Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Mirrorless, Interchangeable Lens Camera Advice?
jehan60188 writes "I want a camera that's better than my phone, but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR. I think the MILC style will be a happy compromise, but I'm concerned that it might be all 'marketing' and no 'technology.' I don't have a lot of demands, but I do like taking macro shots of things from time to time. Also, my sister is going to China in a few months, so a telephoto lens would probably be good for sight seeing (since I could employ optical zoom instead of the imaginary 'digital zoom')."
I didn't know about the focus thing, but from what I can tell 4/3rds seem otherwise OK.
Their sensor is pretty big - I think they have a 2.0x crop factor (i.e. 1/4 the area, or roughly half the quality of a full frame), as opposed to a 1.6 crop factor (i.e. 1/1.6 the quality) in an entry Canon DSLR. This is streets ahead of a ~4.5 crop factor for a s95, or ~4.2 crop factor on the LX5 (or Leica rebranded version - the D-Lux 5), which are some of the best non-SLR cameras you can get.
You can get some cute lenses. I like the way a lot of them are about 17mm, which is like a 21mm on a Canon 1.6 crop. That's a much nicer size (IMO) than the 50mm that everyone seems to get for APS-C DSLRs. Still, that's a personal thing.
Here's something to consider, coming from Trey Ratcliff. https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1#105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1 In a nutshell, in 5-10 years, DSLR's will be looked on the same way we look at VHS. It was a great technology for it's time, but it had to go. Theoretically, the only real difference between a DSLR and a MILC (or whatever you want to call them) is that a DSLR has a mirror box and the MILC doesn't. You might say that the viewfinder is different, but in reality, there is no difference. Live view on a DSLR looks like crap compared to the electronic viewfinder of, say the Olympus EP-3. True, today there are no full frame MILC (unless you count the Leica M9, which will set you back $7k), but I doubt the OP would want to spend the money on a full frame DSLR either. The Olympus EP-3 is getting absolutely rave reviews throughout the photography community. Scott Bourne, for instance has pretty much switched from DSLR's to the EP-3 and only uses his D3 and/or 5dmkii for action and wildlife photography. It's tough to think about this kind of huge paradigm change within photography, especially those who've spent tens of thousands on camera bodies and lenses, but in 5-10 years, those who are still shooting a huge clunky DSLR will be looked on like those who today are still shooting film...as very quaint. I for one will not be buying anymore lenses or accessories for my DSLR. I plan to gradually make the switch to something similar to the EP-3 over the next few years.
I really dislike Sony, and I never thought I would buy, much less recommend one of their products, but I am very happy with my NEX-5N. It fits great in my jacket pocked with the zoom lens, and in my pants pocket with the pancake lens. I almost always keep the zoom lens on it though, because not having a zoom is very limiting. I'm just finishing up a 2 week vacation traveling all over Germany, and the camera has been the best I've ever owned. I get very near DSLR quality photos, but it's no hassle to keep my camera with me. The only thing I miss is a larger zoom. The lens that I've seen so far for better zooming is huge, and hardly seems worth it to tote around. As the camera is now, it's very easy to use, and very easy to make some amazing photos.
I disagree. Buy the best lens you can afford and buy the lowest end body that will fit it. Expensive bodies are overkill for a novice but give them plenty of opportunity to learn and grow into the more advanced features. Bodies change and become obsolete "quickly", lenses are "forever".
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable