Moving to mirrorless: Fuji xe-2 or Olympus omd em10

[Bernie Gunther]

Sensor quality seems much of a muchness these days in anything decent.

Ergonomics, viewfinder quality, autofocus capability, stabilisation/ISO and available lens quality seem much more important to me.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My main goal, is the best image quality.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

My main goal, is the best image quality.

So shoot large format. Can't top a 4x5 neg.

 

[weltweit]

MY first camera was a mirrorless with an EVF or screen interchangeable. It had an 8fps burst which was fun but AF was slow and low light performance limited.

I am now considering my first FF dslr which offers, great IQ including at high ISO, large clear Optical Viewfinder, fast AF, compatible with my lenses which are all FF and will now work as they were designed, narrower DOF, good battery performance. I am about to press the trigger to get it atm - I can't wait!

 

[editor]

My main goal, is the best image quality.

Some of the greatest, most powerful photographs ever taken probably wouldn't stand up too well to a DxO examination.

 

[weltweit]

Some of the greatest, most powerful photographs ever taken probably wouldn't stand up too well to a DxO examination.

I agree, total image quality comes a second to a properly useable camera. I want to be able to get the shot, to have full control of the device, to be able to shoot when I need to capture an image not wait while the shot is lost.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So shoot large format. Can't top a 4x5 neg.

Cost considerations.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Some of the greatest, most powerful photographs ever taken probably wouldn't stand up too well to a DxO examination.

Dx0 examines hardware, specifically sensors; not images.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I agree, total image quality comes a second to a properly useable camera. I want to be able to get the shot, to have full control of the device, to be able to shoot when I need to capture an image not wait while the shot is lost.

Isn't the idea behind a properly useable camera, to get good photos?

 

[weltweit]

Isn't the idea behind a properly useable camera, to get good photos?

I am just saying, there is more than IQ to be considered when weighing up a purchase.

 

[editor]

Dx0 examines hardware, specifically sensors; not images.

The point being that you seem to think ultimate image quality is the most important consideration. I do not. Not by a long chalk.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The point being that you seem to think ultimate image quality is the most important consideration. I do not. Not by a long chalk.

Given that a camera exists in order to produce images, I think that a camera's ability to produce high image quality is as important as the ability of a car to drive straight down the street, or of a food processor to dice carrots.

Most people, given a choice between a tool that does its job well, and one that does its job less well, will choose the one that does its job well.

 

[editor]

Given that a camera exists in order to produce images, I think that a camera's ability to produce high image quality is as important as the ability of a car to drive straight down the street, or of a food processor to dice carrots.

Most people, given a choice between a tool that does its job well, and one that does its job less well, will choose the one that does its job well.

And that's where the other considerations such as size, build, speed and ergonomics also play a vital part.

I'm surprised you're finding this so hard to understand, to be honest.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And that's where the other considerations such as size, build, speed and ergonomics also play a vital part.

I'm surprised you're finding this so hard to understand, to be honest.

Don't be surprised: I have trouble with all sorts of things.

The heart of a camera, the guts, the reason it exists, is to take good photos. Good image quality with a DSLR will come about through the interaction of a good sensor and good glass. Ergonomics etc also matter, but imo come second to the ability of the photo to make a good image.

I want a camera with intuitive controls, nice ergonomics etc. but I won't choose a camera for those things, if the primary function of the camera is lacking or deficient.

 

[editor]

Don't be surprised: I have trouble with all sorts of things.

The heart of a camera, the guts, the reason it exists, is to take good photos. Good image quality with a DSLR will come about through the interaction of a good sensor and good glass. Ergonomics etc also matter, but imo come second to the ability of the photo to make a good image.

I want a camera with intuitive controls, nice ergonomics etc. but I won't choose a camera for those things, if the primary function of the camera is lacking or deficient.

But for most everyday shots even an 'average' camera provides more than enough image quality for most uses and you'd be very unlikely to spot the difference between a mid range camera and a full frame camera costing $$$$.

A major international airport has a series of my photos blown up to over a metre high along their walls - and they were taken with a 3.1MP camera.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But for most everyday shots even an 'average' camera provides more than enough image quality for most uses and you'd be very unlikely to spot the difference between a mid range camera and a full frame camera costing $$$$. .

If a person is satisfied by the image quality provided by one of the starter camera models, no doubt they will save a lot of money in the long run.

The image quality of the cameras I've been using, which have small, poorly-rated sensors, doesn't satisfy me anymore, so I'm looking for something that can give me something better. This might not be a problem that others come across.

As for 3.1 mp, I think FM was right that pixel number isn't all there is to sensor quality.

 

[editor]

If a person is satisfied by the image quality provided by one of the starter camera models, no doubt they will save a lot of money in the long run.

The image quality of the cameras I've been using, which have small, poorly-rated sensors, doesn't satisfy me anymore, so I'm looking for something that can give me something better. This might not be a problem that others come across.

As for 3.1 mp, I think FM was right that pixel number isn't all there is to sensor quality.

How big do you intend to output your images? Billboard size? A0?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How big do you intend to output your images? Billboard size? A0?

Does that matter? Not so many years ago, billboard images were created solely with film cameras.

Most professional photography doesn't end up billboard size - yet pro photographers often use top end Mamiyas, Hasselblads, etc, that are way out of most people's price range.

I expect there's probably a reason that the pros select the cameras they do over mid range Canons and Olympus cameras.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Which reminds me: the last time you and I had a discussion like this, you were taking the position that cell phone cameras were just as good as DSLRs.

 

[editor]

Does that matter? Not so many years ago, billboard images were created solely with film cameras.

Most professional photography doesn't end up billboard size - yet pro photographers often use top end Mamiyas, Hasselblads, etc, that are way out of most people's price range.

I expect there's probably a reason that the pros select the cameras they do over mid range Canons and Olympus cameras.

Some do use mid-range cameras, actually (some even get on the front covers of international magazines with phone pictures), although for certain types of professional photography you do need high end gear (e.g. sports, landscapes).

 

[editor]

Which reminds me: the last time you and I had a discussion like this, you were taking the position that cell phone cameras were just as good as DSLRs.

That was only in the highly confused mind of an individual poster.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Some do, actually

I'll just have to take your word on that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That was only in the highly confused mind of an individual poster.

Either that; or a different individual poster just likes to be contrary sometimes.

 

[editor]

I'll just have to take your word on that.

One seconds Googling produces: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...s-om-d-e-m1-is-one-top-pros-camera-of-choice/

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In certain circumstances, doctors have performed surgery with pen knives; as a rule, they prefer hospital issue scalpels and equipment.

 

[editor]

In certain circumstances, doctors have performed surgery with pen knives; as a rule, they prefer hospital issue scalpels and equipment.

That comparison really shows that you simply don't understand the issues. A pro might use an Olympus camera - or a GR - because it would be a better tool for a particular job than a high end full frame camera.

If you're basing the concept of 'good' photography on pixel peeking and the often-imperceptible differences in sensor quality, I don't think I'm going to be particularly interested in your take on the subject.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Not to worry, I don't even know what 'pixel peeping' is - but it sounds kinda naughty.

As for cameras for different jobs - I'll grant you that various cameras might produce images in particular ways that appeal to a particular subset of users; but in general, it's possible to mimic the output of a mediocre camera with a good camera, via settings etc - but a mediocre camera can't be made to match the best output of a good camera, no matter how much knob and menu-fiddling one does.

 

[editor]

Not to worry, I don't even know what 'pixel peeping' is - but it sounds kinda naughty.

As for cameras for different jobs - I'll grant you that various cameras might produce images in particular ways that appeal to a particular subset of users; but in general, it's possible to mimic the output of a mediocre camera with a good camera, via settings etc - but a mediocre camera can't be made to match the best output of a good camera, no matter how much knob and menu-fiddling one does.

A mediocre camera can still take fucking amazing pictures though - the point being it's the scene being captured that matters, and not the size of the sensor. Get that in your head and some of your photography may improve.

Most people don't give a shit if a photograph was taken on a £3,000 camera or a £300 one. All they care about is the scene, the message, the art and the emotional impact.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A mediocre camera can still take fucking amazing pictures though - the point being it's the scene being captured that matters, and not the size of the sensor. Get that in your head and some of your photography may improve.

Most people don't give a shit if a photograph was taken on a £3,000 camera or a £300 one. All they care about is the scene, the message, the art and the emotional impact.

I also could give a shit what a camera costs. If I can find a cheap used camera with the ability to produce superior image quality, that's what I'll buy. It's stupid to spend money unnecessarily when what you want can be had for less.

As for what others want, that's fine. We're discussing what for most people is a hobby, and everyone takes their own path. Hardly seems a topic worthy of getting one's back up over.

 

[editor]

I also could give a shit what a camera costs. If I can find a cheap used camera with the ability to produce superior image quality, that's what I'll buy. It's stupid to spend money unnecessarily when what you want can be had for less.

As for what others want, that's fine. We're discussing what for most people is a hobby, and everyone takes their own path. Hardly seems a topic worthy of getting one's back up over.

You just seem a little strangely obsessed with this concept of "superior image quality."