Talk Me Out of a Mirrorless Setup

Ultimately it was the lens choices. I need a wide-range zoom and an ultra-wide for a majority of my shooting with this type of camera. For Sony, that means the 18-200 and the 10-18, which cost over $1000 by themselves.

Also, the 14-150 zoom combo with the E-M10ii is super compact and light, while the Sony 18-200 is pushing into DSLR territory.

Buying the Oly setup allows me to keep my 80d for more "serious" work, and now I've got a quality combo to have on long rides, hikes, etc. My buddy has taken magazine cover shots with his Olympus m4/3 camera, so I don't question the quality. We'll see if it's the right call...

Interesting, I just went with the LUMIX GX85. Mainly wanted the compact body and lens options. I read this several weeks ago, then researched a bunch of reviews. LUMIX kept coming up. And went with what the brands the camera store had. Sony was not an option at that moment. Excited for the upgrade and smaller size

IBIS is pretty sweet too. Again, not as necessary in good light, but still useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

Ultimately it was the lens choices.

---

I can see that. I'm a specs and numbers guy, and the Sony ticked a lot of boxes for me; focus speed and points, fps, weather sealed, size, etc. But, this being my first non point and shoot, I didn't really consider lenses beforehand, and they lack compared to others. It's frustrating that Sony continues to progress aps-c models but the lens selection has stayed stagnant for years now.

^^^ yep, agreed. If Sony picks up their lens game down the road, I'm not against switching. I really like that A6500, but it gets to be a super expensive setup when you add a couple of lenses!

Bump.

I don't know shit about cameras and my eyes are going crosseyed looking at manufacturer specs.

I've been using P&S cameras for forever, and I think I'm finally ready to upgrade. I currently use a Canon SX280 HS and it's mostly fine, but really can't handle low light at all. I have some other minor complaints with it but really getting better storm day shots (and better image quality in general) are my reasons to upgrade. I understand the basics of manually setting shutter speed, aperture, exposure etc and shoot that way most of the time, but am really fairly clueless on photography overall, and especially with gear.

Things I know I want:
-to be able to shoot good backcountry skiing action photos, even in flat/poor light. This might mean needing to zoom a bit
-also to be able to shoot good landscapes in good light
-As compact and light as possible. The camera body at least should fit in a jacket pocket
-continuous mode of at least 5fps. Preferably closer to 10
-not have to change lenses for every fucking shot
-under $1000

Things I think I want (tell me if I'm wrong):
-a lens at least as long as 50mm
-aperture at least as big as f/3.0
-what else?

Tell me what to buy. A lot of the setups listed here look nice but are unfortunately outside of my price range.

What's your price range?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

What's your price range?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

-under $1000

---

.

Yeah, I missed that. Too many words out there. ;)

I think the best value out there for a mirrorless camera setup is the Sony A6000. Their lenses tend to be more expensive, but you could get the 18-200 along with the body for under $1000. If you want a much smaller setup, grab the 18-55 or a couple of prime lenses... all depends on your style and preference for shooting.

Other options are the Olympus, Fuji, and Canon... there are a lot of differences, depending on what you're looking for in terms of operation, functionality, video, etc. If you want to go the M4/3 route, I can make you a deal on the Olympus E-M10 Mark II and 14-150mm lens I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

If you want to go the M4/3 route, I can make you a deal on the Olympus E-M10 Mark II and 14-150mm lens I have.

---

Already?! What are you moving to?

OP: I had your same wants and needs although I knew much less about photography. I ended up with the Sony a6300, it adds weather sealing and a lot more auto focus points over the a6000. I see them used with the kit lens for under $1000 here locally, I imagine they are easier to find now that the a6500 is out.

https://www.ksl.com/classifieds/listing/45801624

https://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Comp..._89%3AFujifilm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

Yeah, I missed that. Too many words out there. ;)

I think the best value out there for a mirrorless camera setup is the Sony A6000. Their lenses tend to be more expensive, but you could get the 18-200 along with the body for under $1000. If you want a much smaller setup, grab the 18-55 or a couple of prime lenses... all depends on your style and preference for shooting.

Other options are the Olympus, Fuji, and Canon... there are a lot of differences, depending on what you're looking for in terms of operation, functionality, video, etc. If you want to go the M4/3 route, I can make you a deal on the Olympus E-M10 Mark II and 14-150mm lens I have.

---

This is helpful, however I have some dumb questions.

