Compact v DSLR

Take a look at the video discussion of mirror less cameras at

http://www.luminous-landscape....ess_revolution.shtml

The refer to the Olympus range with much respect and admit to using them yet do not show them in the discussion.

Moving to the Oly OMD E-M1 has revolutionised my camera carrying habits.

You bet !!

I'm gonna have to re-read this thread carefully before pitching for any sort of replacement, but I am really grateful for the comments so far, and I hope that others who might be watching will also benefit.

I still have the EOS 100 but its unreliable. I also have a couple of Canon Ultrasonic lenses (28-105mm and 70-300mm or therabouts), but I didn't want to be tied into expensive Canon fullframe DSLRs just on account of a couple of 25 year old zoom lenses ! 

I didn't want to be tied into expensive Canon fullframe DSLRs just on account of a couple of 25 year old zoom lenses !

Especially as some old lenses are totally unsuitable for digital cameras - I tried that.

Not an issue  if you use a FF Nikon. That's the  difference  between a proper camera and Canons.

Oh, don't go there Tony! 

Having a stock of lenses of a particular type tends to tie you into that system, but when it came to it I got a good price for my collection.

http://www.canon.co.uk/stellamccartney

I have moved to a mirror-less existence  and now when I see tourists hugging their heavy DSLR bodies and chunky lenses to their chest as they walk around I feel a slight degree of smugness knowing that it is unlikely that they are going to have their pictures published in ultra high quality magazines and that it is very unlikely that they would be able to distinguish between their images and my images.

My camera and tele zoom lens sits almost invisible in a small shoulder bag, when not required, that is so light as to not be noticeable.

Depends on your needs I guess. I have had pictures published in magazines and have had them licensed for corporate use and size can matter there imo. I also shoot weddings and portraits and I still think a dslr gives me the best control and quality there. I would like to have something smaller and lighter though that could still get good quality,  as per some of the newer cameras, when I'm on holiday.

Not strictly correct, although Nikon have continued with the F Type mount, their are differences in compatibility, say with their 'G' lenses and 'D' lenses and while you can use some fantastic AI-S type manual glass, focusing with a DSLR is a pita...

It is a bit bizarre isn't it? How over the last couple of years, you suddenly see loads more people wandering around town with DSLRs hanging from their necks...I suppose it's a good thing, people get into photography a bit more, perhaps due to camera phones. and then want something 'better'.

I'm not dumping the 5D iii. Though I use it less and less frequently.

Why I like the GR...

Yes it very much depends on your requirements. I'd rather have the better quality device from the beginning, and i'm prepared to carry it. If we want to talk about 'good enough' for a magazine snap, then chuck them all away and use your IPhone. Try having a 40x60" gallery print exhibited and suddenly things 'might' change. Given the choice i'd still take a film camera anyway.

The choice between a DSLR and another camera depends on the kind of pictures you take.

DSLR focus must faster. You do need a DSLR for sports or air shows.

A large sensor allows for low light photography, in particular top DSLR have unbelievable possibilities in very low light.

Most compact cameras do not allow for very wide angles shots, their zooms are usually limited to moderate wide angles. For landscape this is a serious defect.

Most compact camera rear screens are unusable in bright sun.

Small sensors (like in most compact camera) lead to large depth of field; this is an asset as it compensates for imprecise focussing. On the other hand many great pictures are great because of the small depth of field that isolates the main point of the picture from the background. Enthusiast and pros spend fortunes on large aperture lenses, because a large aperture means small depth of field.

For me I love my sony alpha 6000, (nex successor). All the benefits of a dslr but much smaller. I have a cannon eos 30d but its very big in comparison, despite having exactly the same sensor size.

I don't blame you, its a fabulous camera

Neither. Manual focus rangefinders all the way. Compact, light and beautiful, more fun and arguably better image quality if you have decent glass and know what you're doing. Rangefinders are rubbish for sports and wildlife, macro is a faff, but otherwise I can think of no reason (for me at least) to use an SLR again.

Leicas and the Mamiya 7 aside, film rangefinders can be picked up for next to nowt - only yesterday I picked up a nice looking Yashica Electro 35 rangefinder (see pic below) with a Yashica 45mm lens from a boot fair for just £20. I suspect it needs a bit of work but it looks great and feels lovely in the hand.

Going for a 'less is more...' "Leica 60" then?

"...rubbish for sports and wildlife..."

Who say's?

M8 90mm Elmarit pre focussed:

G

Yeah that's rubbish.

Try harder next time.

OK

G

I don't really believe it either G - just repeating received wisdom

It's quite nice J but massively overpriced, like all those Leica "special editions" which just go into collectors' vaults and never actually get used.

Don is not ready to allocate more than about £1,200. This barely cover the cost of a Leitz lenscap