Want to get back into photography again

Greebo

Greebo

Greebo

Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,777
Location
Co Durham
Been through a lot of issues in recent years but in a place again now where I want to get back into photography in a big way again.

Used to have a minolta film SLR with about 8 lenses including primes,portrait, macro, mirror etc but sold them all and just went with several bridge cameras since.

But feeling the itch to go proper again.

But i am out of the loop and a bit lost.

Not sure whether i should go DSLR or 4/3 (or is it 3/4?) or full frame system?

So basically, in a short summary what are the pros and cons of each?

And which models should I be looking at please?

Budget up to £1000 with one decent lens if there is an absolute must have camera. If not, id ideally like to get a system with a wide angle zoom, a prime and long range zoom for that money (maybe optimistic and just a wide angle zoom and prime and the rest of the lenses will wait till later)

Im quite prepared to buy 2nd hand so factor that in with my price range please.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice guys. FF now that I have looked is well out of my price range!

So its either 4/3 or SLR.

I must say after reading up I'm quite liking the size of the 4/3 system compared to lugging around a full SLR kit.

I know when i had my film SLR it got quite heavy lugging around all that kit, weighed several kilos.
 
I think ive got it pinned down to 4/3 for sure and i'm liking the olympus ones over the panasonic as the IS is in the camera, not the lens.

Now its a question of which model?

I can get good deals on the old EM10 and 5 models but there are newer versions out with better autofocus????

Tempted by the new EM10 II with dual lens kit for around £700 and pick up a nice prime with the other £300 as a starter. Will add other lens later.
 
wez130 said:
Be careful with your lenses. There are two different systems, there's the older 4/3rds, which is a different fitting to the newer micro 4/3rds or µ4/3.

The older EM-10 is still a very capable camera, but the newer model does have a better AF apparently. If i was in your position, i'd go for the newer one though. £300 will still get you a good prime, or if you go 2nd hand you might even get a couple of lenses, the 45mm goes for about £130/£140 used.


Also, if you haven't looked already, consider the Sony A7, different system again, but great choice of lenses and the A7 is a cracking piece of kit, especially at high ISO's.
Click to expand...

Damn i hate it when things look compatible and they arent :(

Its the AF which is swaying me to the newer models to be fair. I suspect thats where I will go.

I did consider the Sony range and have looked at them but the choice of lens don;t seem to be as good as the olympus/panasonic (plus sigma) range plus the ability to use old skool lenses with manual focus.

Plus isnt the A7 a full frame camera? Wont that mean big heavy lenses again? I dont want to go back to how I was lugging around a great big camera bag which weighed several kilos.

EDIT: Just looked at the lens cost for the A7. Even the basic typical short zoom is almost £500! :O
 
Last edited:
Terminal_Boy said:
How important is shooting video to you? This is the one area where Panasonic has a clear supremacy over Olympus.

I haven't used them, but the Olympus fans on DPR seem to rate the new versions of the EM5 and EM10 as significant improvements over the older versions.

Their new f2.8 Pro lenses are supposed to excellent.
Click to expand...

Video isnt that important. If i need to, i have a 4k capable camera to record 4k video (although it means taking two cameras with me). And to be far i take a lot more still shots over video anyway. Living in a area with poor broadband so even the smallest/shortest 4k video takes me a day to upload to my youtube channel, it just doesnt seem worth the hassle anymore.
 
wez130 said:
Here's the side by side comparisons..

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4887393042/bang-for-the-buck-olympus-om-d-e-m10-ii-review
Click to expand...

Yeah ive read both review on that site. Apart from weatherproofing, 1.5 fps and the 40Mb 8 shot still pic I cant spot any other difference for the extra £300?

And the om10 you can use the rear screen as a touchscreen to adjust point of focus and it has a built in flash so handier (plus is smaller and weighs less and has a better battery life)?

So im just wondering if I was missing something that the DM5 offers that I'd later regret?

To my mind there is very little between them now and the 10 beats the 5 in some things and vica versa. If they were the same price it would be very difficult, but really its looks mad to buy the 5 unless you have money to burn?
 
Last edited:
Yeah thats my thoughts as well. The £300 can go to a nice prime lens and like you say, keep the lenses, just swap the body for better ones later. :D

Just wanted to make sure I hadnt missed something obvious. I really cant see how Olympus can charge £300 more for a camera which is only slightly better or worse.
 
2nd hand on eBay. Only 4 months old and yeah was a bargain since the batteries would be an extra £120 and the grips is £200 new (although £100 2nd hand) so I paid only £400 max for the body, probably less.

I'm not that bothered about new. Always good bargains to be had on eBay :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom