In which I am ruined . . . and other photographic observations

Jock Elliott

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Location
Troy, NY
File this under: well . . . duh!

First I must confess: I am a witless dolt. I must be because it took me so long to figure it out.

I have a great fondness for serious compact cameras, particularly superzooms. They have so much to offer: enormous reach, decent image quality, and the ability to capture keeper images under seemingly impossible conditions . . . when the last vestiges of twilight are fading . . . when a big bird booms by in flight.

Every once in a while, though, I consider that I must be missing something. So many people shoot with larger format cameras, particularly APS-C size sensors. As a result, from time to time, I will buy a combo package DSLR with a kit lens and a telephoto and compare it head to head against one of my superzooms. And the results are never quite what I had hoped for. The expectation of a big jump in technical image quality is there, but it is never realized.

So far, I have had three dust spots appear on the sensors of my serious compact cameras. Two on my beloved Panasonic FZ200. Most recently, another one appeared on my LX100. As a result, I took an oath: I will not spend significant money on a camera where I can’t get at the sensor to clean it, and preferably the camera will have some self-cleaning mechanism built into it.

This oath has accelerated my search for an interchangeable lens camera (ILC) system that will offer better performance for future photographic endeavors. I have a 4/3 camera, the OM-D E-M5, but the APS-C cameras all offer better test numbers. On the other hand, the APS-C cameras I have tried failed to impress me.

In the midst of my exercise routine, two thoughts strike me. (1) All the cameras I have really loved so far have very capable image stabilization systems, which enable me to shoot at low speeds and high equivalent focal lengths (this has basically ruined me), and (2) none of the APS-C cameras (with the exception of the newly introduced Sony A6500) have In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS, isn’t that the name of a north African stork?). All the APS-C kits I tried had el cheapo telephoto lenses, and I doubt if any had in-lens stabilization, so no wonder the superzoom would beat them for long range stuff.

IBIS, it seems to me, is the way to go, because you don’t have to worry about whether a lens is stabilized or not. So that leaves me with: go with the A6500 and hope that Sony offers a selection of lenses that I might like to use OR continue to build on the Olympus 4/3 system and accept that it doesn’t offer quite the performance of APS-C sensors.

Does this make sense? Or this there a flaw in my thinking or another path I should explore?

Cheers, Jock
 
yeah, dont beat yourself up, we all do this in one form or another, dont we??? i sure have. after buying & selling many systems--leica, sony, m4/3, 4/3, fuji, canon--i have two suggestions:

first, forget test scores. at this point in time ALL systems are capable, test scores say virtually nothing about either 'real world' performance or more importantly what kind of rendering YOU SUBJECTIVELY like. this is art, not science, so paying attention to numbers will only have you chasing your tail. its more important to find a 'look' you like--eg modern 'bitingly sharp across the frame' or one that focuses more on 'character'. chase that vision.

second, if you value compactness and if i'm correct and you tend to value very sharp images, and you already have m4/3, i see no reason not to stick with it and maybe invest in some of its higher quality offerings. the new pen f has a 20mp sensor which increases clarity over the old 16, yet the files are not as cumbersome as the new set of 24-36mp sensors. the jpeg engine is great and it has that 5 axis ibis bird you like. upgrade to that, get yourself the cv 17/.95 and the noctitron 42.5/1.2 and maybe a pro zoom and i think youll be really happy.

truly i felt the same as you, and searched etc for the 'small camera big picture' system. i chased sharpness. i was constantly 'yearning'. then i realised that my favorite photos id taken were those that seemed to elevate overall interesting 'look' vs knife cutting sharpness. the macro became more important to me than my now gone favorite sport of pixel peeping. this was liberating for me, though maybe not for anyone else. now my main tool is a pentax ks2, pentax 20-40, 77/1.8 and zeiss 28/2 hollywood. i get a 'look' that to me is both bold but also very natural, unprocessed, and film like. the lenses, while sharp enough for me, are also capable of a unique signature, one i think sets it apart from other systems--extremely similar to ccd leica but much less dear. the ks2 is the most compact dslr available--same width and height as the fuji xt1, though about 25% heavier, but also weatherproofed. when coupled with the exquisite--and dense--zeiss hollywood it weighs 1 pound more than the xt1 plus leica 21 elmarit. not a bad trade for me. and i smile every time i look at the results these tools produce.

anyway, good luck!
 
Last edited:
I've a Nikon background, so keep that in mind.

There are plenty of Nikon lenses, even kit lenses that are inexpensive and have VR. When I had all APS-C Nikon cameras, one of my favorite inexpensive lenses was the Nikon 50-200mm f4-5.6 VR. Speedy, good optics and the VR worked well.

To be honest, though - there is not much difference IMHO that you are going to see between m43 and APS-C. If you want to see a larger IQ difference, then you'll need to start looking at 135 size sensors. Even then, if you want or need larger aperture lenses, you lose any kind of size or weight reduction you've experienced with m43.

Also to consider, DSLRs have historically been known to not have the same level of sharpness out of the box as other camera systems. They also require a different post processing set of settings. I've adopted different sets of post processing presets in Lightroom for them.

I keep a Nikon kit around for it to support the deficiencies of the m43 kit I currently have. Point being, I look more at camera gear in this day and age by function and ease of getting the shots I want over IQ - which is going to be great.
 
yes, i believe most if not all do. my ks2 has it. however, one also needs consider that having 'mirror slap' naturally detracts from ibis effect. and that probably accounts for what gryphon characterized as dslrs being 'less sharp' ooc than mirrorless. in the end with my pentax gear, my guess is its close to a net 'wash' when compared to most mirrorless, maybe a bit of a plus, but nothing close to the oly 5 axis.
 
Last edited:
From one witless dolt to another, I've been through the same line of thinking, Jock. Bought and sold many digicams, from Sony, to Pentax, back to Sony, to Olympus, to Fuji, back to Olympus. I finally gave up the camera rat race, sold what I could, and gave away the rest. I now have an E-M5 with the 17mm 1.8 and arriving soon, the 12mm f/2; a Fuji X30; and an Olympus RC35 film camera. I carry all 3 cameras in a small sling bag every day, and it weighs next to nothing, especially compared to the huge 4/3 high grade lenses and legacy glass I used to own. For telephoto purposes, the effective 28-112mm lens on the X30 works great, and its IQ belies the small 2/3" sensor. I am enjoying photography more than I ever have. YMMV, but for me, embracing simplicity was the key.
 
I spent many years and a lot of money, chasing the un-attainable, (for me). But, the truth is, that I was looking for equipment, to over come my deficiencies, as a photographer. I acquired the knowledge by much study and practice, but, didn't have the patience or self discipline to get the clean high IQ images, that I saw in medium, large format and even 35mm magazine images (Which was impossible and that I could not afford).
Then came digital, and the steep learning curve of transitioning from film. Again, began the chasing of that illusive "best" affordable combination (for me). Then came the very restrictive era of forced retirement, with very limited income, and very unstable hands. I was finally able to catch a "new" EM5. Today I shoot with the OLD OM 50mm with adapter and occasionally with the wife's P20. I can even use it with light, leather winter driving gloves! Life is simple and I get very good results (for me), IF, I take the TIME to work at it. No flying birds etc.
The thoughts of an old man, that wasted a lot of money on equipment. Find the combo that "works" for you. Then work on your skill and "eye". Learn what You like to shoot , and tailor your equipment and your skill to that.
Remember. Beware the man, with only one gun, but, knows how to use it well! It's the shooter, not the gun.
 
As Andrew / gryphon said, the difference in size between m4/3 and APSC is really not that large; about 2/3 of a stop only. The difference between APSC and full frame is about 1.3 stops. So assuming equal sensor efficiency, the step up that you'll see by going to APSC will be about 2/3 of a stop, which isn't all that much.

Did you ever try vacuum cleaning your non-ILC cameras' lenses when they had dust on them? I read a post once, on DPR I think, by a user that had had good results with that (he made sure that the nozzle of the cleaner didn't competely seal off the lens, in order to reduce the chance of damaging the camera). Might be worth a try if you're about to give up on a camera.
 
Nikon to Fuji, and I had m4/3 in the past. They all have Pros/Cons but Fuji and m4/3 all did something that CanoNikon didn't - they filled out their gaps very well in lenses appropriate to the smaller size sensor/camera without compromising on things like aperture or features.

I went to Fuji because I realized I was spending at least as much time getting my Nikon NEF files to my satisfaction, than what I had spent in the field taking them. Oftentimes more. Once I saw X-Trans samples from borrowing my mentor's XE-1, I was sold. It took me a bit to figure out the magic settings, but what easily takes me 5 minutes a NEF is now 30 seconds per Fuji SOOC JPG. Sharp right out of the box and color is dead on. Plus where else can you get an 85mm f1.2 equivalent for less than 900 bucks? Nowhere.

IBIS, I had it in m4/3, it's not one of the killer features I need. For my applications, and I do shoot tele, I need speed, focusing accuracy and responsiveness. YMMV.
 
I went from Sony A100 with IBIS to NEX5 the NEX7 without - I did miss the IBIS initially but a lot of the Sony E lenses had stabilisation including some of the everyday primes which was nice. I ended up with Fuji because it ticked the box for me on the balance of size and quality. While most of the zooms have stabilization the downside was that the primes don't, so in that respect it was a step backwards. But on balance Fuji is the closest I've come to my ideal set up. That said, if Sony or, more likely, Sigma manage to fill out the E mount with a credible selection of lenses I would be quite tempted by an A6500 type camera.
 
Mu43 is the sweet spot for me. I too value sharpness, size, and a variety of lenses, especially primes. Mu43 also has all combinations of image stabilization between Olympus (IBIS) and Panasonic (OIS). I sometimes think of switching but, for me, the IQ improvement from APS-C is too small and that for FF is too expensive.
 
I've realised of late that I still love my Pentaxes. I have a K200D and a K5, a few zooms and a few primes. The beauty of having IBIS is that any lens is then stabilised. You can switch SR (shake reduction) off for on-tripod use. I retain the K200 because it has a CCD sensor and I like its rendering. I retain the K5 because its top LCD is backlit and at night thats very useful. I only have a couple of weather resistant lenses but am planning for more. I no longer need latest/greatest, though its a big temptation at times. I've bought a lot of cameras over the past 3-4 years but have only bonded with a few, and none as much as the K200, my all time favourite. It might "only" have 10Mp, but it suits me.
 
I'm another one who can't give up his Pentax APS-C kit, despite also owning Fuji APS-C and micro four-thirds gear. I have gifted my K200D and K30 to my niece, along with some kit lenses. But I still have my K-5 and K-3... with a nice selection of glass.

My Pentax's all feature weather resistance and in-body image stabilization. And sometimes phase-detection autofocus is what you need to get the job done right.

Jock, I don't know if you really need to get into a new system or not. Personally, I think full-frame options are too expensive and end up being too large and heavy when lenses are factored in. There's reason I stuck with APS-C when I switched from film to digital.

One potential way to go might be to pick up a lightly used Pentax K-5 II or K-5 IIs from a reputable dealer like B&H or KEH. Add couple of zooms with WR (the DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4.0 and the DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 WR come to mind) and perhaps a couple of inexpensive, fast primes (the DA 35mm f/2.4 and the DA 50mm f1.8 come to mind) and see how it goes.

Don't want to buy used? Then I'd look for a good deal on a Nikon D3300 now that the 3400 has come out. Not much bigger than your E-M5 but a fair bit more resolution to go with the larger sensor.

Want more features and willing to pay more? Try the D5400 or 5500. But neither the 3000 or 5000 line features WR. For that, you'd need the Nikon 7100 or 7200. Or you could have that, along with IBIS, in almost any modern Pentax.
 
Last edited:
holy cow! i had no idea when i posted that there are so many other pentax lovers! i thought we were a niche within another niche! glad to see. though im very happy w the ccd-like rendering and compact-for-slr size of my ks2, im gonna check out the k200 just for giggles. to you pentax folk, give some thought to the zk 28/2 hollywood--it is extraordinary for those who value character and unique signature.
 
I wanted the KS-2 but over here the cost was prohibitive for me, when I already have two perfectly good K bodies. The vari-angle screen was what I was after, but then, I realised that I rarely use live view on the K5 (K200D doesnt have it) so probably would not, on the KS, either.
 
the differences in pricing in different locales is astounding to me. here the ks2 was downright cheap--close to the least expensive camera ive ever bought. i honestly had zero expectations for it--having long before left dslrs for mirrorless and rangefinder--so i never wouldve even tried it if it wasnt cheap, so i count myself lucky. i dont use live view much, but ive also found that there are some circumstances where i just cant get the shot i want if i lift the camera to my eye. should the prices become more reasonable, the ks2 is really quite lovable: as small as an slr can be (yet very solid and well made), weatherproof, easy for right eye shooting with off center vf, great deep grip, and best of all a lovely yet manageable 20mp sensor that yields very natural yet bold results.

i also heartily recommend the ltd 20-40 and the ltd 77/1.8--theyre both very special, have a lot of character, and sharpen up nicely as you stop down. the zk 28/2 is just unique and so its not for everyone, esp those who require knife cutting sharpness (though imo its plenty sharp enough). its really quite the opposite of the 'modern' flat field lens. certainly these make up a kit for someone who is looking for a different kind of look to their results. im so happy i stumbled into it, because it give me personally exactly what i was looking to achieve.
 

Similar threads

P
    • Like
I am not a terrorist.....i am a photographer!
Replies
1
Views
629
RonSmith
RonSmith
P
    • Like
I am not a terrorist....I am a photographer!!!
Replies
3
Views
661
Lightmancer
Lightmancer
Lucille
    • Like
Sony I am told this is the most photographed event in the world...
Replies
4
Views
2K
Lawrence A.
Lawrence A.
Back
Top