Skip Navigation
Photography @lemmy.world buffy @lemmy.world

Question about switching to mirrorless and available systems

I know this topic has been discussed a lot before, but in my opinion there is no simple answer to this question.

Lately, I have been a bit disappointed with my Nikon DSLR kit (D3200) and thus I've been considering an upgrade. I got it many years ago, and it is undoubtedly a great, affordable camera that produces great images. I've had lots of fun with it and I can't complain about its performance when shooting -- given ideal conditions. When I am shooting more challenging subjects, however, I feel a bit hindered by my camera body/system. The points that bother me the most are:

  1. Size. The D3200 is a very nice, compact, and lightweight DSLR, but it is still relatively big compared to modern cameras. It won't fit in a jacket pocket even without an attached lens. More current cameras with a higher image quality can be smaller than it is (but heavier). The situation is even worse for higher-end DSLRs.
  2. Autofocus. Again, the D3200 is a fantastic camera if you are just using the center focus spot using the optical viewfinder and nothing else. Live view (contrast) focus is straight up unusable, and there are only 11 (phase) focus points or so if using the viewfinder. At least that's the case with "ordinary" Nikon lenses. I don't know how it performs with higher-end lenses, like the Sigma Art line.
  3. "Low light" performance. I can't bump the ISO significantly before image degradation becomes obvious. Low light in quotes because that's the case even in fairly well-lit situations. Occasionally, I like to print on medium-sized paper (A3+), and if I need anything above ISO 400 to properly expose the image, it won't look that good printed. Of course, I can always stick to printing bright images large and save the "low light" scenes to smaller prints, so this isn't really my main concern.
  4. Custom controls. I wish I could customize the camera settings a bit more. For example, on my camera, the back button AF/AE can be set to lock the AF/AE or as a back button focus. But in image preview mode, the same button "locks" the image so it can't be deleted. Thus, you need to quit image preview before using that button to trigger autofocus again. I would like to have a dedicated AF button so I can shoot straight from image preview if the opportunity arises. Another example of customization I can't do: settings like auto-ISO and shutter speed can't be capped/limited to a certain range. Let's say I want to use auto-ISO but prevent it from going above 400 to avoid too much noise (and decrease shutter speed but risk shaky images). Or the opposite: prevent the shutter speed in aperture priority mode from going below 1/100 to avoid shaky images and then change ISO instead. Well, I can't do either at the moment. Again, a nice feature to have, but totally something I can live with.

From what I have seen, cameras nowadays have gotten pretty good and they do look like a significant upgrade from 10-15 year old bodies. I guess all popular, entry-level, modern cameras (2019-) solve at least 3 of the 4 problems I listed above, so I don't think I can go wrong with any big brand. However, I'm having a hard time deciding with so many options and sensor size/formats available. My options so far are:

  1. Nikon Z. Since I am already familiar with Nikon F lenses, I have read a lot about them and I know the strengths and weaknesses of many of those. That means I likely won't be disappointed if I switch to another system, and I want a certain lens that doesn't exist, or the optical performance is poor, or it is prohibitively expensive. The Z50, Z5, and Z6 all look amazing, and I can pick or switch between a full frame or cropped sensor easier than I would if I was stuck with a micro four thirds. They are more affordable than Sony.
  2. Sony. They seem to be fantastic cameras, with great image quality and features. Sigma and Tamron options for Nikon are likely available for Sony as well. I'm just slightly afraid that lenses might be too expensive for what they offer. Their cameras look super compact and pocketable, which is a huge plus to me. Full frame (A7iii) or cropped (A6400) are also both available for a seamless transition.
  3. Olympus. I think it is impossible to beat micro four thirds in size and affordability. It is perhaps the only system where you can get a wide angle, portrait, fast prime, macro, and telephoto that you can take everywhere in a small bag while not costing you a fortune. They also have pretty nice features, such as the "live mode"/"smartphone photography", where you can get a frame that was captured slightly before the shutter button was pressed. This must be so cool for wildlife. Olympus stabilization is also highly regarded, with people claiming it to be "gimbal-like". The E-M5 iii looks very appealing. My main concern is that I've never used a micro four thirds before and thus I don't know how much I'm letting go in image quality. I already feel that the dynamic range I get with the D3200 rocking a larger, cropped sensor could be better.

I am not considering:

  1. Canon. I completely disagree with their "no third party lenses" policy. To me, that is unacceptable.
  2. Fujifilm. There are barely any telephoto options and they are one of my favorite lens types to use.
  3. Panasonic. I like what I read about the Lumix cameras, but they seem to be behind Olympus regarding micro four third still-focused cameras (apart from the G9). And I don't know much about the L-mount.
  4. Hasselblad, Leica, etc. Too expensive. I want something that I can take with me everywhere and not worry too much if it gets damaged.

I would appreciate if you all could help me figure this out! Especially people who have used more than one modern mirrorless system or have recently transitioned from DSLR to mirrorless. Many thanks in advance!

Edited to add:

I forgot to describe how exactly I use my camera. I mostly shoot:

  1. "Lifestyle" photos, like something cool I've seen while biking to work, walking in the park, visiting museums, etc.
  2. Hiking, biking, backpacking photos, like landscape, close ups, macro, wildlife, etc.
  3. Birds of all sizes.
  4. Occasionally, street photography if there's some cool event going on.
  5. I do like to shoot video, so something that would be 4K capable would be great.
34
34 comments

  • Go to the store and hold them in your hands... Things will become more clear!

  • Just a couple minor points to add to your consideration. IDK what your budget is but buying a used flagship camera is often better than a new midrange camera. The main difference you’re going to not be able to easily compete with is newer sensor tech but there are some really stellar older cameras.

    You don’t mention what kind of photography you’re trying to do and that would make difference.

    I picked up a used canon 7D mark 2 for about $350 used it basically perfect condition. Because this was a prosumer flagship at the time it has all the bells and whistles of that era. It’s my primary wildlife camera. I picked up an Olympus OM-D E-M5 2 recently for about $450. Their prices have bumped up a lot I think because everyone is getting into street photography. I’ve been having lots of fun with it. Got a 7.5mm Rokinon fisheye and a 14-42mm zoom. Been fun doing closeups on insects and landscape stuff so far. It’s very compact and feature rich. M43 lenses are much cheaper entry point than APS-C and FF are so for just having fun it’s way cheaper to experiment. Having IBIS is really nice too.

    Both cameras have tons of customizaility. They aren’t the low light champs a full frame would be but getting some faster primes has helped with that. I picked one up from UsedPhotoPro and the other from MPB. They do a good job going over the cameras and showing you the exact one you’re purchasing and they offer 6-12 month guarantees on all the stuff they sell which is nice.

    It sounds like you really want something lighter weight so M43 might be a good way to go. There are some really nice cameras in M43. The prices even new are less. Flagship Sony, canon, Nikon are all in that 5-7000 range and flagship Olympus and Panasonic are like 2000-2500 new. Something I decided was to get a used M43 knowing that because it’s an open standard any lenses I got would mostly work between Olympus and Panasonic if I upgraded to a new body. It’s also a good way to get a “pro” style more DSLR like body if you want and a super small pocket camera style at the same time and have a collection of lenses to choose from as the whim suits.

    --edit--

    Okay either you edited while I was typing or I didn't see before what you said your types of photography were.

    As happy as I have been with my canon DSLR... I agree with you ( and many others ). Canon's policy about 3rd party lenses is utter bullshit... and their first party glass is way overpriced. Only their L glass can really outshine anyone and it's stupidly overpriced... their regular stuff you're better with sigma and since their new R system stuff doesn't play nice with that it's a non-starter really. (Now if you wanted to go with DSLR, it's a different story but those are chunky and heavy... my wildlife rig weighs 8-10lbs depending on what I bring for just the camera itself)

    With you starting your post about camera size and mentioning the nikon d3200.. which isn't a large DSLR... I really think the M43 format might be worth looking into. Another big advantage of M43 is even if the body is the same size, the lenses will be considerably smaller and lighter than comparable APS-C or FF lenses. So size and weight will be greatly reduced. The crop factor on M43 is 2x (as opposed to 1.5x nikon APS-C and 1.6x canon APS-C) so getting more "reach" with a lens for things like birds is easier with smaller focal length glass as well. Since most of them will have good IBIS since it's easier to stabilize physically smaller sensor as well. Not that new APS-C and FF cameras can't have good IBIS.. but for example my OM-D E-M5 2 has several stops of 5 axis IBIS on a camera from 2015. I can handhold shots at 1/2 second shutter speeds. Newer cameras will be even better. For hiking et al, the smaller size and weight will be a bonus. For street photography it's one of the go to systems because of the small size. Etc.

    The 4K video is going to be a stickier subject and looking into hybrid cameras is much trickier. I recommend checking out petapixel's youtube. That's where the DPReview guys ended up and their stuff is great. It focuses on both still and video so a review of anything will be well rounded. https://www.youtube.com/@PetaPixel for their older stuff DPReview is still around for now as well https://www.youtube.com/@dpreview I also really like MicroFourNerds stuff if you wanted to look at a ton of different reviews focused on M43 system. https://www.youtube.com/@MicroFourNerds

    • Thank you for such a great reply! I will try to address your points individually.

      First, agreed that used flagship always beats brand-new midrange. I will likely buy a higher-end (not flagship) camera used, because that's what I do for basically everything (lenses, laptops, bikes, etc). I was a bit hesitant to state a budget because I am slightly flexible with it. However, I do not want to own a setup that costs more than $2k including everything. I was thinking about spending ~$500-750 on the body, and ~$1k-1.5k on lenses (long-term). I would like to have a compact, flexible kit lens, a long telephoto (I'm talking ~600mm equivalent), and a dedicated macro. Fast primes and pancake primes might be interesting depending on how I feel about the camera body. I know this is feasible with Nikon (given the FTZ adapter) and Olympus (as you know from experience). I am unsure about Sony.

      I will likely do the same thing as you did, and buy from MPB, KEH, Adorama, UsedPhotoPro, etc. The local shops in my area pay too little for cameras and usually charge too much unless you are patient and find a gem. Also, the no-questions-asked return policy I can get online is much better than what local shops can afford to provide.

      Second, I agree that the D3200 is a small DSLR. I've noticed that its size doesn't bother me most of the time, but it isn't a camera I can easily take with me everywhere. For example, it still can't fit in a pocket or small bag, so I need to carry a relatively large bag to bring the camera and one extra lens with me. That is definitely not the case with feature-packed, smaller mirrorless cameras, like the Lumix GX or the Sony A6x00 series. On the other hand, I would also like to have more dynamic range and "low light" performance than the D3200 when camera size isn't a problem. For that reason, I was considering avoiding mirrorless altogether and getting a Nikon F full-frame for situations where size isn't a problem (D610, D750, D810), and a compact point-and-shoot to carry around at all times (Z-V1, RX100). However, two things made me think that this might not be a good idea. One reason is that "good" compact cameras nowadays are the same price as arguably better mirrorless without much compromise in size, so why even bother with a point-and-shoot? The other reason is that I wouldn't be able to mix-and-match lenses, which would also be nice.

      Lastly, I will be sure to check out PetaPixel's videos. I've seen a lot of MicroFourNerds' content and I agree that she is great.

      I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the E-M5ii. I was thinking about getting the E-M5iii because of the 4K video. I skipped the E-M10 line due to the lack of weather sealing and "downgraded" processor (as MicroFourNerds recommended). The E-M1 is much heavier given that it is "for pros", so it kind of defeats the purpose of portability in my case.

      • I agree that point and shoot or bridge cameras are a a little silly these days. I have been looking into the M43 stuff because I can add a few different sized and featured bodies while sticking with interchangeable lenses that are part of the same system. Some of the M43 bodies are absolutely tiny, especially if you're willing to give up the viewfinder and only use the back screen.

        I saw you mention in another reply about how the newer M43 seem to be not doing compact cameras anymore. It's hard to say if that trend will continue or not... panasonic seems to be doing more of that sort of thing still and offering things across the spectrum of use cases. I feel like the popularity of street photography right now will likely make some new compact things show up eventually. I would point out, also, that the sony a7iii you're mentioning is basically the same physical size as the OM-1 series... but the lenses will be half the size. https://camerasize.com/compare/#777,918 so your total kit size and weight will be much smaller.

        I watched countless videos looking at little M43 cameras before I picked up the E-M5 II. The weather sealing was definitely a big bonus for a little camera. I don't care about video at all, so I was happy to go with the slightly older version. The better hand held "high rez" on the E-M5 III is nice, though I've heard the build quality is a little more plasticy. Personal preference really.. .it does reduce weight a bit. As for image quality... I have been very happy with my results. This is one of the first cameras where I've been mostly happy with the JPEGs that come directly out of camera. I still shoot RAW+JPEG but I find myself only editing occasionally when sharing which is nice.

        Don't get me wrong, the stuff that comes out of sony SLR style cameras is really good. They definitely do some good stuff in their sensors. And if you get their G series lenses, they are very nice... but expensive. You've just mentioned the size and carry weight a bit and I've fixated on that. When I'm out birding, I always run into other people as well... and the rigs that people are carrying for sony, nikon, and canon are all the same size. A lot of people carrying 150-600 or 100-400 lenses... and they're huge. That was one of the motivations for wanting a second camera and adding some M43 into my lineup.

        One of the things that I have done with camera and lens purchases is go to flickr. You can search hashtags by item name. So when I was looking for M43 I was comparing the omd em5 ii vs the lumix gx8... so I just searched for those and you'll get a bunch of real world photos that people have taken to see what things looked like. Same thing for lenses... searching for a lens make and model... and you'll see that lens how it looks on multiple different bodies. A good quick way to compare a lot of real world stuff and not the clinical shots that reviewers use. Both are useful.

        The advice I've always received, and it makes sense to me, is pick a lens system. Lenses hold value and last longer than camera bodies, especially with digital. So if there is a system that has a lot of lenses you like and options (seriously fck canon and their no 3rd party rules) it makes sense to get those and get a body to match.

        Good luck on the search. Try not to let the spec overload get to you... at the end of the day most cameras are pretty good these days. Once you've narrowed to some of the better ones, anything you choose will likely make you happy. :)

        --edit-- Added a full rez image from the first day I had the EM5II taken with the 14-42mm kit lens. Unedited JPEG out of camera just so you can see the detail, as that was a concern you voiced.

  • Digital Photography Review has great articles, buyers guides, and a side by side comparison tool: https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras

  • I started with a used Nikon d3300 a while ago, and then upgraded to an a7iv when it came out. I was mostly starting to feel the limitations of low light performance and slow autofocus on the d3300. For me the a7iv seemed like the right choice at the time, and I've been very happy with it. But I think if I were making the same decision now, I might choose the a6700. It's smaller, similar specs, cheaper, and most importantly for me, the apsc crop would be better for wildlife as it gives better reach. I recently went to Yellowstone and the number of times cool stuff was happening just a little too far away was a bit frustrating. If I had something like an a7riv or a7rv, it wouldn't be a problem because of how high resolution they are. But those cameras cost a ton more. But I'm still very happy with my a7iv and will not be changing cameras any time soon.

    I would say that unless you have a lot of nice glass for the d3200 already, don't worry about switching to Sony. I think it really is the best brand for hobbyists because of how much affordable and excellent 3rd party glass is available for the system in both full frame and aspc. Just cannot be matched with any other system. Also, if you do want the crazy fancy stuff, the Sony G and GM lenses are some of the best in the game, and definitely have the most variety of lenses.

    I would avoid m43. A lot of the newer cameras aren't particularly light or small. I think the Sony apsc cameras are often more compact and more affordable.

    • Thanks for the input! I am considering the A6400 and A7iii, given the amazing reviews they always get.

      I don't own many expensive Nikon lenses, but I am planning on selling the more expensive stuff that I have to switch systems. That shouldn't really be a problem, since I got quotes from MPB and KEH that I'm happy with.

      Sadly, you are spot on regarding micro four thirds and the path they are taking. If I'm not mistaken, Panasonic's last compact micro four thirds camera was the GX-9, released in 2018. Olympus' bodies are not smaller than other brands, either. Some of them even dwarf high-end, full frame DSLR bodies (e.g. E-M1X vs D750), while most are only slightly smaller than full frame mirrorless (e.g. E-M5iii vs A7iii). But honestly, something that bugs me a lot is exactly the situation that you were describing about your trip to Yellowstone. I live pretty close to the Rocky Mountain NP, so I'm there somewhat frequently. I must say, there were situations where I regret not bringing a long telephoto with me, and I own a nice one. I have a huge Tamron 150-600, but I can't hike with it on top of all the outdoor gear I'm bringing, so I only use it when I'm not walking that much.

      Olympus, for instance, sells the 75-300 lens which is ridiculously small for the reach you can get. Especially if you compare that to a Nikon F cropped plus 80-400 or full frame plus the 150-600, the difference in size is jarring. At the moment, the only equivalent solution I see for Sony is a cropped body with the new Tamron 70-300, which is comparable in size to the E-M5iii plus the 75-300. Which isn't bad at all. I suspect this would be an image quality vs reach battle, where I could see either winning.

      I also agree that micro four thirds is sadly becoming pricier and pricier. In contrast, the market for Sony cropped seems to be always hot.

      Actually, I'll see if my local store will have Sony and Olympus bodies in stock so I can try them out some time this week. I've only ever handled a Sony ZV-E10 camera, I'm curious to see how the A6x00 series feels.

  • Personally I've got a Lumix G9 and I've been having a ball with it since I got it (I've got a link in my profile to where I share pics if you're curious)

    I'm by no means an expert but my use case lines up quite a bit with yours so I felt like sharing

    It's not bad to lug around and being able to have a couple lenses in my bag without worry is nice. But most of the time I just rock the 12-60mm Leica lens that came with it.

    If you wanna pick my brain with questions about it feel free, though my lunch is about over so it's going to be a few hours before I get back to you.

    • I'm checking out your pictures and they do look great and sharp to me. It's great to know that you don't think it is a large camera to carry around with extra lenses, because the image quality is indeed amazing.

      I would actually like to ask you a couple of things, if you don't mind. How often do you use high-res modes, and does it work well? If you shoot video, How do you feel about focus tracking? Are there any other "advanced features" that you feel like have been a game changer, like perhaps focus stacking?

      • Thank you, it's always nice hearing that people like the shots.

        Yeah it's really not bad to carry‡ and I usually will take my 100-300 mm lens★ with me with the kit lens when I go out hiking or just brjng the 100-300 mm with me on a bike ride.

        I use the high res mode sometimes and it works really well, the new G9-2 has a better high res mode from what I hear but I unfortunately haven't tested it on the new version yet.

        I have shot some video but I don't shoot much that would require tracking focus. It's more of a set it and forget it kind of thing. One thing I have used it for quite a bit is streaming video and it works fantastic for that.

        In terms of advanced features, exposure bracketing is something I enjoy quite a bit. It allows me to more focus on framing and focus to nail a shot. But I've found myself not using that feature much lately. I'm not sure why I just don't bother lol.

        I think my favorite advanced feature though is connecting it to my phone over WiFi and controlling it that way. It's so useful having a view from the camera on my phone and being able to control the camera. I've even done it with a tablet and it's so freakin nice. Literally having a live monitor for the camera for no extra cost that allows full control of the camera.

        ★ Probably my favorite feature of the Micro 4/3 system is the lens sizes, there's a huge variety of them and even the coolest lenses don't weigh a whole lot. The 100-300 mm one I mentioned here is barely larger than a standard 12 oz soda can when stowed.

        ‡ The hikes I normally go on are north of 12 miles with thousands of feet of gain, it's super chill to carry. I've got a peak design clip I use to put in on my hiking bag shoulder strap and my other lens is on the other strap. It's a pretty great setup.

  • Older Sony mirrorless have most of what you're looking for. I got a Sony a6000 for 350€ and it has auto iso with cap (but not auto shutter speed with cap), pretty good custom controls although I wish for more, great size, great autofocus. It does lack great low light performance, I also struggle with that, but maybe a full frame would be better for that.

    You may want to try it out for cheaper and then buy lenses, and once you're committed to the ecosystem buy a nicer more recent Sony.

  • The E-M5 iii looks very appealing.

    I have this one. It is lots of fun if you like so many creative control settings. You can do these ISO acrobatics that you wish for, and lots of other things too.

    I am not much into video, but I think it does 4k.

    don't know how much I'm letting go in image quality.

    Being just an amateur, I guess it will be hard to notice any.

  • I use the Sony A7iii and have essentially zero complaints. Maybe the A7iv would have been nicer to get the fully articulating screen, but it hasn't been a significant limitation. I got the Sigma 60-600 for birds and wildlife and then I use old SLR lenses when I'm taking fun photos that don't need autofocus. I will eventually get the Tamron 35-150 for indoor sports. The Sony ecosystem is great with the huge selection of lenses, and while I don't like that third party lenses are limited to 15 frames per second, it's not as bad as Cannon's policy.

You've viewed 34 comments.