Another spec me thread - Sorry!

Aedus

Aedus

Aedus

Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2009
Posts
8,577
Location
Luton, England
This is my 3rd one of these in here so far so apologies.

I've got an RX100 which I take out and about, I really like it and it's prompted me to want to get a better camera for myself because I feel like i'm missing out on some awesome shots. One area in particular I'm really interested in which the RX100 won't give me is Macro (Flowers, insects, the normal jazz), I know I can't afford a super high end £800 macro lens, but I'm sure there's some great alternatives out there for me to get to grips with. I'm also quite interested in landscapes/cityscapes, which would be my second preference after macro. I'm still fairly noobish but I want something which can last me a while while I learn more.

I don't mind DSLR or Micro 4/3, I read great things about the Olympus PEN E-PL5 on here from other threads, and wondered for my wants, is this going to be a good option?

I was looking at this lens in particular:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-M-ZUIKO-60mm-DIGITAL-Black/dp/B009C742Y2

Which seems to get great reviews and be pretty good for macro, but like I say, not 100% sure as there may be better options for cheaper? Also would the 14-42mm Kit which comes with the camera be sufficient for general photography / Landscapes, or is it wise if I invest in another separate lens for that?


Any advice greatly welcomed.
 
Last edited:
DSLRs are bigger and heavier but have nice optical view finders and in general better autofocus in complex scenes or moving subjects. They are a bit more responsive in general and have good ergonomics (e.g. nice large grip to hold the body and lenses)
Mirrorless are smaller and lighter, and systems like micro 4/3 allow smaller lighter lenses. The Image quality is much the same as a DSLR although you can't get such a shallow Depth of focus.


For macro there are pros and cons to each system but mirrorrless are very good for macro, you will need to get a macro lens like the one you selected which is very good.
The 14-42mm kit lens is fine for general photos and landscapes, you can add some nice small fast primes for portraits or telephotos for wildlife etc.



I would try out a few DSLR and mirrorless and see how you like them. If the size and weight of a DSLR is not an issue you get more performance for less money in general.
 
Last edited:
Thanks D.P.

My gf has a DSLR, I do like it but find it a tad bulky, but never tried mirrorless, in my eyes though the more compact, the better, which is why I went with the RX100 originally.

If Micro 4/3 is extremely close to DSLR in terms of the quality of Macro shots I'll be able to get, features of the camera itself etc but costs slightly more than a DSLR, I'll happily go for the Micro 4/3 for the more compact size, however if a DSLR is far and above what i'd get for the same price of the Micro 4/3 camera, it would just make more sense to go DSLR and disregard the size. I've always gone without an optical view finder, so that's not a deal breaker for me, but I guess a pro with the DSLRs is that there is a much wider range of lenses to choose from, compared to the Micro 4/3's?

I guess if I went DSLR the 1100D and this for a macro lens would be a solid choice?:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-100mm...d=1400191227&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+macro+lens
 
It does sound like m43 would probably suit you, although always worth handling a body or two (oo err) to get a feel for the size differences.

DSLR systems do have a bit more in the way of lens choice, but having said that the m43 lens lineup has fairly few gaps in it now, although some of the options can be a bit pricey.

The Olympus 60 macro is very well regarded, although I've not used it myself. I would like to see someone produce a ~100mm macro for m43 still, just to give more working distance.

Something like an E-PL5 + kit lens and the 60 macro would be a good starting point, perhaps adding a 9-18 and one of the fast primes down the road for a well rounded, versatile yet still eminently portable kit.
 
Last edited:
Thanks king, looks like I'll be going for that, just want to check there's no other micro 4/3 to go for really go for? Is this Olympus one of the best for this price range?
 
Aedus said:
Thanks king, looks like I'll be going for that, just want to check there's no other micro 4/3 to go for really go for? Is this Olympus one of the best for this price range?
Click to expand...

The E-PL5 just represents very good value for money at the moment. Other options to look at would be Olympus E-M5 or E-M10, which are a bit chunkier with a built in electronic viewfinder and various other features. E-M5 second hand prices have recently plummeted, and importers such as HDEW have pretty good prices on them.

The current Olympus sensor in the above cameras is a step above what you'll find in the current Panasonic G6 and GF6, whilst the GH3/4 is much more expensive and DSLR sized, and the GM1 probably a bit too small as a do-it-all body, although you might like to consider it. The GX7 is a pretty ace body by all accounts, but again a bit more expensive than the likes of an E-PL5, although also worth looking at depending on your budget.
 
Aedus said:
Thanks D.P.

My gf has a DSLR, I do like it but find it a tad bulky, but never tried mirrorless, in my eyes though the more compact, the better, which is why I went with the RX100 originally.

If Micro 4/3 is extremely close to DSLR in terms of the quality of Macro shots I'll be able to get, features of the camera itself etc but costs slightly more than a DSLR, I'll happily go for the Micro 4/3 for the more compact size, however if a DSLR is far and above what i'd get for the same price of the Micro 4/3 camera, it would just make more sense to go DSLR and disregard the size. I've always gone without an optical view finder, so that's not a deal breaker for me, but I guess a pro with the DSLRs is that there is a much wider range of lenses to choose from, compared to the Micro 4/3's?

I guess if I went DSLR the 1100D and this for a macro lens would be a solid choice?:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-100mm...d=1400191227&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+macro+lens
Click to expand...

1100D is very compact (100D is smaller still, in fact the world's smallest DSLR I believe, but slightly more expensive).

The 100mm macro is a highly recommended lens, especially for the price.
 
Aedus said:
Thanks D.P.

My gf has a DSLR, I do like it but find it a tad bulky, but never tried mirrorless, in my eyes though the more compact, the better, which is why I went with the RX100 originally.

If Micro 4/3 is extremely close to DSLR in terms of the quality of Macro shots I'll be able to get, features of the camera itself etc but costs slightly more than a DSLR, I'll happily go for the Micro 4/3 for the more compact size, however if a DSLR is far and above what i'd get for the same price of the Micro 4/3 camera, it would just make more sense to go DSLR and disregard the size. I've always gone without an optical view finder, so that's not a deal breaker for me, but I guess a pro with the DSLRs is that there is a much wider range of lenses to choose from, compared to the Micro 4/3's?

I guess if I went DSLR the 1100D and this for a macro lens would be a solid choice?:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-100mm...d=1400191227&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+macro+lens
Click to expand...

Any of the entry level canon nikon bodies would be fine. Nikon sensors are a little better and the bodies tend to concentrate on still photography performance, canon bodies tend to have more features like wifi/gps/better lie-view. Canon 1100D is fine but personaly on the canon side I would look at the 100D to get something super small or one of the older bodieis second hand like the 600D etc. (canon iterates the low end bodies very frequently so there are often only very minor differences with the older bodies, the sensors are all much the same). On the Nikon side Any of the D3x00 and D5x00bodies take excellent photos and have good autofocus.

Personally, if you are worried about size and weight I would go m43. If you really get into photography and find there is something limiting you can sell up and move to a DSLR (but there wont be much hhat is limiting except perhaps high speed sports, advanced focusing, extremely shallow DoF, printing giant posters, specialist glass like tilt shift)
 
Just as an aside, you could always get some very cheap extension tubes (about £26 from fleabay) to start trying macro without having to invest in a lens. If you love it (it is quite fun) then you could pick up a decent lens later while you hone your skills on the tubes.
 
Thanks to everyone very much for all the advice. I've taken the plunge with the E-PL5 and the 60mm Macro lens. Found the lens £30 cheaper online, all should be coming tomorrow :)
 
I just got this, perfect size for me. Cheers for the recommendations, 2 things:

Firstly I got a euro version of it, after words with Amazon they politely refunded me £32 because I asked if they could send me out a UK plug? Was shocked they offered that, but no skin off my nose. I'm assuming this will be fine keeping the euro plug and getting an adapter?

Secondly, do I charge the battery first, or play about until it's drained and then charge it?
 
Adapter is fine. Yeah, amazon customer service is normally excellent.

Depending on the charge state you could play a little but best not to empty the battery before it's had some full charge cycles.
 
With Lithium Ion batteries you can use them straight away- partial charges are fine as they have no memory effect.

As DP says Li-Ion batteries don't like a full discharge, but the battery electronics should avoid this anyway by retaining enough residual charge to prevent damage. Just don't discharge it then leave it on the shelf for six months, always charge before storing for a reasonable length of time.
 
Boo, had to send it back for a replacement.

Noticed a bright red dot on every single picture in exactly the same spot, looked online and they said it's fairly common at certain ISO's, but mine was appearing on every shot I took. I wouldn't have been as bothered, but it was nearly dead centre in every shot.
 
Aedus said:
Boo, had to send it back for a replacement.

Noticed a bright red dot on every single picture in exactly the same spot, looked online and they said it's fairly common at certain ISO's, but mine was appearing on every shot I took. I wouldn't have been as bothered, but it was nearly dead centre in every shot.
Click to expand...

Lightroom actually removes spots like that on import, they are call stuck pixels (stuck as opposed to dead). Sometimes they can be fixed by locking the mirror up shooting something white (or something, i read it years ago). Sometimes you can't fix them, but these days it's not a problem as LR just take care of it when you import it.

But seeing you are buying new, might as well get a good one :)
 
In case you are still thinking, I'be just bought the E-PL5 myself.
Very impressed with quality and also the ability to recover under and over exposed details from the RAW files.
I've got samples in my Flickr gallery if you want to see them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom