From D7000 to a mirrorless?
/forum/topic/1154058/0

1
       2       end

MrPacMan
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 17
Country: Israel

Hello
I have a D7000. I DON`T know if a mirrorless camera like the sony nex 7 will `replace` my Nikon d7000.
I DON`T LIKE the weight and the size of my DSLR. I am not enjoying traveling with it and sometimes I just leave my camera at home because of the size.

I`m not sure if the mirrorless cameras are good enough in terms of the AF quality, and the image quality.
Quality camera in your pocket... dream.
Thank you



mawz
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Total Posts: 7974
Country: Canada

If you're happy with the IQ of the D7000, you won't be unhappy with the IQ from the current top mirrorless bodies, which match or exceed the IQ of the D7000. The 16MP NEX bodies in fact use the same sensor as the D7000 (or a newer generation version in the NEX-F3, NEX-5R and NEX-6) while the NEX-7's 24MP sensor delivers superior IQ at low/mid ISO's at the cost of slightly reduced high ISO performance. The Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the E-PL5 and E-PM5 all use a Sony sensor which delivers IQ only marginally behind the NEX bodies (it's close enough that you'll likely never see a difference).

As to AF performance, the 16MP Oly's have excellent AF, better than the D7000 in Single-Shot mode, the NEX's are slower but not slow. The only place where the D7000 wins is in Continuous AF, where it will blow any Contrast-Detect AF system out of the water (Sony's new Hybrid AF in the NEX-6 and NEX-5R may be closer to the D7000 though).



surf monkey
Registered: May 24, 2005
Total Posts: 2710
Country: United States

I have supplemented my "big" system with a MILC and so far I like what I'm seeing.
Current DSLR system:
Canon 5D3 + many, many lenses (see my profile)

New MILC system:
Oly OM-D
Pany 7-14 (waiting to arrive)
Pany 14 f2.5
Pany 20 f1.7 (waiting to arrive)
Oly 45 f1.8
Oly 40-150

The difference in size and weight is astonishing.
I've primarily made the switch for travel, personal events and snapshots.
And the IQ is very high, even the high ISO capabilities are quite good.

So far none of the MILC systems can replace my DSLR for landscape (with big prints), wildlife and sports, but for everything else I feel that it performs admirably.

The main reason I went with the Oly OM-D was my need to have a "mini DSLR feel", which it comes the closest to among the current competition.
My primary issue, continuous AF notwithstanding, is the size and fit for my hands. I always hated P&S cams because they were so difficult to hold. The MILCs that are small, meet my portability needs, but are not quite as comfortable in use as a full-sized DSLR. And there's the rub - you can't have both.



LightShow
Registered: Aug 03, 2009
Total Posts: 5046
Country: Canada

IQ is simply not an issue(a look through the NEX images thread will make you a believer), the only problems you'll come across are with AF tracking,
and most if not all CSC/EVIL/Mirrorless cameras will have this weakness, the just announced NEX-6 & 5R may have improved tracking.
I'm only shooting manual legacy glass, so I don't have that problem.



MrPacMan
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 17
Country: Israel

Thanks fox.
I don't like the 43 format because the sensor is too small for shallow DOF. Plus, the image quality is far from superb.
I'm not shooting sports. I shoot alot at home so I need some fast glass. And of course portraits.
I like the image quality from my d7000. It's great. I want the same thing(WITH MANUAL CONTROL ON EVERYTHING. The Sony 5n for example, has only 1 dial...) in a small package.
If I sale my gear, I will have about 2,400$. Is it enough for a good camera and good glass?



khollister
Registered: Mar 30, 2002
Total Posts: 46
Country: United States

MrPacMan wrote:
Thanks fox.
I don't like the 43 format because the sensor is too small for SDF. Plus, the image quality is far from superb.
I'm not shooting sports. I shoot alot at home so I need some fast glass. And of course portraits.
I like the image quality from my d7000. It's great. I want the same thing(WITH MANUAL CONTROL ON EVERYTHING. The Sony 5n for example, has only 1 dial...) in a small package.
If I sale my gear, I will have about 2,400$. Is it enough for a good camera and good glass?


The IQ on the latest 16MP m43 cameras (Panasonic and Olympus) are not "far from superb" unless your reference is something like a 5D3 or D800. Even then, I am very impressed with the OM-D and I own/use a pair of D800's.

As far as DOF, there are now a number of fast native primes that go a long way towards bridging that gap (Olympus 12/2, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 and Panasonic 25/1.4 & 20/1.7). I owned a D7000 for a while and I feel the IQ from the OM-D is very, very close to the D7000. And the Oly fast primes have marvelous IQ with beautiful bokeh.

$2400 would get you an OM-D, 12/2, 45/1.8 and a FL-600R speedlight. There are also some f2.8 zooms from Panasonic that are supposed to be very good, but more expensive.

I think the trick is understanding your needs/expectations. If you are expecting a m43 kit to do everything a DSLR kit can do, you will be disappointed. DSLR's still have huge advantages in speed for things like sports, birds in flight, etc. And full frame DSLR's have more selective DOF options.

My personal take on it is that the latest cameras like the OM-D (and probably the latest 16MP Panny's) are a great solution for things that you might have previously considered a rangefinder for. It is still not a viable replacement for DSLR's for things that require robust C-AF or razor-thin DOF. On the other hand they offer distinct advantages in other areas such as macro (more DOF is a good thing and the CDAF tends to work better than PDAF in this case), street photography (more stealthy) and travel (more stealthy and more portable). The other area of weakness for m43 right now is long glass. There are no super high quality telephotos over 200mm effective FX focal length (100mm for m43), only slow zooms that are of "consumer" quality.

If you are OK with the IQ of a D300s/D7000 or a 7D, you will not give much, if anything, up with the Oly OM-D as far as IQ. And you can afford higher quality lenses that will be much smaller/lighter if you are good with primes.



surf monkey
Registered: May 24, 2005
Total Posts: 2710
Country: United States

The Sony NEX-7 is probably going to be your best solution, but with a lens attached it really isn't pocketable unless you have BIG pockets.
And if you want shallow DOF then you're going to need pricey prime lenses, so the budget won't allow for too much choice.

To meet your requirements you stated so far, the Sony RX1 seems right with full frame & fast lens for "SDF" and relatively small - but of course not interchangeable lenses.
Another choice might be the new Fuji X-E1+ 18f2 & 35f1.4.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6064
Country: United States

$2150 will buy you the NEX-7, Sigma 19/2.8, upcoming Sony 35/1.8 OSS and the Sony 50/1.8 OSS, which is a pretty hard package to beat at that price, IMO. The Sony 35 doesn't come until Nov/Dec, so there is also the Sigma 30/2.8 option, which is even cheaper and about as sharp as it gets.

If shallow depth of field is a concern with m4/3, keep in mind that there are f1.4 options for the OM-D, like the 25/1.4, which will give you approximately the same DOF as f1.8 does on NEX, so I wouldn't necessarily count the OM-D out.

Of course, if you're interested in using manual lenses, then there's a whole world of lens options out there.

p.s. you could also save a few hundred more bucks and go with the new NEX-6.



ISO1600
Registered: Jul 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4433
Country: Korea, South

I had a D7000 and several great DX lenses.
Sold it, got a 5DII and a few fast nice primes.

Sold THAT, got a OM-D. Tried a few M4/3 lenses.
Currently, i'm using OM-D, Pan/Leica 25/1.4, and a few C-Mount lenses.

The image quality out of the OM-D is NOT as good as what the D7000 is capable of, but it is more than enough to please me.
There is a nice selection of GREAT lenses available for the format these days.



huddy
Registered: Oct 19, 2010
Total Posts: 1826
Country: United States

I bought a D700 a year ago because I like to shoot wide and needed to shoot in ridiculously low light. If I had more light, I'd never carry a DSLR. It'd be rangefinders, OM-D type stuff, etc. I'm watching with great anticipation to see where it is all going, and I wouldn't hesitate to buy a new mirrorless body if it wasn't for having such a complete SLR based system that I am very comfortable using.



MrPacMan
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 17
Country: Israel

Hi
Fast 4\3 lenses are TOO expensive(12\2, 75\1/8) for that 'small' sensor.
I am shooting quite a lot ""pro"" video on a tripod and with an external mic. But sometimes I like shooting simple videos. the AF in VIDEO on my D7000 is TERRIBLE. I like the fact that all of these cameras have nice AF in video, it's a GREAT addition.
One issue with oly - I CAN'T attach external mic... but I heard that there are some adapters on ebay...
Sony cameras of course have the option for an external mic.

I'd like to read your opinions - OMD EM 5 or NEX 7?
generally, the sony camera is much shorter. http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,289
which camera is better ergonomically? which camera is better in video?



surf monkey
Registered: May 24, 2005
Total Posts: 2710
Country: United States

I'm finding my brand new OM-D to be surprisingly good in low light - better than I had expected.
I've only had it for a week and haven't had a chance to put it to a real test yet.
Coming from long time use of my Canon 5D2, I was expecting a huge difference, but in reality the OM-D is very close. The files from the OM-D are very easy to work with in Photoshop, with no banding or noise issues so far.

This shot taken at a dinner on Friday was in a dark(ish) restaurant.
With my 5D2 I would have needed ISO 12,800 to match the DOF necessary to get them both in focus.
This is where m4/3 has an advantage - DOF is twice as deep so you can use small apertures more often, reducing the need to go as high with the ISOs.



Yakim Peled
Registered: Nov 18, 2004
Total Posts: 16903
Country: Israel

ISO1600 wrote:
The image quality out of the OM-D is NOT as good as what the D7000 is capable of, but it is more than enough to please me.


That is the key word IMHO - good enough. We all strive for the best but it's a good idea to pause sometimes and evaluate what is good enough for us.

BTW, if all goes well I'll have the OM-D in a few weeks so you could actually compare it. Nice to see you here.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6064
Country: United States

MrPacMan wrote:

I'd like to read your opinions - OMD EM 5 or NEX 7?
generally, the sony camera is much shorter. http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,289
which camera is better ergonomically? which camera is better in video?


The NEX-7's grip is just about perfect, and having a separate dial for shutter, aperture AND ISO is really great. Many complain about the menus system, as they are icon based a little like a smart phone, but it doesn't bother me much, because you can program so many buttons on the NEX-7 that I rarely even go into the menu.



Jman13
Registered: May 02, 2005
Total Posts: 10640
Country: United States

If you're shooting a lot of pro video, then get the Panasonic GH3. The GH2 had some of the very best video quality of ANY camera short of a RED. In many cases it is superior to the 5D Mark III in video quality, and the GH3 should be even better, with better dynamic range.

The GH3's video output is 72 Mbps data rate. Insane quality level, plus very good AF in video mode and good handling (though larger than most other mirrorless options, but the lenses are still small).

The modern m4/3 sensor is very capable. It's easily as good as something like the Canon 7D, and has better dynamic range than ANY Canon DSLR, including the 5D III. It's not as clean as some of the Nikon cameras, but it's certainly no slouch. The GH3 sensor looks to be similar to the OM-D sensor in many ways (might even be the same physical sensor).



surf monkey
Registered: May 24, 2005
Total Posts: 2710
Country: United States

MrPacMan wrote:

I'd like to read your opinions - OMD EM 5 or NEX 7?
generally, the sony camera is much shorter. http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,289
which camera is better ergonomically? which camera is better in video?

douglasf13 wrote:
The NEX-7's grip is just about perfect, and having a separate dial for shutter, aperture AND ISO is really great. Many complain about the menus system, as they are icon based a little like a smart phone, but it doesn't bother me much, because you can program so many buttons on the NEX-7 that I rarely even go into the menu.

After trying both, I have to agree with douglasf13.
I ended buying a OM-D, but the NEX-7 has a larger grip and feels better in the hand than the OM-D. Although with the battery grip the OM-D is quite good. The buttons on the OM-D are very small.
So my conclusion with the little experience I have, the NEX-7 feels better, but I like the OM-D viewfinder better.
I like the OM-D for its customizable buttons and dials.




Jman13
Registered: May 02, 2005
Total Posts: 10640
Country: United States

I think you definitely have to handle both before one can say if one or the other feels better.

I think that with the horizontal portion of the HLD-6 grip, the OM-D feels better hands down, but that does make it bigger and costs $$.

I actually prefer the OM-D bare to the NEX-7. For some reason, the NEX grip just does not fit my hand. I honestly found it one of the most uncomfortable cameras to hold of any camera I've ever used. It's just too square...it needs to slope inward a lot earlier than it does. But that's just me.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6064
Country: United States

surf monkey wrote:
MrPacMan wrote:

I'd like to read your opinions - OMD EM 5 or NEX 7?
generally, the sony camera is much shorter. http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,289
which camera is better ergonomically? which camera is better in video?

douglasf13 wrote:
The NEX-7's grip is just about perfect, and having a separate dial for shutter, aperture AND ISO is really great. Many complain about the menus system, as they are icon based a little like a smart phone, but it doesn't bother me much, because you can program so many buttons on the NEX-7 that I rarely even go into the menu.

After trying both, I have to agree with douglasf13.
I ended buying a OM-D, but the NEX-7 has a larger grip and feels better in the hand than the OM-D. Although with the battery grip the OM-D is quite good. The buttons on the OM-D are very small.
So my conclusion with the little experience I have, the NEX-7 feels better, but I like the OM-D viewfinder better.
I like the OM-D for its customizable buttons and dials.





Are the dials and buttons on the OM-D more customizable than on the NEX-7? I haven't looked much into the OM-D's button customizability.



surf monkey
Registered: May 24, 2005
Total Posts: 2710
Country: United States

douglasf13 wrote:
Are the dials and buttons on the OM-D more customizable than on the NEX-7? I haven't looked much into the OM-D's button customizability.


I don't know about more customizable than the NEX.

Both dials can be customized with different functionality for each individual shooting mode and the direction can be changed as well.
All four buttons in silver can also be customized - shown in the photo below on the top right of the cam.
The arrow buttons can also be customized.



Yakim Peled
Registered: Nov 18, 2004
Total Posts: 16903
Country: Israel

Jman13 wrote:
I think that with the horizontal portion of the HLD-6 grip, the OM-D feels better hands down, but that does make it bigger and costs $$.


Are there any good alternative grips which do not cost an arm and a leg?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



1
       2       end