Keith Tanner wrote: Ambient light. You can see an electronic viewfinder even in strong sun.
The other difference is that the camera is much easier to support when you're not holding it arm's length. Try using the LCD on the back to frame a photo with a 600mm lens hanging off the front!
pres589 wrote: In reply to kylini: Ok, so, not trying to rattle you, just curious; what were you hoping to find in a wide zoom? What's in your lens collection now? My biggest issue with the Pentax stuff is that a lot of it is somewhat f-stop limited OR the base numbers are only available in a discontinued lens. The raw f-stop numbers aren't all that they're made out to be, though, but focal distance isn't something that can be debated. The best wide-zoom they offer is the 16-50 f2.8 which is a decent lens but doesn't seem "special" really and they're expensive. If I had to do it over again I might have gone Canon as well (the couple Nikon's I've picked up just didn't fit my hands well) but there's so much classic Pentax / K-mount glass out there that I never second guess going the way I did. That said, I'm really interested in getting Sigma's updated 30mm F1.4 prime which is available in a bunch of mounts. I've had a lot of fun / teeth nashing with a 28mm Kalt prime lately but there's days where I just want something that isn't sorta junk.
Just like my forum comments, I really like getting in people's faces. Okay, maybe not quite like that, but my favorite photos are the ones where a subject just fills the frame but the background is all there too.
Some of my favorite photos were me laying down in a drainage ditch shoving my camera into some icy bushes. I was lucky and had the stock 18-55 mm lens at the time, so I was shooting at 18 (DX). I'd love to see how the ice wrapped around whatever plant life I could find if I was using, say, a 12 or a 10 mm.
I have two lenses. I have a 35 mm f/1.8 and a 70-300 mm VR telephoto. Because my photos seem to be divided equally between indoors at night and fast moving cars during the day, I ditched the 18-55 mm for the 35 mm and picked up the "cheapest" Nikon tele with fast autofocus. One wide-zoom and I'm done!
codrus wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: Ambient light. You can see an electronic viewfinder even in strong sun.The other difference is that the camera is much easier to support when you're not holding it arm's length. Try using the LCD on the back to frame a photo with a 600mm lens hanging off the front!
Good point. I take a lot of handheld slow exposure photos, and it's definitely easier with a viewfinder.
I recently picked up an X100T to replace or supplement my ancient Rebel XT. I love it, especially for candid photos. It takes a little getting used to after years of SLR use, but with some effort invested, it really gives back. I've set up a few custom function buttons and have a couple of easily-selected limits for the auto-ISO mode. And it does higher ISOs very well - I've only ever used the flash for outdoor fill.
It's not especially pocketable (for a guy who doesn't wear cargo anything - it might disappear into larger cargo pants/shorts/vests), but it's much more luggable than even a small DSLR. And the various reviews are right - subjects are much less intimidated by the Fuji than they are by a mirror camera.
The thing that put me onto the Fuji and helped me decide to give it a try was a couple of pros I respect mentioning enjoying one of the X100 series as their family snapshot cameras.
Gregor Halenda (found through his epic Garage Journal thread) used one for a while before replacing it with a phenomenally expensive Sony. He's quite good at what he does, both professionally and in his garage. The camera doesn't make the picture, but seeing what he shot with it and knowing he has the option to use any camera he likes made an impression on me.
Ken Rockwell has shown some nice family shots from his Fuji and speaks highly of it.
In my research, it came up again and again that pros were happy to use this as their go-to family camera. It's got enough "pro" features to not be frustrating, but it doesn't force one to geek out to get the shot.
You have to be willing or excited to work with the mildly-wide lens, but if you're on board with that, it's a great camera.
Careful, you bring up Ken Rockwell around professional photographers and you'll get some serious nerd-rage headed your way.
In defense of Pentax...
Of the DA * lenses, the 16-50 is probably the least well regarded but I love the way a good copy of it renders. The DA * 50-135 f2.8 might be one of the best people lenses ever made. I rented the DA* 60-250 f4 last week for a trip in to Denali National Park and it's incredible as well. I thought I wanted to upgrade my camera before I tried those lenses. I still plan to, my k-30 is nice but I want some of the pro features offered on the k-3 flagship, but don't feel the sensor is a reason why anymore.
The Pentax limited primes are in a class of their own. The fast ones from the FA series are some of the best autofocus lenses made, and the DA series have incredible IQ in incredibly small packages. Slower yes, but the cameras have good to great high ISO performance.
I'm shooting with m42 lenses made in the 50's with no compatibility issues. Just screw on a k-mount adapter, stop down metering with the green button, use the AF focus points for focus confirmation.
A k-50 kit with 18-55 and 50-200 WR lenses is under $400 now at b&h, can't be beat for the money. A k-3 is the best aps-c dslr made and is running at $750ish now, body only.
If I were to go mirror less, I'd go straight for the Sony a7ii. Adapters work better than the m43 cameras since most lenses being adapted were meant for 35mm. The a7ii is more expensive but is significantly better than the small sensor offerings. Quality lenses are similarly priced too and very lightweight.
