a third of the current setup.
Are M43 lenses fully interchangeable between brands? I’ve seen some conflicting information.
DibblyDobbler said:
Sorry as this is slightly off topic but I wonder if you have any sample shots taken with the 100-300 please?
I have an OM-1, 8-16mm, and 60mm macro - all of which are great. I've tried a couple of longer lenses (300f4 and 100-400) but not got on that well with them... happy to answer any questions on the OM kit if the OP is interested
I have an OM-1, 8-16mm, and 60mm macro - all of which are great. I've tried a couple of longer lenses (300f4 and 100-400) but not got on that well with them... happy to answer any questions on the OM kit if the OP is interested
280mm
380mm
Not messed with in post apart from crops. Both hand-held but the in-camera balancing, with the lens power OIS helping. It's clever, makes me feel as if I know what I'm doing - sometimes.
It is f3.5. I tried the f2.8 100-400mm, intended to buy it, but it was twice the weight, and felt it. It was more than twice the price at the time.
The f2.8 has excellent reviews but those of the 100-300 tend to compare it to the 100-400 and it suffers. I've found the images excellent but you might get what you pay for. However, most of the time the 14-140 is more than ample. I've carried the 100-300 dozens of time but used it only a few times. If you need it, it's superb.
Speed addicted said:
Are M43 lenses fully interchangeable between brands? I ve seen some conflicting information.
Olympus fits Panasonic MFT and vice versa. I am told the in-lens OIS does not always transfer, maybe mainly, but I have no knowledge. I have the excellent Olympus 60mm prime but in has no in-lens stabilisation. No problem for me as I only use it for macro and on a tripod.The in-body OIS of Panasonic, especially later bodies, is little short of mystical. I know nothing about that of the Olympus bodies.
Based on my experience going the other way moving to full frame last year after many years of APSC cameras, I wouldn't expect M43 to come close to a modern FF sensor for clean low light / high ISO performance.
Aside from that, image quality should be fine.
The smaller sensor will also have more depth of field for any given aperture, so you won't get the same subject separation as easily - but on the flipside the extra depth of field can be helpful for landscapes.
You just adjust your thinking for aperture, for example with FF I now tend to use f/10 or 11 for landscapes when I would have used f/8 on APSC.
Aside from that, image quality should be fine.
The smaller sensor will also have more depth of field for any given aperture, so you won't get the same subject separation as easily - but on the flipside the extra depth of field can be helpful for landscapes.
You just adjust your thinking for aperture, for example with FF I now tend to use f/10 or 11 for landscapes when I would have used f/8 on APSC.
Derek Smith said:
280mm
380mm
Not messed with in post apart from crops. Both hand-held but the in-camera balancing, with the lens power OIS helping. It's clever, makes me feel as if I know what I'm doing - sometimes.
It is f3.5. I tried the f2.8 100-400mm, intended to buy it, but it was twice the weight, and felt it. It was more than twice the price at the time.
The f2.8 has excellent reviews but those of the 100-300 tend to compare it to the 100-400 and it suffers. I've found the images excellent but you might get what you pay for. However, most of the time the 14-140 is more than ample. I've carried the 100-300 dozens of time but used it only a few times. If you need it, it's superb.
GravelBen said:
Based on my experience going the other way moving to full frame last year after many years of APSC cameras, I wouldn't expect M43 to come close to a modern FF sensor for clean low light / high ISO performance.
Aside from that, image quality should be fine.
The smaller sensor will also have more depth of field for any given aperture, so you won't get the same subject separation as easily - but on the flipside the extra depth of field can be helpful for landscapes.
You just adjust your thinking for aperture, for example with FF I now tend to use f/10 or 11 for landscapes when I would have used f/8 on APSC.
The depth of field has good and bad points. I take photos of flowers and fungi and the dof is often a real bonus. With a couple of LED lights I can use f11/16. On the other hand, isolating a subject can be a bit limiting. I have the Pan f1.4 and the dof can be limited, especially with an ND filter. It's what you get used to. Aside from that, image quality should be fine.
The smaller sensor will also have more depth of field for any given aperture, so you won't get the same subject separation as easily - but on the flipside the extra depth of field can be helpful for landscapes.
You just adjust your thinking for aperture, for example with FF I now tend to use f/10 or 11 for landscapes when I would have used f/8 on APSC.
60mm, f20,1/125, G9ii, ISO 400
And a >50% crop of a photobomber. 1/400.
Both handheld.
With regards noise, modern MFT sensors have improved over recent times. The G9ii is a noticeable improvement over the G9, which itself was a step up from my G7. I use Affinity and the noise from background is easy enough to remove, but I no longer go clubbing so it's no big deal for me. There's a lot on line about it. I thought I'd have to buy specialist software, but Affinity does the job, but it is at the back of my mind all the time when lighting is poor. I would not recommend MFT for someone recording a band at night in a dark club.
