Why pick larger/heavier Oly EM1 (MFT) over the Canon SL1 (APS-C)? (Page 2): No apology needed... just maybe a bit of understanding? It is not always possible to put a camera on a...

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

wj cody wrote:

i am always amazed how important, weight and size issues have become. you get the best camera for the job. you learn how to hand hold it so you don't get camera shake, and need "stabilisation". for long exposures you put it on a tripod.
this is how it works. and i do apologise, in advance, for this rather emphatic post. but it seems to me, that no one want to make any physical effort any more, to use what's best and damned the size and weight.

No apology needed... just maybe a bit of understanding?

It is not always possible to put a camera on a tripod. Nor is there always a convenient tree or fence or car available to lean against. And with advancing age, it now has become utterly impossible to tell my body to stop shaking.
Replaced hips and arthritic knees and hands also make it more difficult to carry and walk around with heavier equipment.
And because there is NO WAY I will give up this hobby, I look for solutions that will help me - one of them is lighter weight equipment.
Another one, because I am not worried about camera shake but about body-, arm- and leg shake, I look for a camera with image stabilization built-in.
So, the "best camera for the job" is the one I can use to get the job done with the limitations I have - I would love to make the physical effort....

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Morning Star wrote:

No apology needed... just maybe a bit of understan... (show quote)

ahhh, your knees, hips and arthritis. and my knees, loss of discs and scarred sciatic nerve at s6. we should go out and lean against each other when making pictures! between us, we'd probably make up a "normal"!
and you are correct. in your situation, something that offers whatever advantage which will allow you to pursue your love of image making is the one for you!!
i truly wish you all the best and admire your perseverance!

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

wj cody wrote:

i am always amazed how important, weight and size issues have become. you get the best camera for the job. you learn how to hand hold it so you don't get camera shake, and need "stabilisation". for long exposures you put it on a tripod.
this is how it works. and i do apologise, in advance, for this rather emphatic post. but it seems to me, that no one want to make any physical effort any more, to use what's best and damned the size and weight.

Personally, I like the weight of a dslr for stability, and love taking a bag full of lenses and a tripod when needed. I am less convinced when traveling that all of that gear is necessary, preferring now to keep it simpler, lighter, and less cumbersome.
Have made the physical effort you describe and prefer to do it a bit different now.
Example(s): leave the tripod at home. You can get most shots using a gorilla pod which can be carried in a pocket. If you are a hiker, get a monopod which can double as a walking stick.
Leave the big bag at home - batteries and memory cards can also be carried in a pocket. Love the cargo pants and / or shorts for this.
Find a good mid-range zoom and go forth and enjoy. If I had to recommend for Canon perhaps a 24-105 f/4 would be first choice, something in the 18-135 range would be second. A 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 would be third choice or a 40mm pancake. None bad really, just depends on what you expect from vacation plans and what you want to do.
Weather seal - bring an umbrella. Sometimes old tech works as well as new. LOL

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Go with the Canon as it will give you everything that you will get on the Olympus, with few exceptions. Canon has any number of 2.8 and faster lenses that will work on your body, all EF and EF-S lenses. The Olympus is an "in" camera at the moment and is good but stick with what you have.

Alashisan Loc: Arizona

AntonioReyna wrote:

Go with the Canon as it will give you everything that you will get on the Olympus, with few exceptions. Canon has any number of 2.8 and faster lenses that will work on your body, all EF and EF-S lenses. The Olympus is an "in" camera at the moment and is good but stick with what you have.

I think I'll have to. I like the looks and the promise of the Oly, but I can't justify it at this time, especially since the size and weight are a bit of a wash compared to what I have.

I'll probably just take my Tamron 18-270; my other two preferred lenses (Canon ESF 18-85 & Tamron 70-300) are simply too bulky for this trip. I really don't want to keep having to swap (and stow) lenses, even though I'd get better results with the other two. It's a trade off.

Thanks for helping to convince me to stick with what I have for now! :-D

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Even as a micro four thirds fan, I'd say stick with what you have, which is already everything you need. Maybe after the trip you can consider the E-M5, which is already coming down in price awaiting the announcement of the E-M10.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

sirlensalot wrote:

I never liked the idea of attaching a long, heavy ... (show quote)

The IQ of the STM version of the 18-55 kit lens is noticeably better than its predecessor, which is, in turn, noticeably better than that of the non-IS version. And even that wasn't exactly bad.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

wj cody wrote:

i am always amazed how important, weight and size issues have become. you get the best camera for the job. you learn how to hand hold it so you don't get camera shake, and need "stabilisation". for long exposures you put it on a tripod.
this is how it works. and i do apologise, in advance, for this rather emphatic post. but it seems to me, that no one want to make any physical effort any more, to use what's best and damned the size and weight.

Some people are working under physical constraints. I.e., how much weight can they haul around. The longer the duration and/or distance they expect to on their feet exploring, the less weight they (O.K., WE) want to haul.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

rocketride wrote:

The IQ of the STM version of the 18-55 kit lens is noticeably better than its predecessor, which is, in turn, noticeably better than that of the non-IS version. And even that wasn't exactly bad.

Somewhere in the house, the 18-55 that came with my beloved 300D is still being used as a door stop. I have never thought highly of that one. I did purchase the older IS version and found it quite usable. I know a pro couple that used one on a 40D for a wedding and the shots were excellent. Have heard nothing but good on the STM latest version, although not sure it is significantly better to justify purchase. Maybe for those that own the latest version, it would make for a good topic to discuss regarding the evolution of this lens.Good post. Appreciate your response.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Morning Star wrote:

Alashison, no, I won't try to change your mind. Y... (show quote)

Good summary of the attractive points about the EM1, which I also just bought and am really liking, also had the EM5. I'll add that
-for me, the EVF has been a real "eye opening" experience. My keeper rate has increased dramatically since using the EVF, which shows me the photo I am about to take with the camera instead of what the scene looks like to my own eyes. No chimping required.
-I seldom need flash for what I shoot, now that I have some fast prime lenses, good low-light shooting capacity and image stabilization at slow shutter speeds.
- you can shoot remotely using your smartphone as a remote, allowing the phone to serve as your LCD screen. Very cool.
- for landscape photography in low light, the Live Time setting, where you start your shot and watch it develop onscreen, then stop the exposure when it is to your liking, is really remarkable.
-shooting off the touchscreen is way more useful than I would ever have imagined. Instant focus/capture without moving focus points with the buttons.
- I feel so totally freed up by the size and capability of the EM series as compared to my old DSLR. I can walk around all day with this little thing on a sling strap and forget I have it. With a prime, it weighs less than my old point and shoot. I can carry camera+5 lenses in a camera bag the size of a loaf of bread.

All that said, I think everyone has to find what they prefer, from company to format to size and all else. No one should waste money on something they don't really need/want or that won't fit their needs. If I were a young man instead of an old woman, I might not mind the heft of a big DSLR, and if I had different shooting interests, other cameras might meet my needs better. But for me, 60+ with shoulder problems, busy grandchildren and a penchant for landscape shooting, this one's a winner.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

sirlensalot wrote:

Somewhere in the house, the 18-55 that came with m... (show quote)

Thanks.
Mind you, the kit lens did get bigger and heavier at every iteration. But it's still way smaller and lighter than my Sigma 17-50.

And the non-rotating filter holder on the STM, is worth the price of admission even without the other improvements. The only scary bit is that plastic mount it retains from the earlier versions. Though from what I've been reading around here, I shouldn't worry about that, especially on a lightweight lens.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

rocketride wrote:

Thanks.
Mind you, the kit lens did get bigger and heavier at every iteration. But it's still way smaller and lighter than my Sigma 17-50.

And the non-rotating filter holder on the STM, is worth the price of admission even without the other improvements. The only scary bit is that plastic mount it retains from the earlier versions. Though from what I've been reading around here, I shouldn't worry about that, especially on a lightweight lens.

I have not had any of the issues some posts described regarding plastic mount. Have a 50 1.8 for over 10 years. Still fits tight and operates as it did the day I bought it. Is metal better? Have no idea. Plastic bumper on our van lasting as long as our old steel one. Pretty sure both will be rendered useless if you crash em' hard enough though. Lol

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

sirlensalot wrote:

I have not had any of the issues some posts described regarding plastic mount. Have a 50 1.8 for over 10 years. Still fits tight and operates as it did the day I bought it. Is metal better? Have no idea. Plastic bumper on our van lasting as long as our old steel one. Pretty sure both will be rendered useless if you crash em' hard enough though. Lol

I have a nifty fifty, too. The mount hasn't been an issue, but the lateral/angular "play" of the entire lens cell in the fixed part of the housing has always been alarming. I'm thinking of getting an f/1.4 USM. I can always use the faster f-number and I hear the bokeh is much better.

The main difference between reinforced plastic and metal when dealing with forces beyond their elastic limits is that the former tends to fracture and the latter tends to bend or crumple.

mar685 Loc: Tucson, AZ

I have both cameras. I cannot use the SL1 without pressing other buttons with my palm. Also, a large lens, e.g., 70-200 really becomes awkward in balance. The M1 has the best EVF of any camera with one, in fact, it is better than the optic VF on the SL1. Also, the M1 lenses are lighter, cheaper and have no problems as to weight or size. The only problem with the M1 is that it probably is overpriced, but I'll use over another mirroless camera and it's a hell of a lot easier to travel with.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

For me, it's the weather sealing, 5 axis stabilization (for any lens that you mount to it), easily customized buttons, an awesome EVF, that is larger than most DSLRs, and the smaller, lighter lenses that were designed for the system.