Budget is "entry level", so no sony a7ii
. I think I've narrowed it down to a Rebel if I go D-SLR, or something M4/3 if I go mirrorless. I must admit to being intrigued by the minimal system that piggybacks onto my phone. All that said, I'll be lucky if I can pick this up before tax returns.
If you want to shoot action, you'll absolutely want something with a viewfinder. It's really, really hard to shoot anything moving with an lcd screen. You need to have your hands and your eyes physically connected to properly follow a moving object.
Personally, I'd go DSLR because of the lens choices and the universality of the lenses. I've got a friend who shoots nothing but mirrorless, though, and takes some amazing photos. There's a strong argument for both. The good news is there's not many wrong answers anymore.
If you're adapting a lens meant for 35mm to m4/3, there are a couple good things about it.
Your 200mm telephoto is closer to a 300 because of the smaller sensor size.
The smaller size means that the sensor is operating in the "sweet spot" of the lens. This means E36 M3ty lenses become half decent and great lenses become incredible.
My OM-D with my MD Rokkor 50mm F1.4 is a great combination.
The crop factor from 35mm to m43 is 2-1, meaning a 50mm on m43 has the same field of view as a 100mm on 35mm, a 200 had the FoV of a 400, etc.
While I'm sure that rokkor 50mm looks great on your OMD that's a pretty narrow FoV that limits its appeal, at least to me.
All that aside, the OM-D EM-10 with a 14-42 pancake zoom is a nice little combo.
This recent review of the Canon G3X on luminous landscape had me thinking that a 1" bridge camera might be the really easy button...
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-g3x-review/
So it looks like whatever path I go I can get an adapter for my FD lenses from my AE-1. I have an f/1.8 50mm and a 70-200mm.
In reply to neon4891:
The change in sensor size is going to make that 50mm act like a sorta-telephoto lens and the 70-200 is even more narrow in the field of view department. May still be useful depending on what you like to do like shoot wild life / birds.
In reply to skierd:
Agreed on the Pentax 16-50 not being that well regarded. I know the image quality isn't in quite the same league but I ended up going with their 18-135WR instead and have been pretty happy with it. Right now I'm either getting the Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art or find an Pentax FA* 24mm f2. They both seem like great lenses with their own pluses & minuses. That would pretty much round out my kit; a weather resistant all-around zoom, a fast wide-ish prime, and an "artistic/challenge" prime that every once in a while really takes nice nice shots with awesome color reproduction and decent bokeh.
Funny, I just sold my 18-135 to help pay for a HD DA 20-40 limited. That plus the SMC DA40mm f2.8 Limited and the DA50-135 f2.8 will be my kit for the foreseeable future. I'd like to add the HD 1.4 TC and a DA300 f4 one day too and couple probably be happy with that for... well forever. Maybe add the 15mm Limited and the 10-17 fisheye but I really don't shoot wide that much, and if I do I'm happy stitching in Lightroom.
Of those two, and both are on a future want list, I lean to the FA*. All that dang Pentax pixie dust, plus it'll work on my film body.
Yeahhhhh i want the FA Limited 31, 43, and 77.
My wallet is crying just thinking about it, though.
Another very happy Fuji X100T customer. However that fulfills none of your requirements.
If I was looking for a budget mirror less I think I'd go for an Olympus E-M5. The second gen is out so the first generation EM5 is usually available super cheap. The prime lens selection is absolutely killer.
HOWEVER. If zooms are your thang, go with a DSLR. The mirror less fast zooms are 2-3x the price of the equivalent DSLR fast zooms. Hard to beat a Canon/Nikon with a 16-55 f/2.8 zoom for affordable excellent images.
Just had to do a price check on that claim. Canon L 70-200 f2.8 is $2100 on B&H, the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 is $1300. The canon 24-70 f2.8 doesn't have IS so isn't really comparable costs $1900, but the 17-55 does (aps-c) only and is $869. The equivalent Olympus12-40 f2.8 Pro is $799 right now.
Third party glass can be cheaper, but the good sigma glass is about the same price as the Olympus stuff, but a lot of times you lose weather sealing among other things.
Good, fast AF glass is expensive no matter what system you use. 
To me, one of the biggest advantages of getting a DSLR from one of the big players is the size of the secondhand market for lenses. I can often buy used, borrow, or rent a lens I might want.
In reply to Skierd
I've been out of the SLR game for a few years but I remember a 17-55mm f/2.8 third party lens (sigma, Tamron) was about $500 and that looks to still be the case. Those are excellent lenses, and aren't yet an option in the mirror less world. Even better, a good used example is even less.
If you want a great fast zoom for your mirrorless system, the Olympus/Panasonic pro lens is the only game in town last I checked. The prime lenses also tend to be more expensive, though I would argue they're better than the dSLR equivalent due to packaging.
I think I have settled on a base canon T5. $500 will get me one with an 15-55 and a 70-300. Not to mention the used market for eos lenses. Now to see how things look when I can afford it.
You'll need to log in to post.