I was a bit resentful of having to get rid of heavy setups. I stopped short of sulking, but only just. I do a lot of video and used a gimbal a great deal. I was surprised with the image quality of MFT, despite reading up on it a great deal. It won't be long before I will have to limit myself to my mobile and action camera for B-roll when out and about and keep my 'big' cameras for my studio.
Age and mileage is a bugger.
GravelBen said:
Based on my experience going the other way moving to full frame last year after many years of APSC cameras, I wouldn't expect M43 to come close to a modern FF sensor for clean low light / high ISO performance.
Aside from that, image quality should be fine.
The smaller sensor will also have more depth of field for any given aperture, so you won't get the same subject separation as easily - but on the flipside the extra depth of field can be helpful for landscapes.
You just adjust your thinking for aperture, for example with FF I now tend to use f/10 or 11 for landscapes when I would have used f/8 on APSC.
When I made the jump from APSC to full frame the high ISO capabilities were the most noticeable change. I can shoot at ISO 12800 as it's not noisy enough to need correction. Aside from that, image quality should be fine.
The smaller sensor will also have more depth of field for any given aperture, so you won't get the same subject separation as easily - but on the flipside the extra depth of field can be helpful for landscapes.
You just adjust your thinking for aperture, for example with FF I now tend to use f/10 or 11 for landscapes when I would have used f/8 on APSC.
However opportunities to get the big camera out are being limited by being a dad, it's too heavy to use a neck strap (and there's a real danger of braining the kid if it's swinging about) so I use a wrist strap and have to do everything one handed.
A M43 will have limitations but the best camera is always the one you have with you, so if it's able to do the bulk of what I want in a pocket/pouch then it'll be great.
Speed addicted said:
When I made the jump from APSC to full frame the high ISO capabilities were the most noticeable change. I can shoot at ISO 12800 as it's not noisy enough to need correction.
However opportunities to get the big camera out are being limited by being a dad, it's too heavy to use a neck strap (and there's a real danger of braining the kid if it's swinging about) so I use a wrist strap and have to do everything one handed.
A M43 will have limitations but the best camera is always the one you have with you, so if it's able to do the bulk of what I want in a pocket/pouch then it'll be great.
I've found the best camera is the one the photographer beside you is using. 'Cor, that looks nice!'However opportunities to get the big camera out are being limited by being a dad, it's too heavy to use a neck strap (and there's a real danger of braining the kid if it's swinging about) so I use a wrist strap and have to do everything one handed.
A M43 will have limitations but the best camera is always the one you have with you, so if it's able to do the bulk of what I want in a pocket/pouch then it'll be great.
I've been shooting with M4/3 since the first OMD E-M5. But must confess it's rarely been my only system. The compact bodies and lenses are the appeal for me. My dad shoots with a G9ii (having replaced a G9 and prior to that 5D MKiv) and though it's a superb camera to use, it always seems like it's not making full use of the M4/3 compact capability. He absolutely loves it though and I confess the smaller bodies are fiddlier to use. I now have an E-M5 iii though it is a second camera to my normal Fuji set up. I basically use it anytime I want to travel light. Family days out, mountaineering, a walk with the dog. Sometimes it just goes in the car on the off chance. Brilliant for that stuff. In fact with a pancake lens on (I love the 20mm 1.7) even the E-M5 iii becomes a pocket camera.
IQ is obviously worse than full frame. Physics and all that. But, I will say that it is basically good enough for almost any realistic usage. You can print very large before you'd start to see the differences to an FF image. But.... you absolutely will see the differences during editing, particularly viewing at 100% or if you need to push shadows a little. I don't see it as a big problem but you do have to be more careful with exposure etc or consider bracketing in situations where you perhaps wouldn't need to with a larger sensor. In certain circumstances, you also have the high res mode to play with. Really you need perfect stillness and one of the higher quality lenses to make the most of this but when it works, it's pretty unbelievable what you can get out of such a small camera.
For star photography, they work well but again because of the sensor size you may need to work a little harder and consider your lens choices more. There are some cool computational features in Olympus cameras for this too that are not just gimmicks. You'll get more noise than FF but if you stack images etc, I don't think you'll ever feel short changed. Do bear in mind that a 2.8 lens on M4/3 is letting in approximately the same amount of light as a 5.6 on full frame. You can work with that but generally I would say it's worth trying to go faster. F/2, F1.7 etc though my favourite astro lens on M4/3 by far is the Pan/Leica 12mm 1.4. Lovely lump of glass.
IQ is obviously worse than full frame. Physics and all that. But, I will say that it is basically good enough for almost any realistic usage. You can print very large before you'd start to see the differences to an FF image. But.... you absolutely will see the differences during editing, particularly viewing at 100% or if you need to push shadows a little. I don't see it as a big problem but you do have to be more careful with exposure etc or consider bracketing in situations where you perhaps wouldn't need to with a larger sensor. In certain circumstances, you also have the high res mode to play with. Really you need perfect stillness and one of the higher quality lenses to make the most of this but when it works, it's pretty unbelievable what you can get out of such a small camera.
