Mirrowless camera vs DSLR (Page 2): Olympus and Panasonic make the small 4/3rds cameras and Sony, Canon, and Fuji make some of the best APS-C cameras. Sensor wise, the pixels and...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Lilka wrote:

Am looking for a good camera to take on safari. Am concerned about weight restrictions and my ability to hold heavy cameras steady. Can not take a tri-mono pod. Any help would be appreciated.

Olympus and Panasonic make the small 4/3rds cameras and Sony, Canon, and Fuji make some of the best APS-C cameras. Sensor wise, the pixels and sensor area of the APS-C are not a lot larger than the 4/3rd. Cost wise, the 4/3rds systems are cheaper with some really fantastic quality pro lenses. It will be your choice and a hard decision. If weight and size are your main concerns, I would give the 4/3rds cameras and systems serious consideration. Hope you have a great time on your safari.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Reinaldokool wrote:

Get one with a full-frame or APS-c sensor. You will surely want to print some of those photographs to 11x14 or larger. The smaller sensors do not produce adequate quality after you've done a little cropping. You're lucky to get more than 8x10 prints.

Right now, the Fuji X aps-c and the Sony are largely your only choices. The MCLE cameras are wonderful to carry.

A m4/3 sensor can print 3/4 times as big as 11x14

If you give out info, please at least make it the correct one

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

my choice for my age and infermities, a sony a-65 or 77, plus a 100-300mm apo D and a kenko 1.4 tc. light, good reach, and a pretty good image. used that combo at an air show last year with good results.

chinners

Sony, panasonic, Nikon, Canon amongst others all produce excellent camera's capable of outstanding images along with various manufacturers of lenses. Very few manufacturers produce a camera or lens today that is not capable of producing a great image. one of the biggest deciding factors must be what you wish to do with the images at the end, there is little point having a 36 megapixel camera with a wealth of lenses if you intend to only view the images on a digital photo frame, accept the advice but go to a camera store and spend some time handling the camera's on your short list before purchase

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Travel zooms are terrific for general use IMO, but for such a special trip as a safari, it is the weight of the lenses that will make the difference, not the camera.
M4/3 cameras still lack what you will need the most, fast AF and fast AF tracking. You can use (as an example) a Sony a6000 which provides everything you will need in a small and relatively inexpensive package in a camera which can be used as a walk-around with a kit lens. Snapping on a 70-200 /4 G lens with a 1.4 extender should get you most of the wildlife shots you may consider. Getting around with a travel zoom which are "okay" for daylight use, but can be a heart breaker for low light high ISO, hand held shots for this particular type of event.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Reinaldokool wrote:

Get one with a full-frame or APS-c sensor. You will surely want to print some of those photographs to 11x14 or larger. The smaller sensors do not produce adequate quality after you've done a little cropping. You're lucky to get more than 8x10 prints.

Right now, the Fuji X aps-c and the Sony are largely your only choices. The MCLE cameras are wonderful to carry.

Does is mean that I have to take the 20 X 24 off the wall that I shot with my Olympus E-M5, that the Canon rep thought was shot with a Canon? Once the rep got closer than 12" from the print, he could tell it was not shot with a Canon but a with a smaller sensor. When viewed from a proper viewing distance or greater it becomes hard to tell what was used.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

I am guessing you are willing to learn so that in the future you are not spreading inaccurate info.

Watch the whole video, or if you don't want to waste time, FF to 10:30 and watch the "end"

sirlensalot wrote:

M4/3 cameras still lack what you will need the most, fast AF and fast AF tracking.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

tdekany wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

I am guessing you are willing to learn so that in the future you are not spreading inaccurate info.

