Why spend a lot of money and lug it all around?

I completely understand. But as the years go by, those DSLRs do get very heavy. It seems like they get heavier every year, even though it's the same equipment.....

Leen Koper wrote on Sunday 12 January 2020 at 14:10  | reply

I also had the D7000, and for a little while I also had some trouble getting used to the screen instead of a "real" viewfinder, but I got used to it quickly. Especially the convenience of taking photos nice and low above the ground without first having to dig a little hollow for your chin was wonderful. If you have to "click" more than before, I don't know how you take photos; it all comes down to the same thing anyway, aperture, shutter speed and ISO value? Apart from the weight, in my opinion there is no difference..

Absolutely right, Leen! I switched from the Canon 7D DSLR to the Fuji. I should have done that years earlier, it’s super light, is many times sharper and the Fuji lenses are great! And let’s not forget the tripod that you always need for urbex photography. I now use a travel tripod!

A hundred % right and true. lugging around a Canon 5DII, and multiple lenses Kilos of equipment... And with a 1GXmarkIII in her jacket pocket, my wife takes insanely good photos. There are of course limitations, but also many advantages. And you see them more and more, lugging around and showing off with mastodon cameras...

what do you think of a carbon tripod, it's a bit lighter, right?

Leen Koper wrote on Tuesday 14 January 2020 at 14:04  | reply

I already have a carbon tripod, but it is just as cumbersome....

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Tuesday 14 January 2020 at 14:17  | reply

@rogier
'And you see more and more of them, lugging around and showing off mastodontic cameras...' ... and still not making anything of it. It’s not the camera that does it in the first place, but 'the little man' (or little woman, so as not to discriminate).

Splendid photos, Mr Koper. I completely agree with your choice. I am also currently looking into getting a micro 4/3 camera. Still hesitating between a GX80 and a G80.

Would a chest tripod not be a solution for you? In my analogue days I used such a "one-legged one" when I didn't want to take a tripod along.

You will always have pros and cons, and I think: photograph with whatever feels good in your hand and that you feel comfortable with. My daughter manages to convey an impression or composition better in a photo with a small Canon pocket camera than I do with my Nikon D7200. Just to say ... it is the photographer who makes the photo and the device that records it. But let Panasonic be precisely that brand (with which, according to both my daughter and myself) we never found the colours to be reasonably true to life. Green had a blue tinge and a skin tone was a little too red. We have both got rid of our "Pana" and sometimes (depending on the occasion) we do switch devices

Leen Koper wrote on Tuesday 14 January 2020 at 16:12  | reply

@ Louis: I have absolutely no complaints about the colors of my Panasonics. Besides, I always start from a RAW file, so I can always adjust my tones if necessary. And while I -as a former professional photographer- am extremely critical when it comes to colors. At most, I reduce the saturation a little, which is fairly high, but well, that is precisely what most people appreciate.

Forced by physical circumstances to buy/have to buy a lighter mirroless camera a few years ago; Canon M5 with 11-22 and 18-150. More than sufficient for all my city / urbex / architecture trips trips (no one has ever noticed the difference with FF photos). Super light and everything practically fits in my trouser pocket
For (bird) safari/macro I still use an FF with macro or supertelephoto lens. In these cases hardly have to lug anything.
The best of both worlds in my case ... and my joints benefit from it

Weight is exactly the reason I switched to mirrorless too. Sold my Canon 760D 's and now have 2 Canon M5 's with some eos-m lenses. And as you say, I often only take the 11-22mm with me for landscapes and on vacation I take most of my photos with the eos-m 15-45mm . A combination that weighs barely 500 grams. A breath of fresh air. And qualitatively insanely sharp and detailed photos.

Leen Koper wrote on Tuesday 14 January 2020 at 20:04  | reply

@ Louis: If you don't know anything about RAW processing, then I can only recommend one thing: just give it a try sometime. The downside: after a few times, you're completely hooked. A whole world of possibilities opens up. You're hugely limiting yourself by photographing exclusively in Jpeg. And it sounds complicated, but is really, really simple. And you quickly keep getting better at it. Really!

Leen Koper wrote on Tuesday 14 January 2020 at 22:02  | reply

@ Wyb Mylius. In the past, when I was still young, I swore by the weight of the camera, it couldn't be heavy enough to absorb vibrations. In that respect I can understand you well. But with today's image stabilization (with some brands even dual image stabilization), that is outdated. But in your specific case, things may be different.

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Wednesday 15 January 2020 at 09:34  | reply

Admittedly. When you buy a mirrorless system you suddenly have many question marks about the numerous choices you can make with countless settings. I was overwhelmed by it and chose automatic for a while to first learn to understand all those settings. I did photograph in RAW from day one, in my opinion a must. When I gained more understanding of the possibilities I set everything to M(anual) until I understood that that was completely pointless. Since I am mainly interested in nature and landscapes I quickly switched to A(pertute), so aperture control, because for me depth of field is primary. When I want to photograph birds in flight or a pack of running dogs I quickly switch to S( shutter speed). I found several good videos on u-tube about my Olympus E-M1, admittedly in English - perhaps a handicap for some of us - until one day I stumbled upon a series that really opened my eyes ... what simplicity in use you can have once you have set the settings most suitable for you. I now have the colours blue for the underexposed parts and red for the overexposed parts both in my viewer and on my screen. Two control dials to operate, one to choose the aperture, one to choose the correct exposure (no red or blue visible). When I continue to see both of them I can press the HDR button at lightning speed to also put an end to that problem. I don't even need to look at a histogram anymore. Another enormous advantage ... I immediately see through my viewer or on the screen ‘what’ the photo result will be. And in the meantime I have evolved so far in this technology that I also understand and can apply 80% of all other possible settings (sometimes after thinking about it for a moment).

The fairy tale has become reality. Canon and Nikon asked the question for years on end: Mirror mirror ... and one day they got the answer ‘But the mirrorless is a thousand times more beautiful than you.’

PS: did you know that by now ‘Sony’ has become the biggest camera manufacturer in the world and no longer Canon or Nikon?
Other brands are often underestimated, including Olympus. Olympus has the most advanced stabilisers, is robust and weatherproof (no need for rain sleeves or other inconvenience, just on your chest in the rain). And did you know that Olympus is the world leader in medical cameras? Our familiar cameras are a secondary market for them. Who still believes that they too are not at the top?

Remarkable; good news for a super-heavy camera and an enthusiastic story about a super-lightweight.

A 5DM5 [to replace the M3] or switch to a f.f. mirrorless camera?

The 4-sided one is particularly beautiful. What is missing is the manual.
Mr. Koper?

Regards.
Hans.

Very happy with your article. For the same reasons I chose the Olympus OMD E-M10 II, comparable to the Panasonic. But I had been an Olympus fan ever since my first OM 1 from 1974. I even have an adapter to use, among other things, my old 50 mm 1.4 lens, but in practice I use almost exclusively a 12-40, 40-150 and 75-300 lens. And all of that is already heavy enough. By the way, I am not a pro but an enthusiastic amateur.

By square I mean the landscape photo with water and cows. A rectangular photo enlarged to a square and then made a ‘painting’ of it.

Regards,
Hans

Comparing a full frame with a compact 4/3 remains comparing apples and oranges. And full frame DSLR vs mirrorless? I've been using an EOS R alongside a 5DmkIV for a while now. The R is somewhat lighter and more compact, but the difference isn't big enough to hang the DSLR up. For movement and sports, an optical viewfinder and a larger battery capacity remain a major advantage. Also, 2 card slots take up space in a 5D. For portraits with a wide aperture, the R's eye AF is an advantage again. Compact can be an advantage, but it isn't the only thing that counts.

Leen Koper wrote on Friday 17 January 2020 at 18:00  | reply

@ Martin: of course a full frame has advantages, especially if you are going to print very large. But yeah, who still prints large? For sports, an optical viewfinder is indeed easier, but yeah, I don't photograph sports. Changing a battery takes virtually no time, it's just convenient if you don't have to.
That story about portraits at wide open aperture is a persistent rumor that is persistently kept alive by all kinds of magazines. At 1.8 on full frame, the risk of the second eye being out of focus is far too great. That myth was mainly introduced to the world by Americans and is just as persistent as Trump himself, but no professional photographer uses it, only amateurs do. Professional photographers from the US don't either, by the way, as I noticed during my seminars. All at least F4.

PixelDude Raoul wrote on Friday 17 January 2020 at 18:28  | reply

I have never printed larger than 60x40 cm but up to that photo size you don't see any, but really any difference between an FF or a recent m4/3. Such m4/3 has more than enough pixels. When you want to print a billboard, yes then you will see a difference when you hang your nose on it ... but then you don't see the photo .
And as Leen says, only hobbyists use a 1.2 or 1.8 because that is supposedly 'better' for portrait photography. Use a larger aperture and have the model position themselves a bit further from the back wall, ... better.
And for very fast-moving sporting activities there are other aids. I then put a viewfinder on my Olympus E-M1. I often also use that viewfinder on my 70-150 lens together with a 1.2 converter which then only stops my aperture down from 2.8 to 4. This way I have a zoom up to an equivalent of 420mm ... and how small that is ... and how light that is. Batteries? No problem: there is an extra grip with an extra battery underneath, and still small and minimal in weight. Switching from one battery to the other happens automatically. Another 2 extra batteries in my pocket and I'm ready for about 1000 or more photos of around 15MB. I indeed only have one slot, that's true, but the new Olympus flagship has 2.
Comparing an FF with an m4/3 is comparing lemons with limes, but certainly not apples with pears. And I find limes tastier.