For star photography, they work well but again because of the sensor size you may need to work a little harder and consider your lens choices more. There are some cool computational features in Olympus cameras for this too that are not just gimmicks. You'll get more noise than FF but if you stack images etc, I don't think you'll ever feel short changed. Do bear in mind that a 2.8 lens on M4/3 is letting in approximately the same amount of light as a 5.6 on full frame. You can work with that but generally I would say it's worth trying to go faster. F/2, F1.7 etc though my favourite astro lens on M4/3 by far is the Pan/Leica 12mm 1.4. Lovely lump of glass.
Well I've finally stopped swithering and bought a camera.
After too much thinking I decided that for my use bigger sensors are probably better so moved onto looking at APSC, then eventually bought a Sony A6400. I was going to get a used A6500 but the newer A6400 has a better spec apart from stabilisation. The menus are apparently a lot better too, which was one of my bigger concerns as I'm not the most patient person.
Bought a new grey import so it's cheaper than buying a used one anyway!
It doesn't look as cool as the Olympus or Fujifilm cameras but the size to performance ratio is there. Hopefully have it in about a week.
After too much thinking I decided that for my use bigger sensors are probably better so moved onto looking at APSC, then eventually bought a Sony A6400. I was going to get a used A6500 but the newer A6400 has a better spec apart from stabilisation. The menus are apparently a lot better too, which was one of my bigger concerns as I'm not the most patient person.
Bought a new grey import so it's cheaper than buying a used one anyway!
It doesn't look as cool as the Olympus or Fujifilm cameras but the size to performance ratio is there. Hopefully have it in about a week.
I did consider suggesting APS C - there's not much in it in size and weight which, depending on your choices, may favour either.
Personally, being mean, I don't like throwing away pixels, and since most of my images finish up on 16x9 displays I would have to throw away more from a 4x3 sensor than a 3x2 one. Others may doubtless find the opposite.
I know you won't like me saying this but most modern cameras have so many features that you will rarely use, that configuration of menus and buttons to best suit you is time well spent. Having owned much of the. A6x00 range I would say that particularly applies to those cameras.
As it happens I settled on Canon, but I can make a good argument for Sony or Fujifilm for APS C.
Enjoy your purchase, I'm sure you will.
Personally, being mean, I don't like throwing away pixels, and since most of my images finish up on 16x9 displays I would have to throw away more from a 4x3 sensor than a 3x2 one. Others may doubtless find the opposite.
I know you won't like me saying this but most modern cameras have so many features that you will rarely use, that configuration of menus and buttons to best suit you is time well spent. Having owned much of the. A6x00 range I would say that particularly applies to those cameras.
As it happens I settled on Canon, but I can make a good argument for Sony or Fujifilm for APS C.
Enjoy your purchase, I'm sure you will.
bcr5784 said:
I did consider suggesting APS C - there's not much in it in size and weight which, depending on your choices, may favour either.
Personally, being mean, I don't like throwing away pixels, and since most of my images finish up on 16x9 displays I would have to throw away more from a 4x3 sensor than a 3x2 one. Others may doubtless find the opposite.
I know you won't like me saying this but most modern cameras have so many features that you will rarely use, that configuration of menus and buttons to best suit you is time well spent. Having owned much of the. A6x00 range I would say that particularly applies to those cameras.
As it happens I settled on Canon, but I can make a good argument for Sony or Fujifilm for APS C.
Enjoy your purchase, I'm sure you will.
With regards the steadily increasing offerings of menues, my G9ii has 37 menu pages and while it sounds excessive, well it did for me initially, I've since sorted the features into five settings for specific situations. I take closeups of flowers, and all I have to do is pick the sub menu and I'm ready. Same goes for landscapes, family, types of video and vehicle shows. These menues allow fine tuning.Personally, being mean, I don't like throwing away pixels, and since most of my images finish up on 16x9 displays I would have to throw away more from a 4x3 sensor than a 3x2 one. Others may doubtless find the opposite.
I know you won't like me saying this but most modern cameras have so many features that you will rarely use, that configuration of menus and buttons to best suit you is time well spent. Having owned much of the. A6x00 range I would say that particularly applies to those cameras.
As it happens I settled on Canon, but I can make a good argument for Sony or Fujifilm for APS C.
Enjoy your purchase, I'm sure you will.
On my Canon 5d mk3 I mainly shoot on manual, I’m well used to ignoring loads of helpful features!
I went for the A6400 because it had the features I’m interested in and 5 customisable memory setups. The menu system is apparently an improvement over previous models but I’ll be setting up the memory functions for my most used options.
It’s also got a quick menu function that older models didn’t get which will save some menu diving.
The older I get the less interested I am in learning new things!
I went for the A6400 because it had the features I’m interested in and 5 customisable memory setups. The menu system is apparently an improvement over previous models but I’ll be setting up the memory functions for my most used options.
It’s also got a quick menu function that older models didn’t get which will save some menu diving.
The older I get the less interested I am in learning new things!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff