Most ideal street/travel/everyday camera

Can anyone tell me if I am about to do the right thing...

I have 2 toddlers and would like to take photos 60% indoors and rest on days out etc. My level is competent amateur.

I have a D90 with sigma 17-50 2.8 and also a 35mm 1.8 plus flashes, pocket wizards etc. Think is I never take it out or even use it in the house much as its too big and heavy and makes me look like a photog. Then its a faff to get the photos to light room although I suppose this is minor. I just dont use it.

I want a smaller lighter camera that I can just carry about so was thinking of selling all above (inc also a 70-200 2.8 mk1) and buying an x100t.

Is this a good choice for above use? is auto focus fast enough for kids in low light? It will be weird not having zoom but I think will be ok.

thanks
 
rs1800 said:
Can anyone tell me if I am about to do the right thing...

I have 2 toddlers and would like to take photos 60% indoors and rest on days out etc. My level is competent amateur.

I have a D90 with sigma 17-50 2.8 and also a 35mm 1.8 plus flashes, pocket wizards etc. Think is I never take it out or even use it in the house much as its too big and heavy and makes me look like a photog. Then its a faff to get the photos to light room although I suppose this is minor. I just dont use it.

I want a smaller lighter camera that I can just carry about so was thinking of selling all above (inc also a 70-200 2.8 mk1) and buying an x100t.

Is this a good choice for above use? is auto focus fast enough for kids in low light? It will be weird not having zoom but I think will be ok.

thanks
Click to expand...

The X100T is a lovely camera but AF is good rather than great, the X100 series do have a charm that might mean you fall in love with them but if possible I would try one in the flesh as they are slightly marmite cameras in my experience.

If you have reservations about the lack of zoom then I'd probably try one of the recent Micro Four Thirds cameras, you'd get fast single shot AF, smaller size but still have lens options if you wanted them.


On a separate note, my Leica Q arrived today and it is as lovely as I hoped :D
 
But wouldn't anything m43 and bigger sensor with a zoom be bigger? I am really looking for something pocketable whilst maintaining quality.

I should get a couple of k for all my stuff but dont think I could justify a Leica Q!
 
The X100T isn't pocketable unless you have a jacket with big pockets. If you want something truly pocketable then maybe try the Sony RX100 range, they punch well above their weight/size and will fit in a regular pocket, they focus quick too.

A m43 with a small prime or one of the pancake zooms would be similar in size to the X100T, they'll give you a different experience, neither is "better", it's just down to what you need most.

The Q is a different animal, if you didn't have toddlers and want quick AF then you could look at a second hand RX1 but the AF on that would be a deal-breaker.
 
rs1800 said:
But wouldn't anything m43 and bigger sensor with a zoom be bigger? I am really looking for something pocketable whilst maintaining quality.

I should get a couple of k for all my stuff but dont think I could justify a Leica Q!
Click to expand...

I alway carry my m43 Olympus EPM2 in my pockets. Would be a squeeze in a skinny jeans but for board shorts, cargo pants, hiking pants etc there is no issue. Fits in my khakis, suit bottoms, corduroy pants as well.

Put it this way, in 3 years of ownership I haven't bothered purchasing a bag because it always fit in my trouser or jacket pickets.
 
Last edited:
Been thinking about this on and off all week. Still not come to a solid decision but I think I have reduced the candidates a little. I am thinking the following at this point -

1. Sony RX1R2 - Awesome full frame goodness, would be my first choice money no object but for what I want at this point for the budget I want to spend its sadly too expensive.

2. Fuji X100S/T - Seriously looking at this, I like the 35mm focal length for street work, is there much real world difference between an S and T? Never really owned a camera with a fixed focal length before, so wondering if I could live with this only.

3. OMD EM1/EM5 MK2 - From these two thinking perhaps the EM5 MK2, had a MK1 a long time ago and as I understand the MK2 is a big upgrade to that. But, is there a lot of difference between the EM5 MK2 and EM1? I think I prefer the size, slight less build of the EM5 MK2. I would potentially couple that with a 17mm 1.8 and 45mm 1.8 for street work and street portraits, seems a very flexible combination.

4. Fuji X30 - Owned an X10 before, has a lot of decent features to it and good IQ.

So I guess thats down to three LOL! Just need to try and decide really :)
 
Last edited:
The only thing the EM1 has that the EM5 II doesnt have is phase detection AF so better for fast moving objects.

Apart from that the EM5 II has features the EM1 doesnt and also is smaller/lighter to boot!

The EM5 II even gets a 40mega pixel super pic where the camera takes 8 pictures, half a pixel shifted and merges them into one giant pic (for totally stationery objects only).

As for the difference between the Mark 1 and Mark 2, there is quite a massive boost as follows. I would never get a mark 1 over a mark 2.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...pus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-and-the-om-d-e-m5-44571

Also the em5 Mark 2 gets a massive firmware upgrade this month (so does the 1 btw) which gives the em5 all the extra features they put in the recent em10 Mark 2.(http://www.getolympus.com/upgrade)

And Olympus (and panasonic) make some of the best, sharpest lens in any camera range. I am enjoying the f1.8 45mm and 25mm enourmously.

45mm is effective 90mm so you would not be ideal for street work IMO, its more a head portrait lens only.

I would think the 17mm and/or 25mm (34mm and 50mm effective) would be best.

And best news is both lens are tiny and light. If they are not small enough then you can get pancake versions.
 
Last edited:
ricky1981 said:
The X100T isn't pocketable unless you have a jacket with big pockets. If you want something truly pocketable then maybe try the Sony RX100 range, they punch well above their weight/size and will fit in a regular pocket, they focus quick too.

A m43 with a small prime or one of the pancake zooms would be similar in size to the X100T, they'll give you a different experience, neither is "better", it's just down to what you need most.

The Q is a different animal, if you didn't have toddlers and want quick AF then you could look at a second hand RX1 but the AF on that would be a deal-breaker.
Click to expand...

I definitely want something that is capable of images as good as my 35mm 1.8 and I am worried the rx100 wont give me the quality and background blur I am after.

When I say pocketable I mean coat pocket not jeans.

So now I am looking at the x100t and EM1 or EM5 ii. Would I need the phase detection autofocus for 2 toddlers running about?
 
rs1800 said:
I definitely want something that is capable of images as good as my 35mm 1.8 and I am worried the rx100 wont give me the quality and background blur I am after.

When I say pocketable I mean coat pocket not jeans.

So now I am looking at the x100t and EM1 or EM5 ii. Would I need the phase detection autofocus for 2 toddlers running about?
Click to expand...

There are definitely better cameras out there for shallow DoF photography- although the RX100 1inch sensor is much bigger than your standard compact there are bigger sensors compacts out there and other with faster lenses.

An m43 camera has a larger sensor and you can put some fast sharp rpimes on it.


However, at the end of the day if you like shooting 35mm f/1.8 on an APS-C sized sensor then you are going to have to sick with an APS-C camera and lenses. You might be more interested in a Sony Nex (e.g. A6000), just be warned that if you want more reach like 55-200mm then the lens size is actually the same as you would get on Nikon. There are laws of physics that aren't easily broken.
Also be warned that Sony Nex lenses are pricey, the 35mm f/1.8 NEX is £330 compared to the Nikon at £130 for example. Considering that you might also look at getting a Nikon D33300, it is decently smaller and lighter than the D90 and only costs £250, you will get a much improved sensor but a more basic body. The D3300 weighs 455g with battery and SD card, the D90 is 710g. The Sony A6000 is 345g with battery and SD card, but you get way less battery life - once you equalize battery life the cameras weigh much the same.

In comparison the smallest m43 cameras are around 270g but also the lenses are smaller and lighter.

Just Something to think about.
 
rs1800 said:
So now I am looking at the x100t and EM1 or EM5 ii. Would I need the phase detection autofocus for 2 toddlers running about?
Click to expand...

Personally i dont find the af that much of a problem on em5 mark 2. Its lightning fast with a prime lens on spot focus. The CAF struggles with things like cars etc so i just leave it on spot focus most of the time.

And I will say the image stabilisation is superb on the olympus. In fact I will go so far as to say its magic!

This is a shot i took last night handheld. Its one ive ripped from my FB page so not the best res. From memory the shutter speed was 1/3rd second!

LLyt4Wt.jpg
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
The only thing the EM1 has that the EM5 II doesnt have is phase detection AF so better for fast moving objects.

Apart from that the EM5 II has features the EM1 doesnt and also is smaller/lighter to boot!

The EM5 II even gets a 40mega pixel super pic where the camera takes 8 pictures, half a pixel shifted and merges them into one giant pic (for totally stationery objects only).

As for the difference between the Mark 1 and Mark 2, there is quite a massive boost as follows. I would never get a mark 1 over a mark 2.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...pus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-and-the-om-d-e-m5-44571

Also the em5 Mark 2 gets a massive firmware upgrade this month (so does the 1 btw) which gives the em5 all the extra features they put in the recent em10 Mark 2.(http://www.getolympus.com/upgrade)

And Olympus (and panasonic) make some of the best, sharpest lens in any camera range. I am enjoying the f1.8 45mm and 25mm enourmously.

45mm is effective 90mm so you would not be ideal for street work IMO, its more a head portrait lens only.

I would think the 17mm and/or 25mm (34mm and 50mm effective) would be best.

And best news is both lens are tiny and light. If they are not small enough then you can get pancake versions.
Click to expand...


Thanks :)

Just found there is an Olympus photowalk near where I live tomorrow so I am going to go along and try out some kit. 17mm 1.8 would be a definite if I go this way, i prefer an effect 35mm to 50mm. The reason I mentioned the 45mm 1.8, would be for street portraits, like 100 strangers style shooting.

But it certainly seems like from the info you have given me here the EM5 MK2 maybe the way to go! Just that flexibility and versatility of options over say an X100T, think its the way I am edging.
 
D.P. said:
There are definitely better cameras out there for shallow DoF photography- although the RX100 1inch sensor is much bigger than your standard compact there are bigger sensors compacts out there and other with faster lenses.

An m43 camera has a larger sensor and you can put some fast sharp rpimes on it.


However, at the end of the day if you like shooting 35mm f/1.8 on an APS-C sized sensor then you are going to have to sick with an APS-C camera and lenses. You might be more interested in a Sony Nex (e.g. A6000), just be warned that if you want more reach like 55-200mm then the lens size is actually the same as you would get on Nikon. There are laws of physics that aren't easily broken.
Also be warned that Sony Nex lenses are pricey, the 35mm f/1.8 NEX is £330 compared to the Nikon at £130 for example. Considering that you might also look at getting a Nikon D33300, it is decently smaller and lighter than the D90 and only costs £250, you will get a much improved sensor but a more basic body. The D3300 weighs 455g with battery and SD card, the D90 is 710g. The Sony A6000 is 345g with battery and SD card, but you get way less battery life - once you equalize battery life the cameras weigh much the same.

In comparison the smallest m43 cameras are around 270g but also the lenses are smaller and lighter.

Just Something to think about.
Click to expand...


I thought the x100T was APC sensor? Thats one reason it attracted me.

I looked at the a6000 originally but decided it was just slightly too big. I want something I can stick in my coat pocket every time I go out. Also I dont want to look like a pro photograher' (sorry you guys!)

Although I bought a 70-200 I never used it. Just mentioned it above as it will help fund new camera. I usually just use 35mm prime and 17-50 on my DX.

I think I would find fixed 35mm ish ok. As I keep saying its just for kids running around.

The EM5ii does look nice. I had discounted m43 because of the smaller sensor but actually I bet I could stilll get shallow dof but it possibly is the better camera and more flexible? I also didnt realise the EM5 was so small.
 
The images shot on the "small" sensor m43 cameras hold up very well to DSLR. Okay you are never going to get the same DOF and bokah but you do get enough IMO and its very nice.

I think from memory that f1.8 on m43 sensor is f3.5 or f.38 on a full frame camera. I'm sure somebody will be along to correct me shortly if not correct :)

Just have a look at shots done on flicker with the makr II with 17mm or 25mm lenses.

There is a really nice panasonic 20mm f1.4 (40mm effective and might be the ideal lens for you between 35 and 50mm) lens as well which can be had 2nd hand quite cheaply on Ebay (all pansonic lens fit the olympus and vica versa)

And every time a new shiny prime turns up at home and I open the box and have this tiny lens in my hand I still cant believe its right! From pitcures they look like DSLR size but they arent lol.
 
Last edited:
rs1800 said:
I thought the x100T was APC sensor? Thats one reason it attracted me.

I looked at the a6000 originally but decided it was just slightly too big. I want something I can stick in my coat pocket every time I go out. Also I dont want to look like a pro photograher' (sorry you guys!)

Although I bought a 70-200 I never used it. Just mentioned it above as it will help fund new camera. I usually just use 35mm prime and 17-50 on my DX.

I think I would find fixed 35mm ish ok. As I keep saying its just for kids running around.

The EM5ii does look nice. I had discounted m43 because of the smaller sensor but actually I bet I could stilll get shallow dof but it possibly is the better camera and more flexible? I also didnt realise the EM5 was so small.
Click to expand...

I was referring to your concerns about the rx100 which has a 1 inch sensor.
The X100t is APS-C, it also weighs 440g so isn't exactly light despite the fixed prime. also be away that the lens on the X100T is 23mm, so will give a very different look to your 35mm lens on your D90. And since the lens is fixed you can't change that, make sure you are happy with that field of view before sinking in that kind of outlay.


Also, if the x100t interests you then have a look at the Nikon coolpix A, same APS-C sensor but the camera costs half the amount and it is only 300g. The lens is 1 stop slower but a little closer to the 35mm you are used to (28mm, 42mm FF equivalent, your 35mm is about 53mm FF equivalent). The Ricoh GRI also has the same sensor but the lens is wider, 18.3mm (28mm FF vs th 35mm FF of the x100T)and the camera only weighs 240g.


If you don't want to look like a pro you can get the D3300 in red if you want, but really, these entry level DSLRs don't make you look pro, they are tiny.
 
D.P. said:
I was referring to your concerns about the rx100 which has a 1 inch sensor.
The X100t is APS-C, it also weighs 440g so isn't exactly light despite the fixed prime. also be away that the lens on the X100T is 23mm, so will give a very different look to your 35mm lens on your D90. And since the lens is fixed you can't change that, make sure you are happy with that field of view before sinking in that kind of outlay.


Also, if the x100t interests you then have a look at the Nikon coolpix A, same APS-C sensor but the camera costs half the amount and it is only 300g. The lens is 1 stop slower but a little closer to the 35mm you are used to (28mm, 42mm FF equivalent, your 35mm is about 53mm FF equivalent). The Ricoh GRI also has the same sensor but the lens is wider, 18.3mm (28mm FF vs th 35mm FF of the x100T)and the camera only weighs 240g.


If you don't want to look like a pro you can get the D3300 in red if you want, but really, these entry level DSLRs don't make you look pro, they are tiny.
Click to expand...

All interesting thanks.

Actually I normally have the 17-50 on the D90 and probably at widest when I'm in the house so ill have a look at the GRI.

Whats your thoughts on the EM5 mk2 for my needs?
 
Flukester said:
This is quite interesting... all objective of course.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/23/mirrorless-battle-micro-43-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/
Click to expand...

Interesting read. The m43 cameras always punch well above their weight (no pun interned) :D

As I said earlier in this thread, i'm really happy using my m43 camera alongside my D800. it stands up just fine.

And I've never been that impressed with the Fuji mirrors-less cameras. They use the same sony sensor but force high levels of NR in the RAW files to trick unknowing reviewers. The need result is lack of detail, lower Dr and poor colors (look at the hand bag). Then there is the simply issue that the RAW converters are just not as good as with standard color filters.
They are also all surprising heavy, and the lenses although exceptionally well made just end up big and heavy to the point that I don't understand why you wouldn't just use a DSLR.


The nice thing with m43 is you have 2 manufactures working together so the choices of cameras and lenses is huge, plus the lens mount is open so it gets more 3rd party support.
 
D.P. said:
I was referring to your concerns about the rx100 which has a 1 inch sensor.
The X100t is APS-C, it also weighs 440g so isn't exactly light despite the fixed prime. also be away that the lens on the X100T is 23mm, so will give a very different look to your 35mm lens on your D90. And since the lens is fixed you can't change that, make sure you are happy with that field of view before sinking in that kind of outlay.


Also, if the x100t interests you then have a look at the Nikon coolpix A, same APS-C sensor but the camera costs half the amount and it is only 300g. The lens is 1 stop slower but a little closer to the 35mm you are used to (28mm, 42mm FF equivalent, your 35mm is about 53mm FF equivalent). The Ricoh GRI also has the same sensor but the lens is wider, 18.3mm (28mm FF vs th 35mm FF of the x100T)and the camera only weighs 240g.


If you don't want to look like a pro you can get the D3300 in red if you want, but really, these entry level DSLRs don't make you look pro, they are tiny.
Click to expand...

The Coolpix A has an 18mm lens like the GR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom