Psdunner

Here we go and I'm prepared for the barrage of answers! Micro 4/3 or mirrorless smaller camera vs. DSLR? Currently shooting with a Nikon 7100 but intrigued by the reviews of the Fuji XT1 and Olympus OMD 1. Can anyone be objective enough to give their opinion on what, if anything, one might be giving up by going to a smaller camera system other than preserving one's rotator cuff?
I went to the web sites of a guy named Mikhail Levit, a photographer based in Israel and was blown away by the guy's work. Then I saw the image of him with a mirrorless pentax slung around his neck!
Thanks for the input.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I tried the Sony NEX 6 and 7. Very nice cameras, but I didn't like the EVF and controls. I went back to my Nikon DSLRs.

Then I was almost persuaded to get a Sony RX-10 (or was it the RX-100?). I struggled with that decision for over a month, and I finally realized that spending all that money would not get me better pictures than my D610. I would be gaining portability, and I don't care about that.

I guarantee this will be a lengthy discussion. :D

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

If you want big prints go with the bigger sensor of the DSLRs. If you are just going to show your shots on computer screens go with the whatever. - Dave

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

What will we be discussing when the "next big thing" starts to take the place of the Micro 4/3 gear? I'm convinced that most of us will never come close to stretching our DSLRs to their limits. I'm a computer guy and I love new technology, but this constant treadmill that the manufacturers have us running on is getting a little old. The computer world has already gotten to the good enough is good enough stage, can we be far behind?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

What do you do with your photos? For on screen viewing and prints up to 8x10 or so I don't know that you would notice any difference in image quality from a good quality, smaller camera. With the advances being made in the smaller cameras it is difficult to make a case for not having one, even as your primary camera. Can you rent or borrow one for a day or two? I can't comment on specific models, since I have never had any of the current ones, but the photos I have seen from them have been very good. DSLRs have the advantage of being more capable in just about every aspect but do you need that extra capability? Will you even be able to tell the difference in your style of shooting and in your use of the photos?

Psdunner

Thanks for the responses so far. I print up to 17x22 quite often, mostly 8x11.5. What skewed me alittle were the tests in Dpreview.com, where you can change the camera, ISO etc for comparitive purposes and my Nikon seems sharper when compared to the two recent top picks, the Fujifilm and the Olympus OMD 1. So it's a bit confusing. And the manufacturers as you said are are reveling in this confusion. I'm looking forward to more answers and people who have actually done real life evaluation.

Peter

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Have you joined Sony's "Camera of the Month Club"? :D

Curve_in Loc: Virginia

I'm a generation back from the ones you asked about, but here are my thoughts.
D7000 vs NEX5
Most of the time I either shoot at 17-18mm or with a Macro lens.

The flippy screen on the NEX lets me get different angles than with the D7000 (very low looking up or very high looking down). The battery life is poor on the NEX. If I shoot all day, I need a second battery or do a recharge which takes a bit away from the smaller size advantage. Without a mirror moving, I do feel like I can use a low iso/shutter speed and still get a steady shot.
The NEX peak focusing is nice to have for macro setting. I find I do less focus bracketing.
The portability is a big advantage. I can have a camera with me more often and not give up much on the quality of the image.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Kristoes

Nice quip Jerry!!;)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Seriously, they're either updating an existing model, renaming what they have, or introducing a new model. They make excellent cameras with great features, but no matter what you get, it will soon be "the old model."

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

Bigger sensor is better for cropping, so Nikon and Fuji would best Micro 4/3

amehta Loc: Boston

In good light with stationary subjects, any camera can get a great picture, even a cell phone. Then things start moving or the light is dim, the bigger camera shines.

Between the m4/3 and DSLR (APS-C) cameras, the sensor size is not so different, the bigger sensors seem to have less than a 1-stop advantage in high ISO performance. The bigger differences are autofocus speed and the EVF/OVF. Some people prefer the EVF because it is closer to the "final result", others prefer the OVF because it is "real time". If you haven't used the EVF, I think it is important to use it for a while, to see if you like it.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Finally, if I may, the short answer: Yes, size matters, but only if you can make use of it.(It probably makes a difference in cameras also) :) :)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Simple answer - small sensor or web use, even an iPhone is adequate. Big prints - like 17-22 or larger, full sensor, though you can get away with something like a D7100 class sensor, and downsample the image to 12 mp to improve image quality and noise reduction. Four thirds cameras are in between - not quite good enough for larger prints, unless you are ok with noise and seeing pixels, but they are light and manageable, and not terribly expensive.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

PSD, these small compact cameras with small sensors have their place.
If you want to MAXIMIZE the quality of your photos, bigger will always be better.
How stunning a guys work is, will never be affect by how big or small his camera and sensor are. But the potential quality of the photography absolutely will be affected.
The day all the NG guys are using 4/3's, I'll be a believer.
I have absolutely no problem carrying my 20 pound pack-pack for 20 miles.
Mikhail Levit's work would blow you away if he were using a cell phone! No matter HOW GOOD the small sensors get, that exact same technology will be in the FF sensors that are 5 times as big, so where's the gain(?), other than a small, easy to carry around camera. Don't get me wrong, from what I see here on the Hog, there is a lot of demand for small cameras. It only takes a file 1600x800(?) to fill my screen. Anything that size and bigger looks fantastic when I view it on my screen, but don't expect that to be a great print.
Just don't expect a sensor that's about 200mm square to put out the same quality of a sensor that's almost 900mm square. DO keep it in perspective!!
If that's the camera for you, go for it. It is NOT the camera for me!! ;-)
SS