# Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...



## l0pht (May 25, 2014)

I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.


----------



## e17paul (May 25, 2014)

l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.



What about smaller lenses on the 5D2? The 35/2 IS reviews very well and I would expect it to be every bit as impressive as my 24/2.8 IS. Apart from weather sealing and red ring, it is a match for my only L lens.

For similar reasons I am considering a 100D (SL1) to use instead of my 6D on social occasions. That comes as close as possible to mirror less size and weight without losing the optical viewfinder of a DSLR.


----------



## Pitbullo (May 25, 2014)

l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.



Mirrorless could be it. They have always been weak in the AF performance, but they are catching up. Check out this video, from TheCameraStoreTV, where they compare the newest mirrorless against each other, and have a Nikon D4S as a reference. Quite amazing and surprising! Photographing kids, AF performance is important. 
http://youtu.be/up8K_xd_iwU

Image quality should also be amazing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2014)

l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.



Mirrorless camera sales are tanking, they took off at first, but then sales dropped drastically, particularly in the USA and Europe. 

First, Canon dumped thousands of "M" bodies for give- Away Prices, and then a couple of weeks ago, I saw thousands of supposedly refurbished Nikon J series Mirrorless cameras going for $160 on ebay, and that included Lightroom 5 which was a $80 value. They can't give them away.

This means that you won't be able to sell it if you decide to change, most people do not want them. Its not a comment on the quality of the images or operation, just that they are not selling well.

I bought my 5D MK III from Adorama 2 years back for $2750 with a 2nd Genuine Canon battery, and it has not dropped in value all that much. Neither has your 5D MK II.

I've been looking at upgrading my G1 x to the MK II, the issue is the high price and low resale value. I managed to get the MK I on a one day package special from Adorama, and after selling off the free printer, $400 rebate, etc, it cost me $150.


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2014)

I bought a Fuji X20 about a year ago. I wanted something small with an attached zoom that would cover the moderately wide to moderately telephoto range. 

It's no replacement for my DLSRs, but when I don't feel like lugging around a massive camera (hiking, grand kids birthday parties, bicycling, etc. etc.) its great. Shoots RAW and the quality is quite good. I love its panorama feature (wish Canon would institute that on its DSLRs), compact size, optical viewfinder and its smart switching between live view and optical viewfinder (put the camera up to your eye and it switches to the viewfinder, take it away and it's in live view). 

Rumors say Fuji will soon introduce an X30 with a slightly larger sensor. I'd wait to see what that's like.

If you find yourself not wanting to bring your DSLR along because its too much of a hassle, then look at something smaller. The quality will always be better than what you'll get with your DSLR sitting at home on a shelf.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 25, 2014)

sony a7 or a7r with fe 35mm or 55mm.

Or

Add 40mm pancake to your 5d iii. I found this combo easy to carry around. I have two young kids myself.


----------



## moreorless (May 26, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> l0pht said:
> 
> 
> > I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.
> ...



Normally the camera store are very good but I can't say this test impressed me much, 100mm equivalent at F/4 in daylight with subjects moving in predictable ways isnt really much of a stress test even for non pro users.


----------



## Synkka (May 26, 2014)

Fuji x-t1 is the best all rounder I have seen in the mirrorless market but it's an expensive system to buy into. I use an x100s myself when the dslr is too big.


----------



## cid (May 26, 2014)

What about Sony RX1? if I had to choose something smaller this would be probably my first option.
: 8)


----------



## bainsybike (May 26, 2014)

EOS M + 22mm F2 and adaptor? Cheap enough so that you can afford to keep your 5D, and it's also a complement / backup for your existing system.


----------



## Sporgon (May 26, 2014)

Don't underestimate just how much smaller and lighter a 6D with compact lenses is compared with your 5DII combo. The new 24-70 IS + the 6D makes a highly versatile and compact package. Put lenses such as the excellent 40 pancake on and you are as light and nimble as a 'mirrorless'. 

Given your sentiments you're making hard work of it with a 5D + grip + 135L.

If you think your images are AMAZING now just wait till you've tried the 6D - especially in the dark


----------



## Ivan Muller (May 26, 2014)

Those are huge and heavy lenses! 

I recently swopped my 5d2 for a 6D. The 6D is not perfect but the price image quality combination is unbeatable! The 6d's body size is a touch smaller than my old 5D2, but with a 40mm pancake it really becomes a 'take everywhere all the time' type of camera. So much so that I keep on putting off my 'dream' of owing a Fuji X100s, because I am afraid that I might just not use it as much as I would like to. The 6d's high iso capabilities becomes quite addictive and once you get used to its 'uber' image quality it becomes difficult to sacrifice a bit of size and heft for the inevitable inferior image quality of a smaller body. ( The Sony 7's excepted of course) My other everyday lens is the 85f1.8 which makes a nice combination with the pancake and 6d body, and I am sure the whole bang shoot weights quite a bit less than your setup, not to mention less bulky too, and my two lenses turn in absolutely superb image quality....My backup camera is a Eos M plus 22mm which I still use occasionally, but there is just no comparison image quality wise to the 'bigger' 6D. 

Have a look at my blog for reviews of the 6D etc..


----------



## Ivan Muller (May 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Don't underestimate just how much smaller and lighter a 6D with compact lenses is compared with your 5DII combo. The new 24-70 IS + the 6D makes a highly versatile and compact package. Put lenses such as the excellent 40 pancake on and you are as light and nimble as a 'mirrorless'.
> 
> Given your sentiments you're making hard work of it with a 5D + grip + 135L.
> 
> If you think your images are AMAZING now just wait till you've tried the 6D - especially in the dark



Yes, I can confirm this! That 24-70 IS also seems like a good lens. I had a grip for my 5d2, and although it has its uses, I actually ended up hardly ever using it for my type of photography.


----------



## Longexposure (May 26, 2014)

Sony RX10. 
24-200mm 2.8 equivalent, 1in sensor, good size and grip. 

Alex.


