tdekany Loc: Oregon

Scott, can I suggest that you edit your post? M4/3 lens sizes have nothing to do with FF sized lenses. What were you thinking when you wrote your reply?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi and welcome Jim,

While I don't have specific experience with either of the cameras you are asking about, I can respond to several of your questions...

All the models you are asking about are pretty equally capable, in terms of image quality. One difference, Olympus uses "Four/Thirds" size image sensors that are smaller than the APS-C size sensors used in Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax DSLRs. Oly does this to allow their camera systems to be particularly compact. The dimensions of a 4/3 sensor are approx. 13 x 17mm. The dimensions of an APS-C vary slightly from brand to brand, but are approx. 15 x 22mm. The difference doesn't sound great, but the area of these works out to about 220 mm square for the 4/3 sensor, and approx. 330 mm sq for APS-C. In other words, the APS-C is 50% larger.

While imaging sensors have come a long, long way the past 15 or 20 years, size still matters. The bigger the sensor, the less crowded and larger its pixel sites can be, and the less an image needs to be enlarged when any given size of print is made. Less crowded sensors generally make for higher usable ISOs... less heat and cross talk between pixel sites causing less image noise at high gain. Larger pixel sites also generally capture more fine detail and a problem called "diffraction" that occurs when using really small apertures becomes more noticeable when greater magnification is needed to produce a given size of print.

All that said, the differences between 4/3 and APS-C really aren't that great. There are much smaller sensors used in a lot of camera (phones, point n shoots, etc.) as well as considerably larger ones such as "full frame" (more than 2.5X the area of APS-C: approx. 864 sq. mm) and "medium format".

I am a bit surprised to hear that the Nikon D3400 omits the sensor cleaner, if that's the case. Yes, those REALLY do work! I have to shoot in dusty conditions a lot and with cameras prior to self-cleaning sensors, I had to do cleanings every 3 months or more often. With self-cleaning cameras, it's more like an annual cleaning, at most. I've used some cameras several years and never had to clean them. I wanted a particular camera for certain purposes, but made do without it for several years and waited for a new version of it to be released, to some extent because the first model lacked a self-cleaning sensor (and was referred to by some users as a "dust magnet").

Self-cleaning sensors involve several things. First, there actually is a protective filter permanently installed in front of the sensor, and that's what actually gets dirty and is what's cleaned. More recent cameras often use special coatings on those that resist dust adhering to the filter (similar coatings are also used on lenses and elsewhere). To clean it the camera briefly "vibrates" the sensor (often automatically whenever the camera is turned off or on). And most cameras with self-cleaning sensors also have a strip of adhesive material adjacent to the sensor to trap particles shaken off it, preventing them from settling back onto the sensor. These systems aren't perfect and can need occasional service, but actually do a pretty good job, reducing the need for further cleanings significantly.

Today I'd try not to buy a digital camera without a self-cleaning sensor! But I thought one was pretty much standard on recent DSLRs, so am a little surprised to learn that any Nikon model doesn't have it. However, that made me curious so I checked and found that Canon's most entry-level models (T6/1300D, T5/1200D, T3/1100Detc.) also don't have it! Oddly, the first/oldest model that series (Rebel XS/1000D) did have it. And Canon's smallest, similar specification and similarly priced SL1 (100D) and all their M-series mirrorless cameras also do have auto sensor cleaning.

Battery life is heavily effected by battery size and capacity, as well as certain camera functions. You should look for "CIPA" test results for any model you're considering. Those use standard testing procedures to make it possible to compare across brands, models and even types of cameras. A DSLR that provides an optical viewfinder might use a lot less power than one that relies upon an electronic viewfinder or a mirrorless camera without any viewfinder at all that depends upon an LCD screen on the rear of the camera. Smaller cameras also generally only have room to accommodate smaller size/lower capacity batteries.

For example, Canon 7D Mark II DSLRs that I shoot with have an optical viewfinder and use a medium size battery (LP-E6/E6N). They're rated for a little less than 800 shots per charge. I actually get a lot more than that - close to double, in fact - by not using the LCD screen a lot (I turned off automatic image review, only call up and spot check images occasionally)... and by not using some other built-in "power hogs" such as GPS (and WiFi, tho my cameras don't have it). I also never use my cameras' built-in flashes. If any of those things are wanted, using separate modules for GPS or WiFi or accessory flash, all with their own power supplies, will allow for a lot more shots per charge with the camera's main battery.

In comparison, Canon Rebel series (xxxxD and xxxD) models today all use a smaller battery (LP-E8, LP-E12, LP-E17, etc.) and because of that those cameras are rated for a little better than half as many shots per charge: typically round 450. In comparison, Canon's latest mirrorless M5 (using the same compact battery, LP-E17), with both an electronic viewfinder and touch screen controls that would likely make for more frequent use of the LCD screen, is rated for just under 300 shots per charge. (Note: the M5 has a power-saving "eco" mode to give about 33% more shots per charge. And it would probably be possible to get more shots with any of these by turning off or not certain features, the way I do with my cameras.)

All that said, it's really not all that big a deal to get and carry some extra batteries. Many DSLR models also can optionally be fitted with "battery grips" that double the number of batteries installed (as well as providing a vertical grip and controls). I always use vertical/battery grips on my DSLRs.... Plus I usually carry two extra batteries per camera.

There are times I wouldn't mind a smaller mirrorless camera. I shoot with Canon DSLRs and had hoped to get a Canon mirrorless (that could share some lenses and accessories such as flash). Up til recently, I wasn't all that impressed with Canon's mirrorless, for my purposes. My primary complaint was lack of a viewfinder on any mirrorless they were offering (an accessory one was available, but limited in some ways). The new M5 now has a built-in electronic viewfinder and I might consider one of those, some day, as a smaller, lighter, "stealthier" alternative to my DLSRs. Canon themselves so far has a fairly limited selection of lenses for their M-series cameras, too... but there are some interesting third party alternatives I'd consider (as well as millions of high quality vintage rangefinder lenses that might be adapted and used on them). I don't know all that much about other brands of mirrorless... but Olympus and Fuji both appear to have built out their mirrorless systems more than Canon or Nikon, as of now... and Sony appears to be taking another tack, with more DSLR-like and larger sensored mirrorless models.

Your $1000 budget is a bit limiting, but you should be able to find something. My only suggestion would be to give careful consideration to lens(es). IMO a lot of people overemphasize and overspend on the camera body, don't pay enough attention to the lenses they use upon it. Lenses actually can have a lot more impact on the quality of images, than the camera they are used upon. Give it some thought, both the lens(es) you get with the camera now and others you might want or be able to add in the future.

As to macro, my first choice would always be a true macro lens... Those are the fastest to work with, give the best and most uncompromising image quality and have features I want. I currently use five different macro lenses with my Canon DSLRs: a Tamron SP 60mm f2 compact, crop-only, macro/portrait.... Canon 65mm MP-E ultra high magnification, up to 5X life size.... vintage Tamron SP 90mm, cost me all of $20 and another $40 to adapt.... Canon EF 100/2.8 non-IS/L version, with tripod mounting ring.... Canon EF 180/3.5L. I also use a lot of non-macro lenses for close-up work, often with macro extension rings.

I do have a high quality, Canon 500D screw-in diopter lens for use on a couple zooms, but use it a lot less often than macro extension rings (a Kenko set and several individual Canon rings). A good diopter lens in a larger size is limited to use on lenses with that size filter ring and costs about the same as a set of macro extension rings - which have no optics in them, to "mess" with image quality - that are more versatile, can be used with almost any lens.

When it comes to image quality, it's pretty hard to go wrong with any modern macro lenses. All of them are excellent. It's more the other features of the lens that decided what's "right" for me... or will likely do so for you. My most-used macro lens is probably my Canon 100/2.8... it's just the most versatile focal length (not too short putting me too close, but not too long that it's really hard to get a steady shot or a really small aperture is needed). It also has reasonably fast auto focus (thanks to USM focus drive and a Focus Limiter)... and it is one of the few in the 90/100/105mm range that can optionally fitted with a tripod mounting ring, an accessory I consider very important. It doesn't have image stabilization, but that's of limited use for macro work anyway. As a result, it cost less (and I'd rather put the money into fitting it with the tripod mounting ring).

There are cheaper (Tokina 100/2.8) and smaller (Canon EF-S 60/2.8 crop-only.. or EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro) and stabilized (Sigma OS, Canon IS, Nikon VR, Tamron VC) and shorter focal length (Tokina 35mm, Venus Laowa 15mm) and longer focal length (Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron 150, 180, 200mm) macro lenses. There are also non-macro lenses with near-macro capabilities (examples: Canon 300/4L IS and 100-400L Mark II both give better than 1/4 life size with plenty of working distance, while the EF 24-70/4L IS offers amazing magnification close to 3/4 life size).

Lots to choose among to find what works best for you and your purposes. Have fun shopping!

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Too late to edit my post. I should have noted that the article was for full fame mirrorless though. I still stick by my original assertions as to how I utilize my different cameras though. Not to take anything away from the Oly cameras but I do use my DSLR's more. Shame Oly only has the 60 mm macro lens, I would have liked something longer.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I was brought kicking and screaming out of my Nikons and into the MILC world. When I looked at the MILCs, the only options I considered had an aps-c size sensor or larger. I won an on-line photo contest with an image taken with an advanced Canon P&S. When I tried to print it for my wall, I could only get 8x10 before the image fell apart. The sensors are too small. For me the sweet spot is aps-c like the D7200 or D3300. (Larger has some advantages but the disadvantages of size, weight and cost outweigh them except for specific uses.)

That leaves the Fuji line and the Sony. I have loved Nikon for over 45 years as my primary goto cameras, but both Nikon and Canon have botched the job on MILC. First, they both use the so-called 1 inch sensor. The 1 inch sensor is named for the 1-inch video tube we used to have in broadcast TV cameras. It is actually 1/2x1/2 (really a little less) Second. They both abandoned the EVF. I think viewfinders are important tools. The so-called LiveView screen is inadequate for serious photography (Except when working slowly and methodically on a tripod, of course.)

I bought a used Fuji Xe-1 and loved it. Only two negatives: The lenses are very expensive and they didn't have my favorite carry around lens 18-200mm. The Xe-1 did not have all the bells and whistles but Fuji's later offerings have more of them.

I wound up with a Sony a6000. Took it around Europe and came back with a lot of good photographs. When the a6300 came out I bought that and am happier than a pig in the muck. I use the eye focus feature frequently. In fact both of these have better auto focus than DSLRs. The only negative is minor. The stabilization is not built into the body, but in the lenses. Also, after all these years with Nikon menus, I find the Sony menu system to be pretty disorganized.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

4/3 mount: Olympus 50mm f2 with ec-14 or ec-20 works great
4/3 mount: Sigma 105 and 150mm f2.8. Both are hard to find...but with a little patience they're both obtainable...also they both work with the EC-14 and 20.
Otherwise, you'd have to resort to manual focus lenses...which most everyone that I know that does macro work, ends up using manual focus anyways.
Of course with the above lenses, they'll be much larger. It's only a matter of time before there is a macro lens longer than 60mm for m4/3.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Good news for you!: You can get the 6500 with IBIS.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Check out these three links. The first deals with how to chose a camera. The second and third are recommendations for midrange and best mirrorless cameras:
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/which-camera-should-i-get/
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera-under-1000/
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera/

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Their original XT-1 was pathetically slow to focus. Firmware updates made it very acceptable AND added features. They fixed most of the complaints that could be fixed with software.

Panasonic also added lots of desirable, significant features to their GH4... when I got mine, it came with a stack of addenda to the manual, one for each update.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

60mm on M4/3 has the field of view of 120mm on full frame. Do you need a lens longer than that?

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

I use my telephotos with a $30 set of tubes with contacts. Full autofocus and auto-everything with the sharpness of the original lenses.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I'd like a longer minimum focus distance than a 60 mm lens affords...

GraveyDave

I've had the low end Nikons, D200, D300, and D3100 and right now I would buy a used D700 which I've seen on ebay for as low as $500 with a shutter count of a little over 8,000. The low end ones, specifically the D300 (which I originally purchased for 1,800 dollars) took me through 500 professional weddings and other events as well as sports and the majority of my digital journalistic work so the Nikon brand definitely lived up to it's billing. The problem I had, along with my 2nd shooters with their low end Canon 50D, was the focus on groups of people. We always had to zoom in and then hold the shutter and then pull back. (always had it set on FOCUS, not just release and on single shot so the focus will hold). I had the expensive 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon so it wasn't the lens. With a 24-120 and the 35-135 it would never focus crisply all the way through. Always got great results with telephoto zoom lenses (70-200) but not wide angle/telephoto. The D700 was, and still is great with all of my lenses and easily goes to ISO 4,000 (higher with some tricks in lightroom). Maybe someone here in UHH can tell you how the newer low ends work for them. The problem is that everyone who gets a camera to shoot a certain thing ends up wanting to shoot much more and the camera might not do it very well.

xptom Loc: Concord, CA

I replace my Canon 70D (which I really liked) with an Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II. Fantastic camera with a Olympus Pro 12-40mm f/2.8. Fantastic! The OM-D E-M10 Mark II is very similar, a few less features and less $$$. With either camera recommend Darrell Young's book "Mastering the Olympus OM-DE-M5 Mark II. The features of the cameras are equally covered.

Benttree Loc: GA.

This is not a brainer, lower end advange camera in any camera test site tell you it is Canon Rebel's.
Now if you want smaller camera and mirrorless, Sony is the leader at a moment.
See how it feels on your hand, and if you used to do with some brand, maybe stay with, since any new brand and it function menu takes learning curve.
Now if you do like Nikon from previous experience, they are fantastic cameras and there is low end price model as well available competition with Canon Rebel.

SteveTog Loc: Philly

Hi Scott,

I think the Oly and Panasonic m4/3 format allows them to make lenses are that smaller than the Sony's that you are talking about. The Sony's larger, full frame format makes it necessary to use larger glass.

Best,
- Steve