Switching to a more portable photog setup. Thoughts?

steezysteeze

steezysteeze

Active member
Hello fellow M&A brethren,

So, I am pondering switching systems from my t2i to something more portable and with better build quality.

Before I start, I'll list my current setup of gear specific to canon:

-Canon t2i

-Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non vc

-Canon 70-200mm f/4L non IS

-Optika 6.5mm f/3.5 fisheye

-430ex ii

(essentially a classic NS setup)

it is also worth nothing I shoot 80% stills 20% video but largely enjoy having the option to shoot both.

The reason I'd like to switch being is that I find the size/shape if my t2i too awkward to bring around with me on a regular basis, say hanging with friends or whatever. I'd prefer if I could take my camera everywhere. Also, as I said earlier, the build quality of the t2i makes it feel exactly how it is, cheap (to be expected for a $400 camera). To avoid these minor yet ever present and limiting shortcomings (in terms of how often I can grab my camera) I feel I have been left with 2 options:

DISCLAIMER: With these two options I am not exactly looking for an "upgrade" but rather a switch. (I realize this may seem a petty reason to switch but to me, when decent sensor performance is assumed, in order of importance optics takes first followed by ergonomics.)

Option 1: Sell all of my gear, netting me about $1600 and go micro 4/3 with an Olympus OM-D EP-5 ($1000 new or ~$800 used) and the Panny 20mm f1/7 ($400) or Panny Leica 25mm f/1.4 ($550). Now I am willing to spend roughly 1.5 grand after that so I was thinking maybe the Oly 45mm f/1.8 ($400) and the panny 7-14mm f/4 ($1000).

My thoughts on option 1:

I find that when I shoot my 17-50 I will either shoot at the 80mm full frame equivalent, ~50mm full frame equivalent, or at it's widest ~28mm full frame equivalent (which I almost always find it not wide enough). So the 3 lenses listed would cover everything I had with the t2i on the standard/wide end except sharper and distortion free, while maintaining about the same DOF which is not necessarily an advantage/disadvantage but does offer less control over DOF. The only thing I am missing in this setup is my 70-200mm which I almost exclusively use for surfing. I do have access to a canon FD 70-210mm f/4 which would be nice due to the fact that I find my 70-200 slightly lacking reach. The one disadvantage would be that the 70-210mm is heavy and full manual but I always shoot surfing using a tripod so I should be able to get around it. What's nice about the Oly is that it has excellent image stabilization built into the sensor so it will work with any legacy glass.

Option 2: This one is quite simple, keep what I've got and get a fuji x100 or x100s. I feel like the x100s is the better call here. I've gotten the chance to shoot an x-pro-1 with the 20mm and the files were superb and I've heard that the 23mm lens on the x100(s) is even better.

My thought on option 2:

$1500 is a lot to drop on a fixed lens system. I initially though the x-pro-1 would offer more flexibility but the x mount lineup has nothing on the ultra wide and tele end and probably never will. With this option I feel I will long for more focal length versatility and that it will limit the amount of use I get from my t2i making me want to have gone with option 1.

In conclusion:

So, I'm more or less looking for opinions on either system and micro 4/3 in general. If you guys have used either of the cameras or any of the lenses listed what do you think about them? If you guys have any other options that seem more logical to you I'd love to hear them as well. I hate to subject you guys to such a long thread but thought I may as well explain my entire thought process in the first place to save explaining it later. This was originally intended for the unthreadworthy thread but I thought I put enough effort in it to deserve its own thread.

Any thought or opinions would be largely appreciated.
 
The widest currently native available for the Fujifilm X-mount is the Carl Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon T* (18mm equivalent) it's quite an amazing piece of glass but also 1250 $

highres-zeiss-touit-12mm-fujifilm-xpro1-3_1368446730.jpg


On the tele end you can expect the Fujinon XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS.

55-200.jpg


The X-format is in my opinion a very nice format, but it requires some committing, so far there are not many lenses available but that will of course increase over time. I really do like how every x-mount lens so far seems pretty darn great optically.
 
^I suppose you're right there with the 55-200, although I really do wish it were a consistent aperture lens. There is a 10-24mm f/4 on the horizon as well. To me the only setback other than the lenses (or lack thereof) is that the x-pro-1 actually is quite large. Not massive by any stretch but certainly larger than the compact OM-D.
 
Are you set on getting an OVF or will the EVF on the XE-1 cut it? It's a little smaller than the X-Pro1. Or if you don't care about viewfinders at all: the X-M1 seems like a neat little camera. There were INSANE rebates going on on the XE-1 a while ago. They might still be going on...
 
I'd definitely want a viewfinder. With the rangefinder-esque layout of the x series It would be nice to have an OVF to see outside the frame lines, but the electric/optical isn't that important to me and more so a luxury. One thing with the x series is that I could flash sync past 1/200th which would be sick for skiing/skating.

Anybody here shoot on any of the fujis (interchangeable or fixed) or any of the m4/3 lenses that I mentioned?
 
I've used them all, briefly on multiple occasions. I've used the X-mount most so here's my opinion:

I've you want a die hard opinion on the tech specs just look at DPreview what I'll give is a brief notion of my experience.

I consider the X-Pro1 to be one of the nicest camera's to be out there, it's not without flaws, which makes sense consider it was the first product of a completely new system, but that things that are important to me all work very bloody well.

The system itself is excellent, X-mount is still young and there aren't many lenses out, but they are all great, in terms of build quality and amazing optical quality. There isn't a 'dog'. Also there's an adapter for M lenses and there are adapters for Canon, Nikon, Minolta etc..(no AF of course) so you can experiment with a lot of current and legacy lenses.

The camera is great, it's build incredibly well, it doesn't only feel solid it is solid, engraving is actually engraving not just a scratch filled in with a micron layer of paint. It feels like a camera that can out last you, it almost feels Leica like.

It's also inconspicuous, silent, it doesn't scare people like a big SLR. It's not as small as an OM-D but if you are considering carrying an OM-D this is a small step-up. unlike the big step down to compacts or the big step up to DSLRs.

Image quality is good, really good and pictures come out great in jpeg, I hardly felt I needed to shoot in raw.

But most importantly, it feels inspiring, it may sound vague but I get the same feeling when I walk around with my Nikon F, it's just a really nice camera.

Now go to DPreview and pixelpeek.
 
This is exactly what I am looking for, to own a camera which I am inspired to use. I think any option will do me well, it's just deciding on one that will be tough.
 
Personally i think the x mount has a big future and while lenses are limited now, zeiss committing to the platform says big things. You could go Leica, film or digital, M8s are going for 900 bucks these days pair that with a nice cv 28 f/2 and you have a 37 f/2 for sub 1500, or go film a pick up any M.

 
If you are looking for a small size setup, go for option 1. You will appreciate the tiny size of the micro four thirds lenses and the incredible sharpness. Last year I bought a $250 Olympus PEN + 20mm f/1.7 + 50-150mm as a compact setup to take on the mountain. I have barely touched my Nikon since that day!

Fuji X is also a very nice system, but in size it is more comparable to a Canon Rebel setup because the lenses are the same size (except for a pancake or 2). Also, from what I've seen, the Fuji lenses are not as great as everyone is saying. They are good, but often soft in the corners.

The choice between the OM-D and the PEN E-P5 is quite simple: if you want a removable viewfinder get the E-P5, if not the OM-D is more practical. The viewfinders on these cameras are great, you will want one. I for one love the ability to remove the viewfinder to make the camera smaller (e.g. in combination with a pancake). On the other hand the OM-D feels so nice. Also keep in mind that you cannot attach an external viewfinder and an external flash at the same time.

The 20mm f/1.7 is a must have. That lens has amazing IQ and is so small. I also own the 25mm f/1.4, which has a very nice character as well, but if I had to keep only one, I'd keep the 20mm. The amount of detail it captures is astounding.

The 45mm f/1.8 is great as well, though the crappy plastic construction is disappointing. The 75mm f/1.8 is even better and has a proper metal construction.

All of these lenses will produce far better images than a Tamron 17-50. They might be 'equivalent' in numbers, but the sharpness and bokeh is far superior on those Olympus and Panasonic lenses.

The question about the tele zoom is easy: pick up a 40-150mm from Olympus and be amazed by the sharp images that this tiny lens produces. Seriously, such a great deal for a portable tele zoom. The PEN + 40-150mm is such a compact combo: it'll fit in the goggle pocket of a Dakine backpack, or in the chest pocket of a ski jacket without a problem.

I haven't used the Panasonic 7-14 yet, but I've heard great things. I picked up the Olympus 12mm f/2 last week and it completely blows away my Tokina 11-16mm.
 
You best be joking right?

The 35mm f1.4 is an amazing lens and they are way smaller then their DSLR counter parts.

7592998058_d2af6d4c74_c.jpg
 
Holy triple post batman,

Let's remind us of what you typed earlier: "Canon Rebel setup"

Both APS-C camera's, both lenses are 35mm in full frame.

And 1,52 * 35 = 53,2mm and 1,6 * 35 = 56mm

So roughly 50mm equivalent give or take and both have a max aperture of f1.4.

It's the equivalent setup.

"I find these comparisons better than your comparison of a wide angle lens to a normal prime:"

I don't because my comparison featured two lenses that are 35mm on full frame.
 
How am I ranting?

You triple post and dubious claims you made in the process weren't adding anything to the discussion either.

Please don't go and act all mature when you aren't.
 
So is every lens anyone on here buys, and chances are most of your lenses too. Fuji knows how to make good glass, they make hasselblad lenses for a reason. And saying a rebel and X body are similar in size is just wrong when you actually hold them in your hand or walk around with one for a while.
 
Oh and lenses are limited? You can get the M mount adapter and have 60+ years or AMAZING lenses covering every length from 12mm-135mm. The X system is not intended to be used for tele work, it's a street/travel camera all the way to the core.
 
This is really exhausting.

I am warning the OP about the lens sizes, not the body size. No matter how you twist or turn it, APS-C lenses are roughly the same size across all systems: Nikon DX, Fuji X, Sony NEX, etc.. all have similarly sized lenses. Shaving 1-2 cm off the body can be great, but you don't get the same reduction on the lens sizes.

And to Lawrence, you can't go and take a wide angle full frame lens (35mm equivalent), and compare it to a normal prime (50mm equivalent) and then pretend to make claims about the size differences. Most other normal primes for APS-C systems are very similar in size to the Fuji (e.g. the Nikon 35mm, the Pentax 35mm, the Sigma 30mm, etc..). None of these lenses are very large anyway, normal primes don't require much glass (just look at a full frame Nikon or Canon 50mm f/1.4). The big differences are with the wide angle and tele lenses.

Don't get me wrong: I think the Fuji system is a great system to replace a Canon or Nikon setup, but I don't think it's the optimal choice if compactness is your main motivation.

Then about the sharpness of this 35mm lens... this is the Fuji wide open:

1blur-t.gif


This is the Sigma wide open:

1blur-t.gif


And this is the Panasonic Leica wide open:

1blur-t.gif


So take from that what you want. I'd just be skeptical of all of these bandwagons...
 
And as a scientist how am I to trust a single source that gives no proper labeling and scale on their axis

0-12 of what?

Penguins?
 
I think it's blur index, it states on the site.

I'm not sure what that means specifically, so I just compare it to graphs of lenses that I've used myself.
 
This is very true and I failed to consider this great lens opportunity. I do understand that the x system is geared towards street and travel photography, this is something that I now am more interested in compared to when I initially bought my camera with the intentions to only use it for ski photography. I don't enjoy the fact that I am going to have to more or less forfeit this to get something geared toward street/travel but It really isn't the biggest deal.

I got an opportunity to shoot the oly with my own sd card so I could have a look at the files when I got home and I must say I am much more impressed with the x pro 1. I am not ruling out the oly just yet but the x100s or even the x-pro-1 seem more attractive. I haven't gotten a chance to get my hands the x100s and would like to do so before making my decision but right now I am thinking the x-pro-1 or x-e-1. Thanks for taking the time to shed some advice guys, I already have many of you at 10/10 karma but I do appreciatethe feedback
 
Hey buddy! If I may offer my two cents then here it is.

I too am in the same predicament, with an almost identical DSLR set up as yours. I feel your pain of always lugging around a "big" camera, it's not the most convenient of things for sure!

I have decided to get the Fuji X10, the baby brother of the X line up. Reason being, it's super compact, has wicked image quality, both a range finder style view finder that zooms with the lens and very usable 2.8 inch screen. The lens is 28 - 112 (full frame eqv) f/2.0 - 2.8 which is pretty decent and will help keep your shutter speed up for shooting sports with ISO usable up to and inc. ISO1600 Thats a pretty versatile focal length too. Speaking of that, if you like to shoot sequences it can go up to 10fps at medium JPEG which is far better than the T2i (or my T4i) it also weighs a mere 350g and to top it off it looks awesome! It also takes the same size SD cards as your T2i and will shoot video too, though it can look a touch shakey without extra stabilization.

I hope this has helped rather than hindered your search for a new camera. The ones you mentioned in your original post are both wicked on paper too, I'm just speaking from what I have tried out myself. X100(s) is amazing, just depends if you're cool with the fixed lens. Peace bro, and good luck!
 
I purchased an X10 a couple months ago and ever since it arrived my GH2 has only been used for video.

It's not a lowlight stunner like the X100, but I've certainly loved it and you can bring it anywhere because it is tiny, black, and silent. It is the ideal hiking and traveling camera. Don't count on ever using the viewfinder though, its pretty bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top