----------



## rs (May 26, 2014)

Longexposure said:


> Sony RX10.
> 24-200mm 2.8 equivalent, 1in sensor, good size and grip.
> 
> Alex.


It has an 8.8-73.3/2.8 lens. Which, in 35mm equivalent terms is a 24-200/7.6


----------



## Redder (May 26, 2014)

My recommendation is a small Pentax DSLR (K5 or K3) with a few of their jewel like and very small limited edition prime lens.


----------



## cid (May 26, 2014)

rs said:


> Longexposure said:
> 
> 
> > Sony RX10.
> ...



exactly! this can be little bit misleading and I think RX10 is not so small


----------



## Ruined (May 26, 2014)

l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.



Why don't you just sell the battery grip and 35L, and pick up a 35mm f/2 IS USM? That would cut down weight and give you a smaller and lighter 35mm lens that is just as good if not better optically IMO. Keep the 135L as it is a nice and light 135mm tele.

The full frame mirrorless many recommend like the Sony a7/a7r is deceiving because though the body is small, the lenses are literally still as big as DSLR full frame lenses - in fact the 55mm f/1.8 for the Sony A7 is twice the size of the Canon 50mm 1.4! So you have this tiny body but still have to lug around the big lenses making the ordeal pointless and an ergonomic mess IMO. I am also unconvinced mirrorless is the next big thing, I believe DSLR will be the choice of pros, cell phones the choice of mainstream, and mirrorless will remain niche for gadget fans.

The only way you are going to realistically save space with mirrorless is with an APS-C mirrorless, but then you will be sacrificing quality. Plus, again you still won't be saving that much space say compare to a Canon Rebel SL1 and EF-S lenses.

If you really want to cut down, you might try a Canon Powershot G1X Mark II. While I don't recommend this as a main camera, it is probably the best compromise as it does not require carrying separate lenses and is still relatively small yet decent quality.

Realistically, though, I think the best bet is just sell the battery grip and 35L, pick up 35mm f/2 IS USM instead. The battery grip is really unnecessary unless you do tons of vertical/portrait shots, and the 35mm f/2mm IS overall bests the 35L at f/2.2+ while being much smaller and lighter IMO. That will save you some weight but allow you to retain the quality level you are used to. You could even go a step farther and get the tiny 40mm pancake, but the 35mm IS is an optically superior lens to that one while and one must really question if the size savings of the pancake is worth it.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 26, 2014)

My X100s is an _addition_ to my 5D3.




Mirrorless cams are taking some amazing pics these days but, when I need a serious camera for a shoot, there's only full frame DSLRs.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 26, 2014)

Giving up the 135mm would be a shame. Hard to beat for larger studio or anything outdoors. Color, sharpness, bokeh, fantastic for portraits. On mine, the AF is instantaneous. Expecting first child soon, so still don't have experience with tykes. I can see they move fast, so maybe not having zoom is a problem for you?

I actually sold my 35mm L and got the Sigma 35mm Art. Great move for me, though others are liking the Canon 35mm 2.0. I didn't want IS, and I did want 1.4, so easy choice. The weight is a non issue.

If you do get a 24-70mm, the 35mm 2.0 seems pretty redundant. My 24-70mm 2.8 L is super sharp wide open, beyond sharp enough for portraits, for sure.

No opinion on mirrorless.


----------



## jdramirez (May 26, 2014)

Sounds like you are bored with your current setup... that malaise happens periodically to the best of us.

Going back to rebel is going to leave you wanting more... I'd suggest not using the battery grip and maybe downsizing to a 6d which is a touch smaller and lighter. Then maybe filmmaker a new type of lens that junk starts your creative steak again.


----------



## Dantana (May 26, 2014)

Step 1, remove battery grip.

Step 2, buy 40mm pancake (seems to go on sale all the time).

Step 3, consider a 6D, though I would try out the body in store to see how much you actually notice the size difference.


My 6D/40mm combo has become my go to kit when I don't want to carry too much. Image quality is great. Size is almost ridiculous compared to my normal zoom setup. 

If I was in your position, I'd buy the 40mm first and use it with your 5D II without the grip, and see what you think. If you want to shave a little size/weight off that, the 6D is there and the price keep dropping.

I wouldn't get rid of your lenses unless you have to.


----------



## jdramirez (May 26, 2014)

In good light, the rebel line does a solid job. Maybe get an sl1 and the 40 shorty or the 35mm is... or maybe go a different route with a focal length that will spark your imagination... like a 14mm.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (May 27, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Mirrorless camera sales are tanking, they took off at first, but then sales dropped drastically, particularly in the USA and Europe.
> 
> First, Canon dumped thousands of "M" bodies for give- Away Prices, and then a couple of weeks ago, I saw thousands of supposedly refurbished Nikon J series Mirrorless cameras going for $160 on ebay, and that included Lightroom 5 which was a $80 value. They can't give them away.
> 
> ...



Mirrorless tanking? Canon mirrorless, definitely. Others systems, not so much. If the OP is interested in a smaller system, check out the Panasonic GH4, Olympus OM-D EM-1, or the coming Sony A7s.... especially the A7s. 

And making your decision on potential resale value is a horrible way to approach it if you're not a professional.


----------



## EchoLocation (May 27, 2014)

I was in a similar place as you last year. 
If you're tired of lugging around heavy DSLR gear DO NOT buy a 24-70 2.8... Yes, the lens is awesome.... it's also big, long, and heavy.
I would recommend either an eos-m with 22mm lens if you want something inexpensive and very capable, or if you want full frame and spectacular, I would highly recommend anything by Sony.
I have an a7 and I absolutely love it. You could get the 35mm or 55mm lenses, both of which seem to be beautiful lenses.
Or, you could buy a Sony RX1 which might be one of the best 35mm possibilities out there. If you wait till Photokina, there will be tons of used RX1's and you can probably buy one for a steal. 
The RX10 and RX100 mark III also look fantastic
If you're tired of the weight of your DSLR, do not buy another DSLR that is just slightly smaller. I sold my DSLR about a year ago for an a7 and I have not even considered buying anything even nearly as large since.
I will never buy a DSLR again, and love every minute of being free from the burden of lugging around such a heavy, bulky camera.


----------



## jdramirez (May 27, 2014)

If I love it and upgrade in five years I want to recoup as much of my initial investment as possible. Performance us the main thing...


My phone screwed up this message... but it is all here... in pieces.



CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Mirrorless tanking? Canon mirrorless, definitely. Others systems, not so much. If the OP is interested in a smaller system, check out the Panasonic GH4, Olympus OM-D EM-1, or the coming Sony A7s.... especially the A7s.
> 
> And making your decision on potential resale value is a horrible way to approach it if you're not a professional.



I don't disagree with the first part... saw a few lumix and others while I'm here in Puerto Rico. 

But I always consider resale value as it relates to purchase price. If I don't like it, , I want to minimize my risk.


----------



## old-pr-pix (May 27, 2014)

My solution to lighter weight has been to go to Oly OM-D E-M5 for travel/casual shooting when I don't want to carry my Canon stuff. Body is only 420 grams vs. 810 grams for 5DII. Better yet, lenses are much smaller as well. Oly 12-40 mm PRO f2.8 zoom (35mm equal 24-80 mm) is 382 g vs. 805 g for Canon 24-70mm L II F2.8 . (yea I know someone will say f2.8 on m4/3 isn't f2.8 in FF -- but in terms of light gathering it is. Depth of field is different, but for casual shooting that hasn't been an issue. In fact for active kids/grandkids it usually helps.) IQ of current generation of high end m4/3 cameras seems to rival if not exceed Canon APS-C in several reviews. (Look up some of the reviews on the new Panasonic GH4 -- people are printing up to six foot images from it that look spectacular!) Of course, as Mt. Spokane points out, mirrorless (including m4/3) is not wildly popular in U.S. so resale is a risk. Since I tend to "buy and hold" that is a non-issue for me. I'm quite happy with the E-M5's results.

Canon SL1 could be a good option to reduce camera size/weight, but doesn't change the weight of lenses. 

On the other hand, my son simply took the route of dropping the battery grip and putting the shorty forty on his 5DII when he wants to travel "light." He is totally happy with that approach as well.


----------



## Aglet (May 27, 2014)

Dump the Canon tanks, good-enough as they may be for most things.
Get a camera you'll USE, and you might like photography again. 

ML bodies are small, light, and fast enough for most things.
Try an Olympus OMD EM10, fantastic little camera for the price! Very fast AF and stabilized body. Kit zoom is also very good. Raw files are comparable to Canon's crop bodies.
Want something lighter, try a Fuji XE2, the XE1 is almost as good and much cheaper but at that price I'd go with the EM10 Oly. 18-55mm kit zoom is also very good, the smaller lighter 15-60 is slower aperture but easier to carry around. The Fuji XT1 is a great camera but not worth the price, same with the OMD EM1. You likely don't need a "flagship" ML camera.
ALL of today's ML bodies can perform extremely well for typical use. Those with a decent EVF make using them very easy in most conditions you could use an SLR. Sony a6000 is also impressive but needs some functional improvements.
This advice comes from someone who USES these cameras rather than just reading about them and trying to figure out how to justify staying with only the big-C. YMMV.



l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.


----------



## teedidy (May 27, 2014)

Canon G1X mark ii has been a great little camera. when you read any of the reviews they are all glowing if you omit anything about price, while high, its a canon. Great low light performance, great af performance ( with a few quirks ), great image quality for a camera its size.


----------



## gn100 (May 27, 2014)

Dantana said:


> Step 1, remove battery grip.
> 
> Step 2, buy 40mm pancake (seems to go on sale all the time).
> 
> ...



I agree with this start with the 40mm, and get rid of the grip.... I have young kids and wanting to move from APS-C to FF (I want the low light capability and the shallow depth of field) ..... I'm also considering adding an EOS-M with 22 and adapter as a compact ..... and backup ... can also pop the other lenses on. The main hassle with the EOS 100D is the lack of small fast primes, but the 40mm pancake would be good (64mm equiv), but less available for wider angle ...... maybe the new 24 f2.8IS?

Otherwise the Sony mirrorless are good (A7 + 35mm), as is Fuji. The micro 4/3 also offer good options, and now there are a few good small lenses


----------



## Lightmaster (May 27, 2014)

mobile phone....


----------



## rahkshi007 (May 27, 2014)

since you do not use your camera as a working horse to earn money, sony A7 is the best choice.. smaller size, better image quality, light and easy too as you can hang out with your friends without heavy burden


----------



## MLfan3 (May 27, 2014)

you may want to try the 6D first, and if you dislike it , then you might also want to try the A7.
I have the 6D , the A7R, the A7 and A7s on order, and I am selling the A7R due to the terrible shutter shock and extremely slow AF. but if you shoot msotly landscape or on tripod based apps, then there is nothing better than the Sony A7R.
I compared many times my D800E vs my A7R before I sold my last copy of D800E last month, and I know as opposed to some die-hard Nikon guys say, the A7R will always win over the D800E. That said , I do not shoot landscape but mostly lowlight events, so I just prefer the A7 and 6D. if I use the A7R or D800E for lowlight handheld event use, then I almost always have to resample most of my 36mp imges at 18 or 16mp to reduce the purple noise in the shadow. So for now I still use Canon sometimes Nikon too , but as the next gen Sony A7 series camera gets similar quality AF system to the AF in the A6000, I will go all Son or the Sony A7 series + Panasonic GH4. YMMV.


----------



## tiger82 (May 27, 2014)

Remove the grip and switch to a 28mm f/1.8 and voila, smaller camera!


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (May 27, 2014)

teedidy said:


> Canon G1X mark ii has been a great little camera. when you read any of the reviews they are all glowing if you omit anything about price, while high, its a canon. Great low light performance, great af performance ( with a few quirks ), great image quality for a camera its size.



This + 1 8)


----------



## sdsr (May 27, 2014)

Ruined said:


> The full frame mirrorless many recommend like the Sony a7/a7r is deceiving because though the body is small, the lenses are literally still as big as DSLR full frame lenses - in fact the 55mm f/1.8 for the Sony A7 is twice the size of the Canon 50mm 1.4! So you have this tiny body but still have to lug around the big lenses making the ordeal pointless and an ergonomic mess IMO.



Your general point may be right, but the Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 isn't twice as big as the Canon 50mm 1.4 - it's a bit longer (71mm vs 50mm), but somewhat narrower (64mm vs 73mm) and weighs slightly less (281g vs 290g) (data from dpreview as I'm too lazy to measure mine, but it seems about right). It's also optically superior to the Canon, though of course not quite as fast (if you don't mind manual focus, the Canon, by the way, works very nicely on a Sony A7/A7r, the mirrorless technology avoiding the back/front-focusing issues often complained about with this lens). 

The Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is tiny, almost exactly the same size as its micro 43 equivalent, the Olympus 17mm 1.8 (both weigh 120g, there's a whopping 1mm difference in length and 4mm difference in diameter). It's optically superior too.

As for the original question, it depends on what he wants to use the camera for and what he wants to do with the resulting photos. If weight and bulk matter a lot and lens versatility matters, micro 43 wins out - optically much the same as most APS-C, the lenses - some of which are excellent, esp. the closest equivalent of the 135L, the Olympus 75mm 1.8 - are all much smaller than dslr equivalents, and if you buy an Olympus body, you get excellent image stabilization for any lens you attach, which makes up for at least some of the low light disadvantage these bodies have cf FF. Whether what is perhaps the main difference - relatively longer depth of focus - matters is a matter of taste (the bokeh can be superb, though). 

If you don't mind the various compromises involved with the Sony A7/A7r (shortage of native lenses, not designed for herons-catching-fish, etc.), the image quality is unsurpassed (except perhaps by the 6D and 1Dx in very low light), and they're small and light. 

If you like playing around with old manual lenses (or new ones, for that matter), on mirrorless bodies focusing is much easier than on any dslr. AF is better in at least some respects too - you can move focus points just about anywhere in the viewfinder (especially beneficial if you want to avoid the problems that come with focus-recompose) and there's no issue with front/back focusing.

Or a high-end point-and-should may suffice.

Anyway, they all have their pros and cons. I used not to mind (much) carrying around FF dslrs and a lens or three, but having spent the last few months using an A7r, A6000 and Olympus OMD-EM5 almost exclusively, my 6D and 5DIII feel terribly bulky and heavy on the few occasions I've used them and I just don't enjoy the process of taking photos as much; for now I'll keep at least one of them, but I'm not sure for how much longer. We're all different, though, so it's hard to make any sort of specific recommendation.


----------



## jonny985 (May 27, 2014)

Synkka said:


> I use an x100s myself when the dslr is too big.



I've been on a "streamlining" quest for a while now and I sold off everything except my 5D2, 24-70mm L f2.8 II, and 50mm f1.4 to fund the the purchase of a Fuji x100s back in December 2013. 

I researched for over 12 months for a smaller alternative for my 5D2 kit and everything led me back to the Sony RX100 I/II or the Fuji x100s. I ended up going for the x100s as I'm a sucker for "AMAZING" IQ and I love it for different reasons than my DSLR. Some images shot in RAW on the x100s rival the 5D2 + 24-70 f2.8 II but it never gets quite to the same level, however, I have a few issues with the Fuji x100s that will keep me from selling my DSLR. 

[list type=decimal]
[*]AF is excellent for a P&S or mirrorless camera, but not even in the same league as a DSLR. I have many more OOF shots on the x100s than than I do with my DSLR. My main subject is my 3 super energetic kids (6, 4, and 2 years old) and I can't get a sharp shot of if they are on their feet. If they are in a chair or posing for a photo, it's great, as soon as they start moving, all bets are off. For this reason alone, I will not get rid of my DLSR, when I want to make sure I get the shot, I always go for the DSLR. For a casual day about town, I'm getting more comfortable with the x100s. 
[*]It's not pocketable like the RX100. I "can" fit it in my jeans without the hood but it's not comfortable but it's find in a cargo or jacket pocket. I bought a small case for it, but it's so small it looks more like a purse than a camera bag, which is not desirable, so I normally just let it hang off my wrist. However, it's much less bulk than the 5D2 & 24-70 f2.8 II and less intimidating. When I'm traveling, I carry both cameras in a larger bag, but for normal days, I take the x100s with me whenever I leave the house. The thing that kills me is I still want a camera that can fit comfortably in any pants pocket that I can keep on my all the time.
[*]Fixed Lens 23mm f2.0 lens (~35mm FF equivalent). This is a pro and a con. It's a pro because the fixed lens is excellent and forces you to plan and frame the shot, just like a prime on a DSLR. The con is there is there is no telephoto for situations where a prime 35mm FOV is not enough (sports, outdoors, etc). I can't come to terms with not being able to get the same glorious effect of a FF camera with a 70-200 f2.8 II, 135L, etc.
[/list]


In the end, I decided to keep both my DSLR and the x100s and will probably hold onto them for a while until I find the urge to upgrade. I'm waiting for a new Canon FF DSLR that has all the features I'm looking for that will compliment and not replace my x100s use. I'm holding out for a FF camera with the AF from the 5D3 and the dual pixel sensor tech. of the 70D for faster video focusing.

I don't think any of the mirrorless or P&S cameras on the market can meet all my personal needs from a DSLR just yet, that's something you'll have to weigh for yourself.