For shooting style, I guess I don't really know as I've never had a camera with interchangeable lenses. I do think I'd prefer a zoom lens to a prime lens but I don't really know just how much zoom I need - the P&S cameras I've used all talk about "_X optical zoom" and I'm not quite sure how to translate that to focal length. My current camera has a 20X zoom but I realistically only need the first half of that. Pulling up metadata from images I've taken in the last few years it appears I'm usually shooting in the 15 to 40mm range (actual, not "35mm equivalent"). Can I assume that directly correlates to the focal length measurements given on other lenses? Or is there some other variable I'm not aware of?

Stupid question #2, is the f/3.5 aperture on the lenses you mentioned really big enough for low/flat light ski shooting? With my current camera, I've found that with the aperture set all the way open (f/3.5) that on stormy ski days I have trouble getting the shutter speed fast enough to capture skiers clearly (with auto ISO). Part of the problem is the images get fairly noisy if I shoot above much above 200 ISO. So I was assuming that I would want something with a larger max aperture. But does the larger sensor of a higher end camera/ability to shoot higher ISOs without noise make this less important?

I could be interested in your Olympus rig although the camera body seems to be biggish for what I prefer. Still an option though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zion zig zag

I ended up with the Sony a6300, it adds weather sealing and a lot more auto focus points over the a6000.

---

Yet another dumb question, more auto focus points = the camera can better track a moving object and keep it in focus, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oftpiste

https://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Comp..._89%3AFujifilm

---

This looks enticing, I'll investigate further. Thanks!

You'll have to do some google time to understand the relationship of 15-40mm in your current camera vs "full-frame" equivalent. Usually, P&S cameras list the 35mm (full frame) equivalent somewhere in the specs. In my camera, a6300, the sensor crop factor is 1.5, meaning a zoom lens of 18-105 mm is equivalent to 27-157 mm in a 35mm camera. I'm guessing your P&S has a considerably smaller sensor than the a6300's APS=C size, so your metadata is probably multiplied by 2-3x the 15-40 number.

So moving on to the aperture question: that sensor size affects that too. F4 in a full frame lets in way more light than F4 in a smaller sensor (it may be that same factor mentioned above, but I haven't totally figured that out yet). So the fact that you've needed an aperture of f2.8 to get blur free images on a point and shoot size sensor doesn't really relate to the quality you'd achieve with a smaller (bigger f-stop number) aperture on a larger sensor. I haven't used the a6300 in storm day light yet but I've shot mountain biking in the fading late day light and had blur free results at f4 and slower no problem.

And the ISO question, yes sensor size affects this too. I have my max auto ISO set to 6400 and I notice no real noise at that level, I'm sure you could pixel-peeping but for normal size prints and online viewing I don't think you'd ever notice. People shoot considerably higher ISO levels with the a6300 with good results.

And yes, you nailed the auto focus points thing. The a6300 basically covers the whole frame with auto focus points.

I'm not much of a tech writer so hopefully the above make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zion zig zag

You'll have to do some google time to understand the relationship of 15-40mm in your current camera vs "full-frame" equivalent. Usually, P&S cameras list the 35mm (full frame) equivalent somewhere in the specs. In my camera, a6300, the sensor crop factor is 1.5, meaning a zoom lens of 18-105 mm is equivalent to 27-157 mm in a 35mm camera. I'm guessing your P&S has a considerably smaller sensor than the a6300's APS=C size, so your metadata is probably multiplied by 2-3x the 15-40 number.

So moving on to the aperture question: that sensor size affects that too. F4 in a full frame lets in way more light than F4 in a smaller sensor (it may be that same factor mentioned above, but I haven't totally figured that out yet). So the fact that you've needed an aperture of f2.8 to get blur free images on a point and shoot size sensor doesn't really relate to the quality you'd achieve with a smaller (bigger f-stop number) aperture on a larger sensor. I haven't used the a6300 in storm day light yet but I've shot mountain biking in the fading late day light and had blur free results at f4 and slower no problem.

And the ISO question, yes sensor size affects this too. I have my max auto ISO set to 6400 and I notice no real noise at that level, I'm sure you could pixel-peeping but for normal size prints and online viewing I don't think you'd ever notice. People shoot considerably higher ISO levels with the a6300 with good results.

And yes, you nailed the auto focus points thing. The a6300 basically covers the whole frame with auto focus points.

I'm not much of a tech writer so hopefully the above make sense.

---

This is a perfect explanation, thank you! I can pull the 35mm equivalent from my metadata and it seems like most lenses list their 35mm equivalent range, so that seems like the easiest way to compare them.

If you think the Olympus is on the big side, then you're not going to want to bother with interchangeable mirrorless. It's the smallest body by far that I've used, which includes the Sony, Fuji, and Canon. Unfortunately if you want better performance, you'll have to make some sacrifices.

This is a pretty good site for comparing size of bodies visually, as well as specs.

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Fu...-OM-D-E-M10-II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smmokan

If you think the Olympus is on the big side, then you're not going to want to bother with interchangeable mirrorless. It's the smallest body by far that I've used, which includes the Sony, Fuji, and Canon. Unfortunately if you want better performance, you'll have to make some sacrifices.

---

The site zion zig zag linked helped a lot. I take it back, the Olympus might fit the bill. Interested.

How much are you looking to get for the setup and what aren't you liking about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

For shooting style, I guess I don't really know as I've never had a camera with interchangeable lenses. I do think I'd prefer a zoom lens to a prime lens but I don't really know just how much zoom I need

---

OP and resident camera kook checking in to say that for mid-winter skiing in CO I end up using the 18-55mm zoom 90% of the time. I've gotten some good stuff with the 50-200mm but it mostly stays in the pack. I find that terrain and safe travel techniques dictate that I usually don't get too far away from the action. That said, I'm a hack so I could be doing it wrong. The old Canon 15-85mm that Steve used to rave about seems like the perfect focal range for the stuff we get to ski mid-winter.

J,

Look into getting something weatherproof and using it with a Peak Designs Capture Pro clip. That'll solve your camera size problem within reason. I've skied with my SL1 and kit lens on it and you don't even notice it. It's mildly annoying when frontpointing up steep neve, but not that bad and still worth it to have the camera so accessible.

Outside of that if you're buying new, the A6000 is probably the best value going. I'd stretch to the A6300 for the weatherproofing and AF. I almost bought one of those earlier this year. That's if you skip smmokan's Olympus of course. But it'd be worth getting a Capture clip with that camera too, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Look into getting something weatherproof and using it with a Peak Designs Capture Pro clip.

---

Do you attach this to the shoulder strap? Looking for a bc skiing solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zion zig zag

Do you attach this to the shoulder strap? Looking for a bc skiing solution.

---

Yep. It works pretty damn well. If it's dumping out, I'll keep the camera in the pack. But for fair weather I'll put it on the strap.

Good stuff, and thanks all for answering my dumb questions and helping me understand this stuff. I stopped at Worst Buy and fiddled with the Sony stuff last night and they are pretty sweet little cameras.

If I want to stretch the budget, the Sony A6300 or Fuji X-T20 are mighty appealing, but to get the lens combos I would want I think I'd be looking at $1200-ish. And the lens selection for Sony does seem to be a little limited.

An A6000 is also mighty appealing, they can be had new with the 16-50mm and 55-210mm lenses for $800.
smokken's Oly setup is also appealing as it would simplify things to a single lens, at the expense of sensor size, AF focus points, and a slight camera body size disadvantage.

LR - thanks for the link, that clip is pretty sweet. I can't see myself using it for backcountry skiing though, anything on the waist belt would be in the way, and anything on a shoulder strap would make getting to my airbag handle more difficult, which is unacceptable. I would probably grab one for summer use though. My current thinking is an A6000 sized body with the 16-50mm lens would probably fit in my jacket chest pocket (barely) and as North notes, something like that is probably enough lens for landscape shots, and mid-run action shots. That also allows me to leave my pack on (and airbag ready) when shooting from the trees mid-run. I'd only want the longer zoom for shooting at the bottom of the run and getting into my pack for the lens isn't such a big deal then. Or I might even be able to find a spot for a small lens barrel on my pack somewhere.

Why not a Sony RX100?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tap

Why not a Sony RX100?

---

Good question. I'm thinking that if I'm dropping that kind of money ($500-1000) that I'd rather step up my game and get a camera with the bigger sensor and much greater flexibility in lenses.

Anyone in the Front Range own a Sony setup that I can try for a weekend? Borrowlenses is a great concept but the shipping costs are a killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

and anything on a shoulder strap would make getting to my airbag handle more difficult, which is unacceptable.

---

Excellent point that I didn't think of. I've still be lazy about buying an airbag pack, so it didn't spring to mind.

You're on the right track either way.

Honestly, if the price is right (and it sounds like it is), you might think about snagging smmokan's Olympus and using it for a while to see if you're happy with the micro 4/3s IQ in lower light. If you are, then you're done. If not, then sell it for little-to-no loss and move to a mirrorless crop body. The in-body IS is really cool and something you don't get with Sony until you hit the A6500 (which is up there in price at the moment). Fuji doesn't offer yet. I think Panasonic does. Not that useful for skiing because of the motion involved versus light-needed to freeze moving subjects, but useful for still subjects in lower light.