With all the recent discussion about new compact cameras and m43 you successfully triggered my GAS (thanks for that… :D).
I currently have a Sony RX100Va which I take with me whenever I potentially want to take a few photos but don’t care enough to take my large X-T4 with me (e.g. family gatherings or hiking).
Now the RX100 is nice and small but I never developed much love for it. Somehow I don’t really like the handling and recently I also noticed that image quality is not that great (the X-T4 probably spoiled me a bit…).
Since prices on the used marked are a bit crazy at the moment (seems I can easily get >500 € when I sell it on ebay), I’m wondering if it’s a good time to sell it and get something different. Inspired by [1], I’m wondering if a compact m43 with a pancake zoom could be a good alternative. It would of course be a bit larger but maybe still be small enough to carry everywhere.
Now I’m not very experienced with comparing cameras and also don’t really know anything about options in the m43 segment.
After some brief research, I’m wondering if an Olympus Pen E-PL9 + M.Zuiko 14-42mm pancake lens might be an option. I could get this for ~400 € on ebay. Do you think the image quality would be at least on par (ideally a bit better) than the RX100VA? Both are about the same age and the Pen has only 16MPx (but larger sensor).
Do you have any alternative suggestions regarding body and/or lens?
Restrictions are:
Total price should not exceed 500 € (so I could cover cost by selling the RX100).
It shouldn’t be much larger than the E-PL9
A view finder would be welcome but is not a must (I know the E-PL9 has none)
I like the idea of it being an ILC, so I can potentially complement it with a faster prime at some point in the future.
One related question:
What always annoyed me with compact cameras is that the lens moves out/in whenever it is turned on/off. It increases the time until the camera is ready and at least the RX100 also doesn’t remember the focal length I used before. I was somewhat hoping to get rid of this behaviour but if I understood correctly, these pancake zoom lenses basically behave the same?
I personally wouldn’t recommend this camera, but the image quality is fine. The EVF is kinda crummy, especially if you have a newer camera with a nicer EVF. The UI is kind of clunky, like changing the aperture or shutter speed has a noticeable delay for it to change on screen, making it hard to quickly change settings. If you change the dial too quickly you can, for example, move the dial 3 clicks, but the aperture doesn’t change by three increments. I dunno if this is just a dud camera though, because I have an even older, cheaper Lumix camera that does not behave that way
Thanks for pointing me to the GX series (it’s somehow difficult to learn about cameras if the line is discontinued and thus not listed anymore on the manufacturer’s website). The GX7 is maybe a bit old (and the experience of @raublekick doesn’t sound too great) but I’ll take a closer look at the GX8 and 9.
I am coming from a similar place, I had a perfectly fine Canon G7Xii compact that never learned to like. Waiting for the zoom to extend was a issue for me, also the lens sucking in dust (to be fair, it took a lot of beating), and I never had a MILC so I wanted to try it.
So I ended up getting a Panasonic GX9. It is a very neat camera, but frankly it is overkill for my purposes. Any older micro 4/3 would have done, in particular in retrospect I guess I would have preferred the Olympus EM-5 ii or iii, quirky menus and all.
With your requirements, I think an older micro 4/3 camera will work just fine. The one thing you will miss from the Sony is the AF, even their compacts have very good tracking focus using PDAF, which is a recent addition to the micro 4/3 world. But frankly, contrast-based (DFD) focus is perfectly good for stills and subjects that don’t move very fast or erratically. And you always have focus bracketing to save the day.
Whether electronic zooms will “remember” their last focal length depends on the camera body. Look at the relevant manuals, some cameras have this but I don’t remember which exact model.
That said, I mostly use primes these days. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 prime is perfect and very cheap, also the Olympus 45mm f/1.8. These keep the package compact. My travel zoom is the Panasonic Leica 12–60mm f/2.8–f/4 which is no longer compact; Panasonic has a more basic 12–60mm which is.
That said, the whole package will not be much smaller than your existing X-T4, which is a great camera. As much as I love micro 4/3, I would recommend exploring the small lens options for Fuji too before investing in another line.
You mean something like a 2 year old child running around?
This is one of the reasons I like this forum (and ask for recommendations here). While many of us suffer from a bit of GAS, there is a mentality of being considerate with purchases. I found the X-T4 not very comfortable to hold, though, so I added a L-shape plate which makes it more bulky/heavier.
But indeed, hopping from model to model, it slowly get’s larger again… So a PEN would likely be a better fit than a GX w.r.t. size.
Yes, this forum is great for low-bias advice. You’re unlikely to find the “Buy X, Y is trash” or “Get yourself an Z and thank me later” type BS. People on here are informed and recognize that every brand makes great cameras, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Was just looking at my X-T5 today with the L plate attached. It makes it the same size as an old DSLR. More comfortable, but it loses all compact benefits
I think that whole “mirrorless is more compact than DSLR”-thing is a scam. The X-T4 is larger and heavier than the Nikon D5100 I used before (and the plate adds another centimetre in height +100g).
I guess it just means, that the D5100 is pretty small for a DSLR (I don’t have any comparison) and plastic is obviously more lightweight than metal.
Back to topic: I bought a PEN E-PL9 now, should arrive tomorrow. I’m curious to see how it compares to the RX100. I will report here once I did a proper comparison.
I wonder if it’s just that the space taken up by the prism has essentially been replaced with IBIS mechanisms (and fans), so a lot of the potential space savings are gone.
I suspect that if we packed modern mirrorless tech into DSLRs, they would be bigger than their mirrorless counterparts.
But regardless, I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed by how little the mirrorless revolution has shrunk ILC camera bodies. The Sony A7C series is perhaps the most impressive, but I was hoping for more options, especially with APS-C and M4/3 bodies.
I also wonder if the industry has collectively decided that there’s a limit to how compact users want to go. Several YouTubers have mentioned how they like substantial bodies because of their “big hands”. And of course, if you slap a big telephoto lens on your body, you want some heft for stability. Something like the X-M5 is not really designed for larger lenses, so it’s arguably not as versatile. Although I’d argue that I’d like the smaller body, and then I can add L brackets and grips to increase its size and stability if I want.
How much are they going for where you live? There’s an E-PL5 for sale near me for $175 Canadian dollars. It sounds like it’s a bit beaten up, so could be a risky purchase. This is what it comes with:
Olympus E-PL5 body - record button doesn’t work
Olympus 14-42mm MSC lens - has sticky aperture blades
I payed 410€ for body, 14-42 lens and charger. Both body and lens in good condition (it actually arrived yesterday already). I bought on eBay from a random commercial vendor, so I can send it back in the first 2 weeks, in case there is an issue. Private sellers would be a bit cheaper but more risky.
Yes, definitely. See this teardown of the OM-5 by Kolari:
The interesting part is around 3:30. About 40% of width is the battery, 40% is the stabilizer cage, and the sensor is about 25% of the area of the latter.
IBIS is very demanding, in terms of computation (some specialized CPUs sit on that PCB), weight (cage + magnets), battery power (so bigger battery).
But, at the same time, IBIS is very, very useful. So I don’t mind the extra weight/bulk, I think of it as migrating stuff from the lenses into the body.
I am hoping that a miniaturization phase will follow in due course, but that may just be wishful thinking, as premium compacts like the Ricoh GR or the Fujifilm X100 seriers cover the focal ranges where it would matter much.
Fuji managed to cram IBIS inside the X100 body without a size increase(granted, it’s a leaf shutter), whilst keeping the built in ND filter and everything else the same, so it’s probably just a case of how small do you really want bodies with lens mounts to go. I don’t think there’s any motivation to go smaller with the current mounts. Maybe Pentax will revive the Q.
The Q’s sensor is definitely a problem these days with smartphone cameras occupying that niche. But Ricoh has shown it can do excellent compact cameras with an APS-C sensor, so surely Pentax/Ricoh can put their heads together to come up with an interesting ILC body?
There are actually some rumours about Ricoh making mirrorless lenses, but nothing concrete yet.
The Q still has the benefits of good glass and actual long focal lengths that let you get some subject separation, even with a tiny sensor.
People want tiny cameras, and at the same time don’t want small sensors that come with them
It seems that for a real compact ILC body, the lenses themselves would need to have leaf shutters built in, like the Q and every other small camera(X100, GFX100RF, GR3, Rollei35, etc)
I’m actually happy for smaller sensors to be used (and I love compact cameras), but I guess it becomes a simple matter of marketing and convincing users. No matter how good your lenses and ergonomics are, some will always see those sub-1" sensor sizes as the domain of smartphones and therefore question the point of the system.
M4/3 size and larger have carved out a niche as the “serious” cameras offering better quality than smartphones, and much of this is to do with the sensor size, even though the perception of quality improvement is probably highly exaggerated compared to the actual quality differences.
I believe Ricoh even did a feasibility study of reviving the Q, but thought it was too challenging because of “certain limitations in specifications”, whatever that meant. I suspect they found that it would be just too difficult to convince enough users of the technology. Personally, I’m all for as much choice in the market as possible, so bring it on!
