# Which camera do you use for travel... FF or Micro 4/3 or other?



## pondball (Jan 1, 2016)

I got back into photography about two years ago after a 25 year hiatus... and loving it again!

At the time, I picked up a barely used D700 (1800 frame count with 3 lens) on the advice of a fellow employee who I found out was also a very good photographer. My real reason for getting back into photography however was so that I would have a decent camera to take with me on a European 3 week trip (15 day river cruise and 7 days in Paris). I eventually shot over 3000 photos which I will be culling and editing in both LR, ON1 Photo10 and Affinity Photo but one thing i learned while on the trip was that the D700 and "kit" of glass was at times a burden. I used one lens 98% of the time (24-85) as carrying more than the one was taxing.

Since then I've been looking at some different options for cameras for future travel and have been relatively impressed (without being able to do side by each comparisons) with the Olympus OMD series... I'm hoping the OMD-1 Mark II will soon be an option! I've read the horror stories about the Oly cryptic menu system, but I can't believe anything could be as daunting as moving from my old Canon TL's from yesteryear with it's very manual shooting "system" to the menu system on the D700! Talk about a shock!

I see there are many here who shoot with Olympus and I'd be interested to see how they feel their results with their M4/3 compares to other cameras they might have shot with, especially it they moved from a FF camera. I personally am attracted by the difference in carrying weight, price and selection for lens (the Pro series in comparison to Nikor equivalents is substantial) and by the possibility of having readily available video when required. I've looked at other mirrorless options but many (Sony, except the A6000) seem too high priced and don't offer much difference in the way of weight from my FF Nikon.

Looking forward to any comments from travellers who like taking photographs without taking part in weight lifting exercises every time they shoot!


----------



## clee01l (Jan 1, 2016)

I like the convenience of traveling with a smaller camera and kit.  I also like the quality and fidelity of a FF Nikon camera and lenses to match.  In 2015 I took a 3 week trip to the Shetlands and Scotland.  The purpose of the trip was Primarily for photography.  I hired a nature photography guide in the Shetlands to specifically shoot wildlife photos.  There was no question that I would take all of my Nikon camera gear including two FF D810/D800E bodies.  I bought a wheeled camera bag backpack to carry on my completed camera gear (except for the tripod).  It worked well as most of the time I was shooting not far from my rental car or the guide's van. One day, island hoping in the Shetlands, I hiked 10 miles with the backpack. I would do it all again in a heartbeat. 

I have seriously considered the smaller mirrorless cameras. On some future trip I could see replacing one of my camera bodies with a smaller mirrorless camera. I don't think it will be a 4/3s. It will be an interchangeable lens camera.  An APS-C sized sensor would be OK though FF would be preferred.  Ideally, it would mount any or all of my Nikon f-mount lenses so that I would not need to buy duplicate lenses.  I think Nikon has something like that coming in 2016. Let's hope. 

In comparing sensor sizes, the APS-C is about 66% the size of a Full Frame while 4/3s is 50%.   My iPhone takes some very good photos.  For me though once in a lifetime photos need at least APS-C or bigger.

If you are taking vacation photos then something less than FF might be an acceptable compromise. If you are taking a dedicated photo trip, then you want to shoot with your best camera.


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 1, 2016)

I went from a D300 (DX) to m4/3rd's in 2012 due to health reasons and I recently added a D610 (FX) to my gear list.  I use my gear accordingly, but if I need to travel light, my Olympus/Panasonic gear is usually taken as carrying weight is still an issue for me.  Much of your choice will depend on the size of your desird output and your subject matter.  In general, cameras with phase detection focus systems (DSLRs) are going to be better suited for action photography like wildlife and birding.  Cameras with contrast detection focus systems (mirrorless) excel at focus accuracy without needing any focus adjustments in the body for lenses.  They also provide native focus magnification and focus peaking without having to invoke a Live View mode.

My suggestion is to keep your D700 and purchase a mirrorless camera as well.  There are great deals to be had, and you could limit your expense before making any commitment to another system.  My main mirrorless body is an E-M1 and there are many things I love about the camera.  It does have a few quirks, but so do most cameras these days.  If you want to stay with Nikon, you could consider the D5500.  It is smaller and lighter than the D700, but still offers great IQ.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## pondball (Jan 1, 2016)

Good points... For once in my life I haven't jumped at a deal... although some of the Olympus offerings this xmas were very good indeed. 

I spent a day at a Photo Show in November (where all the camera manufacturers were there) going back and forth looking and testing what they had to offer. While the Sony seemed to have the best Mirrorless in terms of FF etc... the cost was jumping over $3K (before glass) and that at this point is out of reach for me. If I wanted to spend that kind of money I'd simply upgrade my present glass, or buy another Nikon body (i.e. the D5500 as Ken suggested). The Sony just did not feel right either. 

If it were purely cost and Sony were in play I'd probably opt for the A6000 as it apparently also has pretty decent video. Sadly, I had to leave my video camera home on the Europe trip... just too much weight and not enough room, notwithstanding it was a relatively small unit.

One other possibility is to take the Nikon D700 and one prime (I love my new Sigma 105/2.8 macro) and then buy a smaller M4/3 with both a Pro wide angle lens and a Pro telephoto with 1.4 adapter... giving me both decent quality and range. I'd hazard a guess that the Oly with two lens would not weigh any more, or take any more room than the two other lens I toted around... and didn't use. 

I'm not a pro photographer, nor do I anticipate enlarging to wall mural size so I'm not so sure the M4/3 would make a difference. I too had a very good backpack/trolley camera bag that just barely fit in the KLM space allotted, but I understand things are getting tighter and tighter space-wise with many airlines, especially the domestics. I believe that if I were to head out with a photo group I'd take my best possible kit, but chances are it'll be my wife and I and enjoying the places we go, while getting some shots to remember them by will be more important than the absolute quality of them. Having a small M4/3's seems to be my idea of being able to get the shots when and where you want them.

btw... I was very envious at times of the shots my wife got with her P&S Nikon with 30x's optical zoom... very envious... to the point where I often said, "that's just not fair!" while she smiled away! Sure we couldn't blow them up much beyond calendar size, but in last year's 12 month wall calendar we used as many of her shots as we did mine with my FF Nikon! 

For me at this point it's about a blend between memories and quality.


----------



## clee01l (Jan 1, 2016)

pondball said:


> ...For me at this point it's about a blend between memories and quality.


I think you've narrowed it down to the compromises that you need to make.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 1, 2016)

I've got a D300 and an E-M1, and deciding which to carry around is pretty much a no-brainer. The Olympus is lighter, and equivalent lenses are far lighter, and the IQ is amazing. If I were comparing against a full frame camera, the weight and size difference would be more pronounced. As for image quality, both cameras are far more compitent than I am. I can't (so far) push them hard enough that a better camera would make a difference in how good the images are. Possibly the insane pixel count of a D800 might make a difference, but unless I'm doing agressive crops or printing wall-size prints, which I never do, it would likely be a difference that wouldn't matter in real life.

The Olympus manual is poorly translated, and I relied heavily on the web to find out how to do some of the more complicated things, like controlling the camera from an iPad or tying presets to the mode dial, but once you figure things out, the camera is no harder to use than a Nikon.

And finally, here's an interesting comparison (from 2013) between the E-M1 and other cameras, including a D4 and D600:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/11/the-2013-olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-2/
The Olympus comes out looking very good.


----------



## pondball (Jan 1, 2016)

clee01l said:


> I think you've narrowed it down to the compromises that you need to make.



 You got it!... just a matter of making a decision or two I guess... still interested in hearing from first hand users of M4/3 to see how satisfied they are with their cameras. Our next big trip isn't going to be for awhile so I will have lots of time to figure this one out.


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 1, 2016)

pondball said:


> You got it!... just a matter of making a decision or two I guess... still interested in hearing from first hand users of M4/3 to see how satisfied they are with their cameras. Our next big trip isn't going to be for awhile so I will have lots of time to figure this one out.



Do you have any specific questions for which you are seeking answers?  I think Hal and I gave similar endorsements for the E-M1 based on similar experiences.

--Ken


----------



## pondball (Jan 1, 2016)

Hi Ken

That would be great if you could answer a few... which (apologizing in advance) will no doubt lead to others! 

• if you shot with DSLR (FF or cropped) before did you see a noticeable difference in quality of photos? at what stage of enlargement? same for screen sizes or resolutions? ie... if I used the photos for some Keynote (PowerPoint) presentations would they still be sharp?

• is the menu system as cryptic as I've been reading?

• are you using any of the Oly Pro lens? How would you rate them with respect to Nikkor lens of the same ilk... i.e. 2.8 or better

• I like the full articulating screen of the E-M5 Mark II as opposed to the tilting one on the E-M1 and am  hoping that there will be a new Mark II version of that coming out this year... Is the screen viewable in most lighting conditions? Where does it fail to be usable?

• Any issues with the Oly RAW format in Lightroom or other editing software you use?

• I understand that there are issues with low light, fast paced action and the degree of bokeh with the mirrorless (all or just Oly models?) and I realize my D700 would be much better suited for each of these but my main concern would be knowing if there is any lag between the time you press the shutter release and the time the images recorded. This drove me nuts with my older Coolpix 5700 to the point where I didn't want to use it anywhere. I used to love taking candids in the old days with my Canon film camera but the 5700 was an exercise in futility. The D700 has rectified that however hoisting a brick to your face also doesn't lend to candids in my experience.

that would be a starting 6 questions


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 1, 2016)

--I don't see any problems with image quality. The two lenses I have are razor sharp, even wide open, and the in-camera image stabilization is better than the in-lens stabilization in the Nikons. I'm happy hand-holding a 75-mm lens (150 mm equivalent) at 1/8 second, something I wouldn't even try on the D300. 

--The menu system is sometimes cryptic, but there are writeups available on the web that will ease your pain. The manual that comes with the camera won't help much.

--Both lenses that I list in my signature are excellent, the 75 mm is virtually flawless.

--I have no trouble using the screen. It's bright and clear. More articulation would be nice.

--The raw format is problem-free. It's 14-bit, lossless compressed. 

--Shutter lag is non-existant, assuming you're in good enough light (it doesn't need all that much) for the camera to find focus. In most ways, the camera feels like a DSLR. In some ways, it's better: what you see in the viewfinder is what you're going to get. You know what your exposure compensation is going to do. Also, depth of field preview doesn't darken what you see in the viewfinder. It's a civilized machine.

The camera has been on the market for over two years, and it has had three firmware versions released in that time. All of them made the camera considerably better. The last one introduced, among other things, focus bracketing and focus stacking. Magic stuff if you are at all into macro photography.

I love mine. What more can I say?


----------



## pondball (Jan 1, 2016)

Thanks Hal... that's a wealth of info for me... 

Have you had a chance to try out any of the new Oly Pro lens yet? Reports are that they are exceptional quality at a (relatively) affordable price.

I almost bit on the E-M1 just prior to xmas as it was listing at $400 off... while the E-M5 was somewhere around $250 off... leading me to believe the heavier discount for the M1 might mean there is a Mark II just around the corner... maybe just wishful thinking but I really would like to have the articulating screen on the back, similar to the M-5 MII... and a bump in video to match some of the other mirrorless offerings would be nice too... not asking too much, eh!?


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 1, 2016)

I haven't tried the new wide and long Oly Pro lenses, but if they're as good as my mid-range pro zoom, they'll be very good, indeed.

There don't seem to be any plausible rumours yet about an E-M1 II, but one will probably surface sometime this year. What improvements it'll have are anybody's guess.


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 2, 2016)

pondball said:


> Hi Ken
> 
> That would be great if you could answer a few... which (apologizing in advance) will no doubt lead to others!
> 
> ...



Not a problem, although Hal's experiences are again somewhat similar to mine, but I do have a few observations that you may also want to consider.

The best way I can describe working with raw files is to say that I became most familiar with those from my D300 as it was my primary camera from 2008-2012.  Having now worked with various m4/3rd's files over the past 3 years, I can say that they were initially a little bit different when it came to processing.  Now, I find them to be "normal" and find my D610 files to be "different".  I was a bit concerned sensor size at first, and considered my switch to be temporary, but here I am three years later with a handful of bodies and lenses.  So much for that D300 upgrade that never materialized.  I have printed as large as 20x30 and found the images to be fine for viewing, even at close range.

The menu system offers a lot of control, as do Nikon's, and you can get used to it fairly quickly.  Olympus also offers a Super Control Panel, and that is quite useful.  Short of Ricoh's GR menu system, I find them all to be a bit cryptic.  And for the record, I have more trouble finding commands in my Panasonic bodies than my Olympus ones, so it is is a matter of familiarity IMHO.

I am using the Oly 12-40 Pro as my everyday lens, and I have a number of primes and zooms as well.  This is a great lens, and I generally only choose my primes or other zooms for specific shoots.  I have been considering the 40-150 Pro, and now that it is back to $200 off, my wallet may be a bit lighter.  For comparison, my favorite Nikon glass are the 60 and 105 macros and the 70-200VRII.  I have other lenses in that system, but those are the ones that I look to for IQ.  My Oly 45, 75, 60 macro and PL 25 are my go to lenses in addition to the 12-40.

I do not use the screen for shooting as much as the EVF, but I have not had issues with it.  You can touch to shoot with it, and that can be a nice feature in certain situations.  The EVF is quite nice, and was one of the best when it was introduced.  I find it a pleasure to use.

LR 5.x does support lens corrections for my Nikon bodies, and I do not have that choice for my Olympus lenses, but that has not been much of an issue for me.  In all, the ony files that I am having a learning curve with are my D610 files.  But, due note that ORF files are often slow to preview their embedded jpegs images, and they sometimes posterize in certain situations.  If evaluating an image for deletion, make sure that you look at the raw file and not the embedded jpeg.

There is no shutter lag of note, but EVF lag can sometimes be an issue with very fast moving subjects.  It is not a deal breaker, as the EVF offers many other features, but it can be a possible issue with fast moving subjects when you are trying to catch the decisive moment.

Having answered your questions, I will call out a few items of note that need to be considered when making a purchase decision:

C-AF modes are just not the same as with a DSLR.  The E-M1 and the new Panasonics are better than previous models, but as I said in my post above, this is not why you buy one of these cameras.

Low light sensitivity is another reason why you might not want to buy one of these cameras.  You can probably go to ISO 1600-3200 without great challenges, but a full frame camera is going to offer you better sensitivity and a bit better dynamic range.  Still, my E-M1 is equal to or better than my D300 in low light situations.

Battery life is not the same as your D700, and is mostly dependent on on-time and screen-time rather than a number of shots.  The E-M1 was rated for about 350 or so shots IIRC, but I have had results near 500-600 when I am shooting a lot in a brief period of time.  You could drain it faster if you use or leave on a lot of features as the screen is a total battery hog.  I carry a spare battery and have my camera set up so it does not tax the battery.  YMMV.

On the positive side, manually focusing these cameras is a pleasure compared to a DSLR.  Both magnification and focus peaking are available with almost all bodies.  This is especially great for macro work.

And the biggest positive feature is the size and weight.  It is a pleasure to carry so little equipment when travelling, and I do not just mean photographically.  It is liberating to travel light, and the E-M1 with 12-40 will fit into a small bag that weighs almost nothing.  I had a wedding to shoot out of town last year, and I packed three bodies, five lenses and a flash into a Domke F-6 bag that I could have easily carried all day long.  I do love my Nikon gear, but carrying smaller gear is like stepping out of a a mini van or full size SUV into a small sports sedan.  Both can do the job, but with different feature sets for different purposes.  Being able to have the choice between two (or in may case three) formats is a real luxury, and I do not take it for granted.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## pondball (Jan 2, 2016)

WOW... thanks Ken... both you and Hal have provided me with a solid foundation from which I feel I can now make a more informed choice. I shoot exclusively in RAW and have become comfortable with getting the shot as close to what I intend as possible but also knowing that I can make some corrections later in LR, ON1 and Affinity... but if I don't get the shot at all then there is an issue. As such I believe having a smaller less obtrusive camera with more readily available (at hand) lens will help achieve that goal.

I had both a box van (for business) and an MX-3 (not for business  ) and knew that each served a purpose. It didn't take long to figure out which one was best for which purpose and I don't suspect that it would take long for me to figure out which format would suit specific circumstances. It sounds like they are make great strides in the mirrorless market and I am pleased to hear also that the updates help keep your equipment current.

It's great to hear that you think so highly of the Pro lens as well. That is one of the things I have been reading about that has also attracted me to the Oly... that and the extensive range of lens available both through Oly and (Panasonic is it??). It is always better to get a first hand report from an actual user though. At some point I'll have to head into the city with my D700 equivalent lens and get some shots side by each with both it and the Oly offerings.

Glad to hear as well that the EVF is very good as I suspect I would be using that as opposed to the back screen. I suspect I would be saving battery power if I turned the back screen off or at least down in level. Years of shooting B&W film still have me composing on the run and at most times not checking to see what I've just shot. I do, but not as often as I see many others doing. Seems like if I spent all my time pimping (is that the right term) I'd miss a lot of opportunities for some great shots... another reason for shooting RAW I suspect.

Once again, Hal and Ken, thanks very much for your great reviews and assistance.
Dan


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 2, 2016)

pondball said:


> It's great to hear that you think so highly of the Pro lens as well. That is one of the things I have been reading about that has also attracted me to the Oly... that and the extensive range of lens available both through Oly and (Panasonic is it??). It is always better to get a first hand report from an actual user though. At some point I'll have to head into the city with my D700 equivalent lens and get some shots side by each with both it and the Oly offerings.
> 
> Glad to hear as well that the EVF is very good as I suspect I would be using that as opposed to the back screen. I suspect I would be saving battery power if I turned the back screen off or at least down in level. Years of shooting B&W film still have me composing on the run and at most times not checking to see what I've just shot. I do, but not as often as I see many others doing. Seems like if I spent all my time pimping (is that the right term) I'd miss a lot of opportunities for some great shots... another reason for shooting RAW I suspect.
> 
> ...



Two items of note.  First, the Pro lenses are great optics, and they do feel much heavier than their normal counterparts, mostly due to more metal I suspect.  They are a bit better designed, but I cannot say for certain if they are better or worse than some of the better Nikkors that I have used over the years.  Today's lenses carry a lot more electronics in them, and I suspect that this may come at a price for durability, Nikon, Olympus or otherwise.  I know that LensRentals just recently disassembled a Canon lens that was built to extreme standards, but I suspect that this is an exception to the rule for modern construction.

Second, I believe the correct term that you would be looking for is "chimping".  I suspect that if you spent all of your time pimping, you would not only be missing a lot of opportunities for great shots, but you might be finding yourself on the wrong side of the law. :blush:

These cameras are not perfect, but neither are DSLRs.  But, they are small, and they do deliver good IQ if shot properly.  Two bloggers who have used them in addition to full frame equipment. among other formats, that might give you some additional impressions about how they compare are Thom Hogan and Ming Thein.  Both seem to have some integrity in their writing, so you will not be reading puff pieces designed to move merchandise when you read their posts.  There are others as well, but this should give you a good start if you are still researching.

Keep us posted,

--Ken


----------



## davidedric (Jan 2, 2016)

To declare my hand, I have moved from apsc to micro 4/3 over the past couple of years, and sold my dslr gear last summer.

For my purposes, much of my photography is travel based, there wasn't really a contest.  I see no loss in image quality, and the reduced weight is a real bonus.  The only thing lacking in lenses is a quality, that's good consumer quality, long zoom.  I have one of the Panasonic equivalents of the Olympus Pro lenses and it's the best (and most expensive!) glass I have ever had.

The main reason for posting is to mention ergonomics.  I chose Panasonic over Olympus purely on the handling - others much prefer Olympus.  I strongly recommend you try handling your short listed bodies before buying.  Other than that, I expect the two companies to keep leapfrogging - they both have some very attractive kit.

Dave


----------



## pondball (Jan 2, 2016)

Replytoken said:


> Second, I believe the correct term that you would be looking for is "chimping".  I suspect that if you spent all of your time pimping, you would not only be missing a lot of opportunities for great shots, but you might be finding yourself on the wrong side of the law. :blush:
> 
> Keep us posted,
> 
> --Ken



I knew there was something wrong with that term but couldn't quite get a handle on it! :surprised:


----------



## pondball (Jan 2, 2016)

davidedric said:


> To declare my hand, I have moved from apsc to micro 4/3 over the past couple of years, and sold my dslr gear last summer.
> 
> For my purposes, much of my photography is travel based, there wasn't really a contest.  I see no loss in image quality, and the reduced weight is a real bonus.  The only thing lacking in lenses is a quality, that's good consumer quality, long zoom.  I have one of the Panasonic equivalents of the Olympus Pro lenses and it's the best (and most expensive!) glass I have ever had.
> 
> ...



Thanks Dave... At the show I attended Panasonic was there as well. I got to handle both bodies (hmmm... doesn't quite sound right does it, especially after my "pimping/chimping" faux pas! Anyway... going through that exercise of checking out both bodies (still doesn't sound right  but I'm going with it) is a great idea. I like the idea that there are companies out there whose bodies can use both M4/3 lens and who seem to be in competition with each other. 

Interesting that you sold your DSLR... it has been a thought. Although I love my D700 I got it for a very good price with the intent to see if I had the Photo Urge once I got back into Photography... apparently I do! I'll probably still hang onto it cuz I just got a new 105 macro for it last summer (my best piece of glass) and enjoy using it when a long haul isn't necessary.


