Compact vs SLR (digital and film)

[philbirch]

I took my Pentax K10d with a 17mm lens and a 28-200 zoom to Bath on bank holiday monday (MICKEY, not the bath, there's a city called Bath in England) to cover everything. It was pissing down with rain and was a real pain to change lenses. The exposure and focus was all over the place because of the conditions. The whole kit weighed in at almost 2kg. I'd seriously consider using my Lumix bridge camera next time. I'd not even consider using my Minolta film cameras in these circumstances.

I like using old glass on digital and enjoy using the Pentax K10D but its a right rigmarole carting it all about. I am seriously considering getting another mirrorless to compliment my NEX 5, and getting rid of my Nikon and Pentax DSLR's. Dave (Lloydy) showed me his New Sony A6000, a newer model in the NEX range but with a built in EVF and flash. No lumpy or expensive accessories. It would be perfect for my needs and within my price range. The full frame A7 is better but so much bigger and pricier.

So what are the alternatives?

Here is my Pentax k10D that I took with me to Bath, and what I should have taken... Pentax Kit 1.8kg (4lb) Panasonic  325g (12oz)



If I was using film, I probably would have taken my Pentax ME Super as it is smaller and lighter than my Minoltas - or then again perhaps I would have taken the compact. Pentax 1.4kg (3lb),  Minolta 210g (9oz) both plus film



Or both



So what is the difference in image quality (digital)?

I'll be right back...

[philbirch]

bugger I seem to have lost the battery for my Lumix

[daveh]

Rule #1: always have a spare battery.

[philbirch]

Aug 31, 2014 16:47:20 GMT -5 daveh said:

Rule #1: always have a spare battery.

Just ordered one, £4 inc post - not bad!!

[truls]

It depends on what kind of images you want? A quick snap or some serious high quality stuff? If the image is important some setup may be required, a small umbrella? The A6000 looks like a very decent mirrorless camera.

[dee]

In some respects, this is the pain of digital-compact camera = smaller sensor, whereas in 35mm with a decent lens,quality is maintained..

Having moved entirely to digital on cost grounds, I moved from K10d to Panasonic G1 [ ex dem ] which facilitated using old [Rokor] lenses at the expense of 2x crop factor.

Currently I have the Sony a35 because it is smaller and lighter and accepts my auto Minolta lenses in particular, the 35-70 which translates as nom 50-105 which suits me perfectly.
This, with 35mm f1.8 remains my serious camera, although the EVF is a pain at times.

I now have a compact Fuji XF1,which is always with me, but I tend to think of it as notebook.

dee

[lloydy]

I am very impressed with the Sony A6000, as I was with the NEX 5. I still have my Pentax K10 and some very nice Pentax AF glass for it, and 55 assorted manual lenses ( M42, T Mount, Adaptall etc )that work just fine on it. But I just don't use it anymore. I like the small camera, the screen on the back that flips up, the A6000 has a viewfinder as well. The Sony has all the bells and whistles you could want.
Both of the Sony's were distress purchases, the Pentax was away for repair ( over 6 months sat at the repairers untouched despite my calls ) and I needed a camera, I saw the NEX5 at a bargain price and bought it as a stop gap until the Pentax was repaired, ( not by the clown that I sent it to first, despite him being Pentax's agent ) I liked the NEX so much I used it all the time - until that also developed a fault two days before flying to America on holiday, so I bought the A6000, which I had been reading about and liked but was not planning on buying. So in a way my change from DSLR to Mirrorless was unplanned, but none the the worse for that.
The big change for me came when I began to treat the diminutive Sony as a camera on the back of a lens, instead of having a big heavy heavy camera to concentrate on that happened to have a lens on the front. That might not make a lot of sense to many people, but the Sony's, despite their high specification, became "just a tool" to record the image. This is especially true when using a big heavy old lens, a lot of people complain about them being "too difficult to use on a small NEX" - they are if you treat it like an old style camera. It's a different style and method of using the lens and a camera, and it's equally true with a small lens on the Mirrorless camera. I can use some lenses like the Helios 44-2 single handed.
I really can't see me going back to a DSLR at all now, the joy of photography for me is the resulting image, and the use of all the old glass that I have ( I'm much more interested in old lenses than the cameras )and these new high specification compact body cameras are the perfect tool for the job.

[truls]

Sensor size also have influence on how much lenses costs. Full frame systems will always be more expensive, and the lenses bigger than e.g. m4/3. Nikon mirrorless system have relatively lower priced lenses than both m4/3, aps-* and full frame. I agree with lloydy, smaller cameras are a perfect tool, and resulting images are most important. In the future, smaller systems may produce enough quality to avoid a discussion full frame vs other sensor formats.

[Deleted]

Oned of the biggest problems with compacts is shutter lag (although some of the newer ones have eliminated the problem. It is frustrating if you are trying to take a picture of a three year old, you push the shutter release and before the camera fires the kid is in the next room.

[daveh]

Several factors come in to play. Everyone is making good points, but one size doesn't fit all, if you see what I mean.

Shutter lag has always been a problem on many digital cameras. It is partly why some have cost considerably less, while having outwardly pretty similar specification to a more expensive camera. If you just do sports photography then shutter lag is a no-no. For still-life and landscapes it is neither here no there.

There is a big difference in quality comparing the Panasonic FZ200 and the Canon 7D. That said, the FZ200 gives pretty much all 99% of people could want in a camera that costs less than a half decent lens for the 7D. The 7D is much easier to use for sports' work and macro. That should read most sports' work. It does have the ability to do high speed one second bursts - great for analysing golf swings. It's just a shame I don't play golf.

I have to say I do prefer an eye level viewfinder. The FZ200 is very good, but there can be slight delay on it updating: something that an optical viewfinder doesn't suffer from.

That compares, in a small way, two types of digital cameras. Now digital v film is another thing. Then there is auto v manual exposure and auto v manual focus: also fixed v interchangeable lenses and prime v zoom lenses. Before you know it a simple comparison becomes pretty complex.

If i had to just have one camera for still photography it would have to be an SLR because that suits best a big portion of what I want to photograph. If cine/move/video is included in the equation, then I would go for the bridge camera, such as the FZ200.

[philbirch]

Some interesting comments here, thanks. I am only interested in getting a picture, I appreciate the difference between the different cameras, but to be honest the Lumix bridge camera probably would have gotten me better photos on that rainy day in Bath. As I said the focus and exposure were all over the place, the Lumix would have just got it right.

Wayne's comment about the shutter lag on compact digitals is valid, that is why I would go for the older Lumix any day rather than my 16mp Pentax compact. Yes its not great in low light but it has a good enough flash. And the shutter has a much shorter lag than the Pentax.

I would have taken the NEX5 but I wanted to try out a couple of lenses that Lloydy let me have and I've not really done serious stuff with the Pentax K10D since I got it. Taking them out on a rainy bank holiday was not a good idea. The camera can hack the weather no problem but I was lugging around a lot of weight and getting very sweaty into the bargain.

Anyway, Dave (Lloydy) will be pleased to know I have now invested in a Sony A6000. Everything I want from my NEX and my DSLR and my compact all in a compact body. The 16-50 kit lens is amazing, half the size of the 18-55 and a little wider. Definitely my to-go camera from now on.

Only problem, the focus aid magnifier is a menu thing now not a dedicated button. Two buttons minimum. What a PITA!!

[lloydy]

Well done Phil, you'll enjoy the A6000. There's just about nothing it can't do that a DSLR can do. People say they don't want an electronic view finder - EVF - but have they really tried one? I find it no different, except that it shows more information - if you want it.

www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6000_review/
" the Sony A6000 is one of the few mirrorless cameras on the market that can sucessfully track a moving subject and keep it in focus. Coupled with the impressive 11fps burst shooting rate with subject-tracking and the fast 0.06 second AF speed, the A6000 is currently the best compact system camera for capturing fast moving subjects."

That's faster than I am, and fast enough for me.

I will probably buy another DSLR, but it will be a used Sony A850 just so I can use the Minolta AF lenses that I've got. Or I could buy the Sony LA-EA4 adapter for a bit less money?

[philbirch]

Its a great camera Dave, thats for sure. I found out how to programme the button next to the shutter for focus magnify. Now its great although the focus peaking is not good in magnified view. I must have a little play.

The EVF is better than anything I've used or seen before, its almost like looking through an SLR viewfinder, no pixels or image jitter visible. Fantastic. Well done Sony!!

[Deleted]

My biggest gripe on compacts is that most require you to compose on the view screen on the back--nearly impossible in bright sunlight. Most of the early Canon compacts, particularly the "A" series also had an eye level finder but they seem to be getting away from that now.

[philbirch]

Sept 8, 2014 16:27:00 GMT -5 @wayne said:

My biggest gripe on compacts is that most require you to compose on the view screen on the back--nearly impossible in bright sunlight. Most of the early Canon compacts, particularly the "A" series also had an eye level finder but they seem to be getting away from that now.

I agree, this is why the old Lumix has been my favourite over the more modern Pentax (compact). I missed my canon G9 and its direct optical viewfinder but the Lumix and the A6000 well make up for it.