Watch the whole video, or if you don't want to waste time, FF to 10:30 and watch the "end"

Thanks for the video. I saw it when researching and before settling on the a6000. Pretty sure you are wrongfully accusing me, when in fact, data proves otherwise. The photographer provides opinion, but no actual data to support his claim. If you notice, the GH4 lens focal length was shorter which could certainly make a difference. Sony and testers claimed the a6000 the fastest AF camera on the market.. . If you can provide data to the contrary, it would be appreciated.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Real world tests work for me just fine. Are you saying Chris lied? However if it makes you feel better about your purchase: THE A 6000 CAMERA IS THE BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD. Happy?

PS: how much actual time have you spent with either the em1 or GH4?

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

tdekany wrote:

Real world tests work for me just fine. Are you saying Chris lied? However if it makes you feel better about your purchase: THE A 6000 CAMERA IS THE BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD. Happy?

PS: how much actual time have you spent with either the em1 or GH4?

I think you mean video test of one opinion, but let's go with that if you consider that "real world". The video was well done, but it is still subjective. If you care to read actual lab tests and scores, they paint a picture opposite of your allegation using actual tests and comparative data.
I think the a6000 is in the top 5, but not the best. Sorry to bust your bubble on that one, but thank you for the thought.
The strong point of the em-1 (IMO) is weather sealing and 1/8000 shutter speed, certainly nothing to sneeze at for a safari. My personal priorities go toward fast AF and AF tracking. 1/4000 is enough for me, and since I use it mainly indoors, weather sealing is not important. I test drove the oly, but not the panny.I thought the Sony was by far the greater value besides being best for my use.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

So now it is value. That is fine. S AF is fantastic on the em1 and for a higher price you do get a ton of extras. I have nothing against the a6000 in fact my friend who asked me what to get on a budget I suggested the a6000. He was looking at the d5500 and when I told him to go back to BB and check out the Sony he was so impressed that he walked out with one. But I'm used to a top of the line model and couldn't go backwards.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

tdekany wrote:

So now it is value. That is fine. S AF is fantastic on the em1 and for a higher price you do get a ton of extras. I have nothing against the a6000 in fact my friend who asked me what to get on a budget I suggested the a6000. He was looking at the d5500 and when I told him to go back to BB and check out the Sony he was so impressed that he walked out with one. But I'm used to a top of the line model and couldn't go backwards.

How you or I like a particular brand is really beside the point. Fact is AF and AF tracking is faster on the Sony.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Not according to the video - but let's assume it is as far as the em1 - by how much? Tracking yes, but saf? The em1 has a much larger buffer as well. Of course I can follow your logic and say that I hardly ever use tracking or CAF do shoot in rain and snow, so what the a6000 may offer is irreverent to me so the em1 is a better camera.
What you are trying to say is that neither m4/3 camera is fast - which is simply not true.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

tdekany wrote:

Not according to the video - but let's assume it is as far as the em1 - by how much? Tracking yes, but saf? The em1 has a much larger buffer as well. Of course I can follow your logic and say that I hardly ever use tracking or CAF do shoot in rain and snow, so what the a6000 may offer is irreverent to me so the em1 is a better camera.
What you are trying to say is that neither m4/3 camera is fast - which is simply not true.

No assumption about it. The video provided opinion. I can't argue opinion because it is subjective. Yes, I think I acknowledged the larger buffer in the em-1 compared to the 6000. The flip side of that coin is the horrendously slow rate it transfers to the card before you can use or take the card out. If you are shooting RAW+JPEG it is up to 26 seconds if you fill the buffer. Inmost cases there is nothing wrong with that. We can nit pick any camera for comparative features, but it means little as long as the camera works best for the owner, who cares? I am merely pointing out you alleged fact, based on opinion.
The 6000 is brilliant in CAF mode as is the EM-1 in single shot. I really enjoy the innovation Olympus provides. In my opinion, they are neck and neck with Sony for the future of photography. If Oly ever conquers the AF/tracking issue, which is getting better, I see one in my future, but for now and for the low-light action sports I use it for, the a6000 is superior. Glad the Oly works for you.