----------



## pondball (Jan 2, 2016)

Replytoken said:


> Two bloggers who have used them in addition to full frame equipment. among other formats, that might give you some additional impressions about how they compare are Thom Hogan and Ming Thein.  Both seem to have some integrity in their writing, so you will not be reading puff pieces designed to move merchandise when you read their posts.  There are others as well, but this should give you a good start if you are still researching.
> 
> Keep us posted,
> 
> --Ken


Hi Ken

Funny you should mention that... and it's good to know they don't have any real affiliation with flogging product. I think it was actually a blog by Hogan that I came across in the fall that got me looking at mirrorless cameras (that and an enthusiastic Henry's store clerk whose opinion I trust and who made the Oly her first Digital Camera). I also came across a link to Thein and he is now bookmarked in my Photo folder for future reference.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 2, 2016)

I have been reading this thread with some interest over the last couple of days.
Both the Panasonic and Olympus kit are excellent offerings.

My thoughts about the FF versus micro4/3's format are that the whole comparison has been made moot by the recent mirrorless offerings from Sony.
Here one gets all the advantages of FF (and very high resolution, if required) along with many, most, all(?) the benefits of micro4/3's weight and size benefits.
A further considerable benefit is that, via adaptors, almost any lens, from almost any manufacturer, can be mated with those bodies. Many will have full function auto-focus as well (providing the lens is natively auto-focus).

Perhaps the one area where these cameras do not excel is in the realm of action/sports/wildlife/bird photography. Here the DSLR still reigns supreme.

However, the more contemplative one's photography the better potentially suited these Sony mirrorless cameras may be for the use-case. The native FE lenses for the mirrorless Sony cameras are, apparently, of the best ever made (check out DxOMark for the low-down).
I can vouch for the IQ benefits first-hand.
My back definitely appreciates using much lighter kit, but, when I need to I can mate that Sony with any lens in my arsenal bar one (my Canon 500mm f4.0 - unless I can use it as a manual focus lens).

I know that travel photography is your thing and I do a lot of travel work myself. I also do a lot wildlife and bird photography so I also travel with very big lenses and big DSLR's (for the large buffers and robust autofocus mechanisms) but for the rest I pull my small Sony kit out. Being able to travel with the smaller Sony kit has made my travel arrangements so much easier and more flexible despite also having to pack those big lenses and DSLR's.
Knowing that I can also cross-mount my lenses increases my creative flexibility.

I would give the Sony mirrorless system a look - and especially going forward since this system is evolving very quickly with each generation substantially better that the last. The same goes for the various third-party lens adaptors.

Tony Jay


----------



## pondball (Jan 3, 2016)

Hi Tony... thanks for your input here. 

I've also had a look at the Sony range but my first impression was that the cost of these units were considerably higher than either the Oly or the Pana. I'm not only looking at smaller size but a smaller dent in my pocketbook. The Sony I'd be interested in would be in the $3K range, not including glass... and if that were the case I'd probably just suck it up weight wise and pick up a newer Nikon to go with my present kit. But then that wouldn't solve my travel requirements. I'd be afraid that by the time I kitted out with a Sony setup I wouldn't have any $$$ left for travel! Doesn't mean I won't keep Sony or any of the other mirrorless offerings on the list... just glad I have some time to make a decision... and of course welcome even more input here. I can't believe how quickly this market is changing. 

The notion that I could use some of my existing glass would be great except I don't consider my present collection (except my 105 macro) to be decent enough to make that part of the decision. If I had more fast glass it would make more sense, but as it stands my other 3 lens, while Nikkor, are more in line with Kit offerings... 50mm 1.8, 24-85 and 70-300... nothing special but they've served me well while getting back in the game.

With regards to any of the mirrorless (or other format) my only wish is that with any of these cameras they stop including all the in camera filters etc. To me these are just fluff and not nearly as good as using software like LR, Affinity Photo or ON1 Photo10.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 3, 2016)

Interesting thread!

I switched from Canon to the Olympus EM1 early last year and love it.  The high ISO is nowhere close to full frame, but unless you're shooting action in low light, I haven't found that to be a problem as the image stabilization is incredible.  Add a monopod for extremely low light and it's my ideal travel solution.  I took a range of lenses on vacation a couple of months ago (no pro lenses as I wanted to keep it light), but the 14-150 lived on the camera 90% of the time, with the 25mm 1.8 for the rest.  For a superzoom, it's surprisingly sharp, and just needs stopping down slightly at the far end.  

Sony was the other I seriously considered - the A6000 is a fantastic camera for the price - but it just doesn't feel right in my hands (my father has the A6000 and A7mk2).  The images are very clean, but I just didn't love it.  The A7mk2 is a great camera, but a lot heavier than the equivalent Oly kit.



Replytoken said:


> LR 5.x does support lens corrections for my Nikon bodies, and I do not have that choice for my Olympus lenses



4/3 lens corrections are built into the metadata of the files and applied automatically.


----------



## pondball (Jan 3, 2016)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Interesting thread!
> 
> I switched from Canon to the Olympus EM1 early last year and love it.  The high ISO is nowhere close to full frame, but unless you're shooting action in low light, I haven't found that to be a problem as the image stabilization is incredible.  Add a monopod for extremely low light and it's my ideal travel solution.  I took a range of lenses on vacation a couple of months ago (no pro lenses as I wanted to keep it light), but the 14-150 lived on the camera 90% of the time, with the 25mm 1.8 for the rest.  For a superzoom, it's surprisingly sharp, and just needs stopping down slightly at the far end.



Interesting indeed. I know everyone is always passionate about their choice of camera but the reports here are a great mix of passion and hands on experience and that = Priceless! It's actually helping me a great deal in determining what I will eventually be deciding to go with. I am certainly less apprehensive about making the move to mirrorless and even further to M4/3 now.



Victoria Bampton said:


> Sony was the other I seriously considered - the A6000 is a fantastic camera for the price - but it just doesn't feel right in my hands (my father has the A6000 and A7mk2).  The images are very clean, but I just didn't love it.  The A7mk2 is a great camera, but a lot heavier than the equivalent Oly kit.



I have a fellow camera club member who picked up an A6000 just before he left for a two month trip to Australia (now that is something I'm really jealous of!). He also has a full kit of Nikon FF with fast glass before picking the Sony up for... wait for it... lighter travel! I'm eagerly awaiting speaking with him when he returns. I know he bought the body only because he wasn't impressed with the kit less that came with it. Will have to talk $$$ with him when he returns too.



Victoria Bampton said:


> 4/3 lens corrections are built into the metadata of the files and applied automatically.


I'd read that about the Olys glass. Are you using just Oly or have you tried the Panasonic lens too... do they also have the lens correction built in?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 3, 2016)

All 4/3, including Panasonic, have built in lens corrections. I only have Oly glass, so can't offer any comparisons with Panasonic I'm afraid.


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 3, 2016)

Victoria Bampton said:


> 4/3 lens corrections are built into the metadata of the files and applied automatically.



Hi Victoria,

i did not know that you added Olympus to your kit.  And thaks for the verification on lens corrections.  I knew the data was included in the metadata, but was not certain if it could be read by LR.  Also, I suspect that you would really appreciate the 12-40 on your E-M1.  It is a great combo.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 3, 2016)

pondball said:


> Interesting indeed. I know everyone is always passionate about their choice of camera but the reports here are a great mix of passion and hands on experience and that = Priceless! It's actually helping me a great deal in determining what I will eventually be deciding to go with. I am certainly less apprehensive about making the move to mirrorless and even further to M4/3 now.



if you want to dive in the deep end, head over to http://www.mu-43.com .  The forum is not quite as intimate as it is here, but folks are mostly well behaved, friendly and helpful.

--Ken


----------



## pondball (Jan 3, 2016)

Replytoken said:


> if you want to dive in the deep end, head over to http://www.mu-43.com .  The forum is not quite as intimate as it is here, but folks are mostly well behaved, friendly and helpful.
> 
> --Ken


Thanks Ken... just been checking out your link... looks like a lot of m4/3 enthusiasts over there with tons of photo examples to take a boo at.


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 3, 2016)

pondball said:


> Thanks Ken... just been checking out your link... looks like a lot of m4/3 enthusiasts over there with tons of photo examples to take a boo at.



Don't forget to come up for air once in a while! 

--Ken


----------



## pondball (Jan 4, 2016)

Replytoken said:


> Don't forget to come up for air once in a while!
> 
> --Ken



no kidding... 

... apparently I retired 8 years ago!

... never been busier!


----------



## tspear (Jan 4, 2016)

One thing to consider with travel photography is how your picture taking changes over time. Especially if you want to capture memories versus landscape....

I have just returned from two weeks in France to visit future in-laws, only about 2K photos with my Canon 6D before culling. Of that only ~50 were with my telephoto lens. Everything else was with my Sigma 35MM 1.4 Prime. 

The trip really brought home to me how much my technique has changed over the years. My general travel photography has changed from mostly focusing on what we are seeing to capturing members of our group at the site with a great background. For us, this brings back a lot more memories. The result is I am now taking much more advantage of the full frame sensor and the available dynamic range. In order to maximize having both people in the foreground  in focus and the background in focus, I am often going to minimize the aperture as much as practically possible for the scene to increase the depth of field; this leads to a lot of low light situations for the camera.   

Since you talk about making memories, consider how easy the camera is to use when handing to a stranger to take a picture of you and your wife.

Tim


----------



## pondball (Jan 4, 2016)

HI Tim... sage words too!



tspear said:


> One thing to consider with travel photography is how your picture taking changes over time. Especially if you want to capture memories versus landscape....



And I suspect it will change even more as I move along. I used to enjoy doing candids back in the B&W film days... shooting weddings as a nondescript... same thing at sports events (crowd shots - never showed any posed shots even though I pretended to take some!). I love my D700 for the macro but have also seen some incredible shots over at the mu-43 site that blow my FF out of the water! Right now I'm open to discovering what genre(s) I want to dive into most and no matter what I pick up in the near future for an alternate it will probably be different from what I have now as I don't believe I need two of the same thing.



tspear said:


> I have just returned from two weeks in France to visit future in-laws, only about 2K photos with my Canon 6D before culling. Of that only ~50 were with my telephoto lens. Everything else was with my Sigma 35MM 1.4 Prime.



Agreed... Of the 3K shots from our 22 day trip I'd probably estimate 98% of them were taken with either the Nikkor 24-85 or with the 50 prime and that only because I could tote it around in my vest pocket... worked great for some low light indoor shots sans flash. The only time I left my 70-300 on was on the last day (7th for us) in Paris when we were staying close to home and didn't have much walking to do. I also kept it on while we were cruising through the Rhine Gorge, albeit it poured rain for most of that part of the trip. I both instances I was glad I had it with me, but in both cases I was not wandering far from my home base so the weight issue was not a problem.



tspear said:


> The trip really brought home to me how much my technique has changed over the years. My general travel photography has changed from mostly focusing on what we are seeing to capturing members of our group at the site with a great background. For us, this brings back a lot more memories. The result is I am now taking much more advantage of the full frame sensor and the available dynamic range. In order to maximize having both people in the foreground  in focus and the background in focus, I am often going to minimize the aperture as much as practically possible for the scene to increase the depth of field; this leads to a lot of low light situations for the camera.



I was under the understanding that the M4/3's are naturally good at attaining the greater DoF aren't they? And that it's extreme bokeh that they fall short compared to the FF cameras.



tspear said:


> Since you talk about making memories, consider how easy the camera is to use when handing to a stranger to take a picture of you and your wife.
> 
> Tim



No truer words spoken... Most, if not all who I gave my camera to exclaimed upon putting it in their hands for a shot, "Oh, it's so heavy!" They should have seen it from my side after toting it around for upwards of 10 hours a day! It's a wonder I have any shoulders left!


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 4, 2016)

_"It's a wonder I have any shoulders left!"_

I remember reading somewhere that professional photographers almost always have back problems.


----------



## pondball (Jan 4, 2016)

Hal P Anderson said:


> _"It's a wonder I have any shoulders left!"_
> 
> I remember reading somewhere that professional photographers almost always have back problems.



Bingo!

I blame mine on a lifetime of sports though... not a minute of which I would take back.

and also one of the reasons I'm interested in an articulating screen!


----------



## tspear (Jan 4, 2016)

Well in terms of toting around, I want to get a couple of pancake lens. I will likely either get a couple of lens filters or a pancake lens before my next big trip.
That will cut the weight in half 

Tim


----------



## jmj2001 (Jan 8, 2016)

Several years ago I bought a Canon Powershot S95 as a highly portable alternative to my Canon EOS 450D DSLR.  I found that this system suited me really well and recently upgraded to their successors, the Powershot S120 and EOS 760D.   The S series Powershots are so small that they really can be carried in a trousers pocket, which I don't think is true of the micro 4/3s and others mentioned above.   Although they look like a point&shoot, they are not.  You can shoot in RAW and have a high quality zoom lens (the S120 goes to f/1.8 at the wide end) and fairly large sensor.   For rather modest compromises, you get something really small and portable that takes excellent photos.   I still use the DSLR a lot, though, when small size is not so important.


----------



## pondball (Jan 9, 2016)

HI jmj2001
I think that's the same one as one of our club members has... its an incredibly tiny little thing that takes surprisingly good photos. He too has a FF Canon but as he has some mobility issues I usually see him with his PS most of the time... that might be third option for me for an everyday camera... that or a better phone... camera would be less expensive update though  in that case!


----------