----------



## moreorless (May 29, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> you may want to try the 6D first, and if you dislike it , then you might also want to try the A7.
> I have the 6D , the A7R, the A7 and A7s on order, and I am selling the A7R due to the terrible shutter shock and extremely slow AF. but if you shoot msotly landscape or on tripod based apps, then there is nothing better than the Sony A7R.
> I compared many times my D800E vs my A7R before I sold my last copy of D800E last month, and I know as opposed to some die-hard Nikon guys say, the A7R will always win over the D800E. That said , I do not shoot landscape but mostly lowlight events, so I just prefer the A7 and 6D. if I use the A7R or D800E for lowlight handheld event use, then I almost always have to resample most of my 36mp imges at 18 or 16mp to reduce the purple noise in the shadow. So for now I still use Canon sometimes Nikon too , but as the next gen Sony A7 series camera gets similar quality AF system to the AF in the A6000, I will go all Son or the Sony A7 series + Panasonic GH4. YMMV.



I'm say rambling advice from someone who guys and sells cameras like crazy is probably best avoided.


----------



## twdi (May 29, 2014)

I bought fuji x-t1 a month a go and now i'm going to sell my 5d2 with the lenses.
I like to go out backpacking and i did not liked the weight of a dslr anymore so i tried the fuji.
No, selling my canon set was not an option when i bought he fuji, but now i have uses it for a month i know for sure.. I will not use the canon anymore. At lease not enough to keep it.

I did some comparison and the fuji has less noise at the higher iso's for sure. The 5d2 is not a sports camera and for my shooting style, the fuji is perfect. The lenses are amazing and new lenses are coming soon like a 120-400 or weather sealed 2.8 lenses.

So i can say, check out the fuji and see if it would fit your needs and if it does you wont regret it


----------



## Aglet (May 29, 2014)

twdi said:


> I bought fuji x-t1 a month a go and now i'm going to sell my 5d2 with the lenses.
> I like to go out backpacking and i did not liked the weight of a dslr anymore so i tried the fuji.
> No, selling my canon set was not an option when i bought he fuji, but now i have uses it for a month i know for sure.. I will not use the canon anymore. At lease not enough to keep it.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Niki (May 29, 2014)

l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.



550D with pancake 40mm!


----------



## sdsr (May 29, 2014)

twdi said:


> I did some comparison and the fuji has less noise at the higher iso's for sure.



I briefly owned a Fuji X series camera and got the impression that while it had less noise at high ISOs, this was merely because it applied aggressive noise reduction even to RAW files - its files had much less detail than equivalents from my other cameras, mirrorless and otherwise (in fact I noticed a relative lack of sharpness at any ISO, an impression confirmed by just about every photo I've seen online taken with any Fuji X-series camera). For that and other reasons I returned it. I really wanted to like the images it created because I find the cameras themselves very appealing aesthetically and in terms of design, but among mirrorless cameras I prefer the results from my Olympus and Sonys. This seems to be rather a minority view, however.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (May 29, 2014)

Dantana said:


> Step 1, remove battery grip.
> 
> Step 2, buy 40mm pancake (seems to go on sale all the time).
> 
> ...



I would second this approach. TRY some non-costly alternatives first.

Also, be careful that you don't compromise your viewfinder with something smaller. It's a huge factor in your picture taking experience.


----------



## ahsanford (May 30, 2014)

l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. It is a pain to lug around with the battery grip and kids stuff and I don't feel like I'm really getting anymore good use of out if (although everytime I take a picture they come out AMAZING). Anyone have any recommendations on something new? I haven't been following the mirrorless cameras much but they seem to be the 'next big thing'. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.



Sorry to be late to the party:
_
1) If you are going to sell for size reasons... _


Call it what it is. Lose the mirror and get a much smaller body -- remember that the lens size will still be as big as your sensor-size needs, so even though there are flange-to-sensor differences in mirrorless and SLRs, the lenses (for a given sensor size) are roughly comparable in size. 
I think if you enjoy editing RAW files then you should get a sensor _worth_ editing RAW files for. I rented a Nikon AW1 (their 1-series, but for underwater use) and though it offered RAW files, the tiny sensor was such that the results were terribly underwhelming compared to a FF camera (as you might expect with such a small sensor). So if you are moving towards a smaller camera but still want very good IQ, think Leica, Fuji X or Sony A7 bodies. 
_
2) If you are not going to sell, or want to cope better with your gear until you do sell..._


I saw the battery grip comment you made. Lose the grip. Based on what you are shooting, you shouldn't need it. Just throw a second battery in your bag, and you'll be fine. That's a huge space savings right there.
I'd think about picking up the EF 40mm F/2.8 pancake. It's more of a 'good shooting conditions' lens given the aperture and so-so STM focusing speed. So you won't use it much for low-light / sports / really small DOF work, the but the 'IQ per _volume of lens_' is staggering from that little guy. As the CR reviewer Justin would say, it's "sharp like a katana" and is no bigger than a hockey puck / small can of tuna.

- A


----------



## pwp (May 30, 2014)

l0pht said:


> I've been debating on this for a couple months now since I don't really use them for more than taking pictures of my kids and some occasional outings with our friends. My only requirement is that the camera shoots in RAW as I love to edit photos and touch them up in Lightroom.


Do yourself a favor and at least LOOK at the astonishing little SL-1. I see this camera as possibly the most interesting release from Canon in the past 12 months. It's light and _tiny_. It won't deliver files like your 5D3, but it's got a perfectly fine APS-C sensor.

Alternatively, running with the argument that the best camera is the one you have with you, the new Sony RX-100 III looks absolutely stunning. 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05/16/sony-announces-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100-iii-with-evf-and-f1-8-2-8-zoom?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_47

-pw


----------



## Ruined (May 30, 2014)

How much space are you actually saving with a Sony A7 mirrorless camera as some have recommended? Since you can't take a picture without a lens attached, the answer is _*not much at all*_!

See below comparisons:

Sony A7 native 55mm f/1.8 vs Canon 6D native 50mm f/1.4
-and-
Sony A7 native 35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 6D native 40mm f/2.8


----------



## Sella174 (May 30, 2014)

Ruined said:


> How much space are you actually saving with a Sony A7 mirrorless camera as some have recommended? Since you can't take a picture without a lens attached, the answer is _*not much at all*_!
> 
> See below comparisons:



But look at the differences in *height* and *weight*.

I feel that as soon as you start even considering the 6D, then the perceived mediocre AF of any mirrorless camera falls away.


----------



## ahsanford (May 30, 2014)

Ruined said:


> How much space are you actually saving with a Sony A7 mirrorless camera as some have recommended? Since you can't take a picture without a lens attached, the answer is _*not much at all*_!
> 
> See below comparisons:
> 
> ...



+1. Everyone seems to miss this. Sure, the cameras are thinner without a mirror, but a big sensor (generally) has big lenses.

So if I ever got tired of lugging my FF rig around and wanted a smaller body, it would be APS-C or smaller, and I'd expressly choose a system that had really well reviewed pancakes.

- A


----------



## Jamesy (May 30, 2014)

I have been researching alternatives to my 5D3 and bag of lenses for vacation and casual situations and have been taking a serious look at the Fuji X-series lineup. I went so far as to buy a 40mm pancake but it is still huge next to a X100S. I am not convinced that I could live with a 35mm fixed (equiv) on the X100s though...

I love the feel of the X-T1 and the knobs give you most of what you need to fiddle with right at your fingertips.

I have also been weighing the pros and cons of a S120, G17 or G1X M2 (I own the S90). I wanted to stay Canon for flash and accessory compatibility reasons but I gotta say - the Fuji's are very impressive to handle. The G1X M2 felt un-balanced in the store but I would love to hear people comments about it as it is still a contender as an alternative to the 5D3.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > How much space are you actually saving with a Sony A7 mirrorless camera as some have recommended? Since you can't take a picture without a lens attached, the answer is _*not much at all*_!
> ...



+1. Which is why I got the M to complement my 5DIII. The native lenses maybe be slower, but it is a much more compact system. But when the light levels are low, I'd rather have the larger sensor with the fastest lenses.

I don't think it's a surprise that many of the initial lenses for the Sony are relatively slow. (i.e. 28-70, 24-70 f/4, 35 f/2.8, 55 f/1.8). Imagine if they had come out with these lenses instead (24-70 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 55 f/1.2, 70-200 f/2.8), then the price and size would have killed off the A7 system at the start.


----------



## jdramirez (May 30, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



I picked up an sl1 for my daughter but it is a nice complement to my mkiii. The problem is that I should most out my cheaper lenses and I started to let her use my L glass... and that was disconcerting... so I bought her the impressive little 40mm.


----------



## Ruined (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > How much space are you actually saving with a Sony A7 mirrorless camera as some have recommended? Since you can't take a picture without a lens attached, the answer is _*not much at all*_!
> ...



Ok, If my first graphic was not convincing enough... 

Sony A7 native 55mm f/1.8 vs Canon 6D native 50mm f/1.4 - Canon weighs 305g more, but is f/1.4 instead of f/1.8. 305g is about the weight of either of these lenses, not exactly a massive difference.

Sony A7 native 35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 6D native 40mm f/2.8 - Canon weighs 306g more, again about the weight of a light lens.

Height, sure the Sony is a little less tall. But given the depth of the lens I don't really see how that matters as neither is going to fit into a pocket comfortably with lens attached, and constantly taking the lens on and off every time you use the camera is going to dirty up your sensor really fast - so that is not a practical argument either.

So another fun graphic!

The OP stated he had a 135mm prime he liked to use. Let us see what native lens is on the Sony A7... Ah, the 70-200 f/4 is the only option at that focal length. Slower, much larger, worse bokeh, etc. Might not seem fair, but if you are going with an ecosystem that has a paltry amount of native lenses it is fair game. One can fiddle with adapters, but that often can affect quality, autofocus speed, etc.

So, here we go, which do you think is more compact?

Is it really worth giving up the entire Canon lens and accessory ecosystem (Sony's only powerful flash pales in comparison to the 600RT, not even close) for 300g less weight and a bit less tall camera? That btw, will be an ergonomic nightmare if you did want to use it for professional purposes with a large lens like a 70-200 f/2.8 due to lack of sufficient grip on the A7 for heavy/large lenses.

Sony A7 135mm focal length on native FE 70-200 f/4 (only native 135mm option) vs. Canon 6D native 135mm f/2


----------



## ahsanford (May 30, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Is it really worth giving up the entire Canon lens and accessory ecosystem (Sony's only powerful flash pales in comparison to the 600RT, not even close) for 300g less weight and a bit less tall camera? That btw, will be an ergonomic nightmare if you did want to use it for professional purposes with a large lens like a 70-200 f/2.8 due to lack of sufficient grip on the A7 for heavy/large lenses.
> 
> Sony A7 135mm focal length on native FE 70-200 f/4 (only native 135mm option) vs. Canon 6D native 135mm f/2



Again, agree. Unless you are putting a compact standard FL lens on it, like a FF-equivalent 35 prime or 50 prime on it and calling it a day, I see little upside in form factor for mirrorless. If you need a tele at all, you're done -- you are lugging around large lenses again and the principal upside of mirrorless is lost.

Mirrorless has other virtues but _if you are getting one principally to reduce the size / weight of what you are lugging around_, your big lenses need an exit strategy, too. 

So if you are getting into mirrorless for size, I think it's best to choose a mirrorless body with a large stable of it's own native glass -- no need for the added size/thickness of adapters. Leica (for FF) and Fuji (for APS-C) are decent options in that regard, but if you can stomach the smaller sensor, m43 rigs have a larger ecosystem for lenses. (I believe that mount is standardized, isn't it? Don't Olympus and Panasonic make lenses that are compatible on each others' bodies?)

- A


----------



## troppobash (May 30, 2014)

Hi All

I also have a 5D II and went looking for a mirrorless travel camera. After some months and waiting I bought a G1X II and I am really enjoying it. I like the heft and feel of it and that the quality of the photos. Yes it is not FF but it cracks a punch for its compactness. The fixed lens is a great change - 24mm to 120mm equivalent to FF - is so compact.

I toyed with the idea of an EOS-M but I did not want to lug lens around or something that bulky with the lens attached. Same reason as I did not go for Sony alpha etc. The Sony RX-100 I & I were too small for me. I was only able to try it at the store and also the vision on the screen looked too compressed. Also I was not too keen on the smaller 1" sensor of the Sony.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 30, 2014)

I have to say that I am impressed with your combo. You mention only the 5D II and the 35L and 135L, and none of these are kit lenses for that camera. That tells me that you either bought the house separately, and/or that you got rid of your 24-105 (or 24-70L), from which I deduce that you have no compromises for quality. I think you will find that the 5DII and 135L combo will be hard to beat from a IQ perspective. 

I agree with some of the posters here talking about fatigue/being uninspired right now. The 5DII resale price is very low now, so you are not in a hurry to get rid of it. I would wait and see if inspiration comes back. And of course get rid of the grip if it bothers you.


----------



## Aglet (May 30, 2014)

sdsr said:


> I briefly owned a Fuji X series camera and got the impression that while it had less noise at high ISOs, this was merely because it applied aggressive noise reduction even to RAW files - its files had much less detail than equivalents from my other cameras, mirrorless and otherwise (in fact I noticed a relative lack of sharpness at any ISO, an impression confirmed by just about every photo I've seen online taken with any Fuji X-series camera). For that and other reasons I returned it. I really wanted to like the images it created because I find the cameras themselves very appealing aesthetically and in terms of design, but among mirrorless cameras I prefer the results from my Olympus and Sonys. This seems to be rather a minority view, however.



Not sure what you were shooting but I've got OOC jpg output from an XM1 and kit lens that is terrifically sharp even at 6400. Xt1 and long cheap kit lens similarly impressively sharp. Posted one here a while back.
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20200.msg382770#msg382770
perhaps you were suffering blur from some non-stabilized lenses?


----------



## Aglet (May 31, 2014)

Ruined said:


> 305g is about the weight of either of these lenses, not exactly a massive difference.


it is on a small light system like Fuji
crikey, that's 2/3rds of a POUND!

I sometimes have to open my bag and look to make sure my Fuji is still in there, it's so light.


----------



## mwh1964 (May 31, 2014)

I even take my 5D3 and pancake out on long distance running slash street shooting on the go.


----------



## EchoLocation (May 31, 2014)

The size difference is much greater than those pictures show. While the length is similar when looking from above, the overall room that these cameras take up in a bag is still not the same. My a7 is a much smaller camera/lens combo than the 6D with almost any lens. Sure, the sizes seem similar, but the a7 is smaller and lighter. I also don't believe that the 6D is that great of a replacement to the 5DII.... 
If I was going to buy a new camera from the 5DII, i'd want either an a7, or a 5DIII, not a 6D.
I had an old Canon 5D Classic, and then bought an a7. I can say without a doubt that the size difference is substantial, and I will never buy another DSLR sized camera again.
The difference in everyday use is night and day.


----------



## Aglet (May 31, 2014)

I put THREE Fuji bodies with SIX lenses in a small soft bag I used to use just to carry my DSLR batteries and memory cards!
Size matters, so does weight. i like svelte, lithe, (ML) bodies.


----------



## Sella174 (May 31, 2014)

Ruined said:


> The OP stated he had a 135mm prime he liked to use. Let us see what native lens is on the Sony A7... Ah, the 70-200 f/4 is the only option at that focal length.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sony A7 135mm focal length on native FE 70-200 f/4 (only native 135mm option) vs. Canon 6D native 135mm f/2



But when the OP then considers the FUJIFILM X-System ... and FUJIFILM has placed a 90mm f/2 on the roadmap for end of 2014. That takes care of the 135mm portrait lens. And the 23mm f/1.4 already takes care of the 35mm all-rounder lens.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 4, 2014)

Ruined said:


> So another fun graphic!
> 
> The OP stated he had a 135mm prime he liked to use. Let us see what native lens is on the Sony A7... Ah, the 70-200 f/4 is the only option at that focal length. Slower, much larger, worse bokeh, etc. Might not seem fair, but if you are going with an ecosystem that has a paltry amount of native lenses it is fair game. One can fiddle with adapters, but that often can affect quality, autofocus speed, etc.
> 
> Is it really worth giving up the entire Canon lens and accessory ecosystem (Sony's only powerful flash pales in comparison to the 600RT, not even close) for 300g less weight and a bit less tall camera? That btw, will be an ergonomic nightmare if you did want to use it for professional purposes with a large lens like a 70-200 f/2.8 due to lack of sufficient grip on the A7 for heavy/large lenses.



Yes, it would be "an ergonomic nightmare" - or, at least, uncomfortable; plus, I would be concerned that the mount wouldn't hold up unless you held the lens/camera combination carefully. I'm quite happy to use my 100L and 135L on my mirrorless Sonys, but I would rather not attach anything bigger; and I'm equally sure that such a system would be terrible for many people - switching completely wouldn't make any sense at all (talking of ergonomics, the big Sony flash I bought with my A7r makes the thing so top-heavy as to be all but unusable; I doubt I'll be keeping it). But for someone for whom smallish primes are enough, they're worth investigating (so, yes, perhaps a very small niche market).

That said, I think the concerns about adapters are overstated. It's true that with the metabones adapter AF speed (and AF only works on some Canon lenses) seems absurdly slow compared to the blinding speed of native Canon AF. But there's no loss of image quality (maybe a gain, depending on your use). So far I've not tried an adapter for Sony/Minolta Alpha lenses, but I understand that there's no loss of AF speed or accuracy for such lenses - for which there's quite a large range, some of it supposedly excellent (I've never used one).


----------



## sdsr (Jun 4, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > I briefly owned a Fuji X series camera and got the impression that while it had less noise at high ISOs, this was merely because it applied aggressive noise reduction even to RAW files - its files had much less detail than equivalents from my other cameras, mirrorless and otherwise (in fact I noticed a relative lack of sharpness at any ISO, an impression confirmed by just about every photo I've seen online taken with any Fuji X-series camera). For that and other reasons I returned it. I really wanted to like the images it created because I find the cameras themselves very appealing aesthetically and in terms of design, but among mirrorless cameras I prefer the results from my Olympus and Sonys. This seems to be rather a minority view, however.
> ...



I used a XE1 + the much-admired kit lens, plus, via adapters, several MF lenses. What I was seeing wasn't motion blur, and close supbjects photographed better than more distant ones. It could, of course, be that the lens or body were defective in some way (the images I liked most were taken indoors, hand held, in very low light with MF lenses). That said, I've looked at a lot of images online posted by admirers of Fuji X cameras and lenses to demonstrate sharpness etc. and none of them struck me as very sharp (not bad, but nothing that seems to me to justify all the claims made for them, especially given how much the equipment costs); that at least one professional photographer (soundimageplus), who claims that Fujis are his favorite cameras to use, concedes that the resulting images aren't as good as he gets from his Sony A7/r (though it's hard to tell from his photos - the images he posts are too small and I don't like the way he processes his photos); and that the comparative tool at dpreview, for whatever that's worth, confirms my impressions. 

But I'm certainly willing to try one again - maybe I'll rent the latest one, with a prime or two. If your rabbit photo is ISO 6400, that's not bad at all.... Even so, they seem very expensive for what they are; for the same price as a Fuji Xt1 you could buy two Sony a6000s or almost three Canon SL1s; or for a mere $200 more you could move up to a FF Sony a7r.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 5, 2014)

sdsr said:


> But I'm certainly willing to try one again - maybe I'll rent the latest one, with a prime or two. If your rabbit photo is ISO 6400, that's not bad at all.... Even so, they seem very expensive for what they are; for the same price as a Fuji Xt1 you could buy two Sony a6000s or almost three Canon SL1s; or for a mere $200 more you could move up to a FF Sony a7r.



No, the rabbit photo was 1250 ISO but it's not even a 100% crop either. I've attached an unedited 100% crop with intact exif from the OOC jpg.
I agree, even if the Fuji's are presenting slightly better images OOC, the price premium is NOT worth it and popular Adobe raw converters are still providing rather soft results compared to others raw processing SW.

rant - I bought an early XT1; i really like it, except for the *worst* buttons ever put on a camera body of any make, at any time! (Canon 60D is even better)
- /rant

OK, back to the camera. For considerably less $ you can get a much better featured Nikon D5300 that doesn't exactly eat the Fuji's lunch, but certainly could be said to edge it out in many ways.
OTOH, many of Fuji's fans are raving about the quality of the lenses and ... I'm starting to agree. There's something about the way they render an image I find very pleasing vs mainstream glass. Fuji really knows how to make lenses and even their low end kit lenses perform very well.

I was using an XE1 + 18-55mm this weekend for some close-up shots and am really pleased with the results. No editing required, directly OOC was good to print.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > But I'm certainly willing to try one again - maybe I'll rent the latest one, with a prime or two. If your rabbit photo is ISO 6400, that's not bad at all.... Even so, they seem very expensive for what they are; for the same price as a Fuji Xt1 you could buy two Sony a6000s or almost three Canon SL1s; or for a mere $200 more you could move up to a FF Sony a7r.
> ...



That's a shame - I thought it looked rather appealing (at least in terms of the dials on top). And thanks for the extra crop.

As for the much-touted superior high ISO performance of Fuji X cameras, have you encountered this issue? Take a look at the exchange on the June 6 entry here:

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/

The upshot is that at the same aperture & shutter speed, Fuji images are noticeably darker than those made by certain other cameras (e.g. Sony a6000), so that -say- the proper comparison for Fuji at ISO 3200 is ISO 6400 on a Sony a6000 (there are comparisons with other cameras too). Presumably this gets discussed in Fuji equivalents of this forum and elsewhere too.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 7, 2014)

sdsr said:


> That's a shame - I thought it looked rather appealing (at least in terms of the dials on top). And thanks for the extra crop.



I still really like using it, it's a sweet little camera! Just some vexing buttons on the early models.
Rumor has it... they've been improved in later production and there may even be a retrofit...
I was just gonna glue some "extensions" onto them to improve things.



> As for the much-touted superior high ISO performance of Fuji X cameras, have you encountered this issue?



I've got a few Fujis and I've found that the biggest benefit is that the X-trans is remarkable free from blotchy chroma noise at high ISO.
The bayer-sensor X-A1 is about as chroma noise prone as any other modern sony-based sensor.
Fuji's in-camera processing is very good tho, and may account for some of that low noise appearance.
I haven't had enough time to mess with the raw files to draw my own conclusions. But that brings another; for someone like me who's used to shooting everything raw and tweaking in post, I find I can get a lot more shots the way I want them right out of the Fuji camera as a ready-to-go jpg for many uses.

I have not put my Fujis head-to-head with my Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Olympus gear to see how they all expose the same scene. It's something I'm interested in doing tho, as I found some interesting metering ideosyncracies with my D800s and moreso with all my Pentax DSLRs.
My Canons seem more closely attuned to my Sekonic Light meters over a wider range of lighting and the Oly's I haven't wrung out yet.

DPreview found an exposure difference tho. And I would not be too surprised if there is.
.. actually, just doing a sunny-16 check on some XE1 shots from last weekend it seems it's about 1.5 stops off. I'd have to use my lightmeter and gray cards to really pin it down but looks like it's averaging ~ 1.5 stops more exposure is required at a given ISO.

I hope DxOmark figures out how to test them soon, for info' sake. i like the output regardless, I'll keep shooting with them. The lenses provide a nice looking rendering.


----------

