[Taroroot]

It comes down to priorities. My go to (almost)everyday carry has been m4/3. Of course its image quality does not match even the APS-C of my Canon, although the Olympus OMD M5 I just got is impressive. It also is proving the mirrorless development has matured enough where it gives up little to DSLR now. My previous m4/3 was a Panasonic GFX and it definitely suffered in comparison on many fronts. Mainly it was compact and light while maintaining pretty good IQ and control functions.
The Olympus has closed up many of the gaps, the hybrid AF is excellent and fast now, although in tracking mode my Canon still beats the Oly. The electronic viewfinder resolution and rate is fast enough I hardly notice and is now good enough for me to use for action and my occasional whale watching. FPS on electronic mode is ludicrous, I do not run it at max rate, that buries my Canon. Even on mechanical I think it beats it.
The in body IS on the Oly is also impressive, it seems to approach almost gimbal like levels.
It also does some cleverness to get 50 mega pixel images for static shots using the sensor shift.
Oh, and one of the reasons I went Oly was the weather sealing, I'm pretty sure dirt and moisture intrusion is what did my Panny in, it still works but control dials are all wonky and barely work.
My go to for riding pics is Nikon AW1 with 1" sensor, IQ is decidedly medicore, manual control PIA and not really used. But the thing is built like a tank and works despite pouring rain, mud, snow, being tossed around, dropped, slammed in van door, crashed on.

 

[DeeGeeCee]

61 mp

What about the Nikon z8 with 61 mega pixels? should we be saving up for that one?


How does the song go?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SiURXMrVrc

I typed that right Sixty one pixels just around the corner. Sounds better than a new bike.

Depends on your needs vs wants. As far as 61 MP goes, I have shot with the 61 MP Sony A7R4, and chose the 42 MP A7R3. IMO, 61 MP is far overkill for most shooters except for the concerning professional photographers going for ultimate detail for clients needs, gallery sized prints, or massive cropping ability. If that is you, then go for it. But wait in 3 years and we will have 50+mp cameras everywhere.....maybe.

 

[bsieb]

Depends on your needs vs wants. As far as 61 MP goes, I have shot with the 61 MP Sony A7R4, and chose the 42 MP A7R3. IMO, 61 MP is far overkill for most shooters except for the concerning professional photographers going for ultimate detail for clients needs, gallery sized prints, or massive cropping ability. If that is you, then go for it. But wait in 3 years and we will have 50+mp cameras everywhere.....maybe.

I think resolution is reaching the point where more is not necessarily better if it is not needed. From my perspective as a fine art printer, more detail is not always beneficial to an image from a visual perspective, and there are some practical real world size limits beyond which it's gets awkward and pricey, especially if it's not a permanent installation.

On the other hand, I've never wished for less detail when editing an image, so at what point does more data, and the overhead that inevitably goes with it, get to be awkward for you, is the answer. I have a dear friend who is a published fine artist and career photography professor, who can use whatever gear he chooses, and he is using a Leica D-Lux as daily carry. Says it gives him everything he needs for his 24" Epson. https://www.amazon.com/Milan-Sklenar-Photographs-Chris-Morgan/dp/0968236219

 

[DeeGeeCee]

exactly

I think resolution is reaching the point where more is not necessarily better if it is not needed. From my perspective as a fine art printer, more detail is not always beneficial to an image from a visual perspective, and there are some practical real world size limits beyond which it's gets awkward and pricey, especially if it's not a permanent installation.

On the other hand, I've never wished for less detail when editing an image, so at what point does more data, and the overhead that inevitably goes with it, get to be awkward for you, is the answer. I have a dear friend who is a published fine artist and career photography professor, who can use whatever gear he chooses, and he is using a Leica D-Lux as daily carry. Says it gives him everything he needs for his 24" Epson. https://www.amazon.com/Milan-Sklenar-Photographs-Chris-Morgan/dp/0968236219

Exactly. I prefer the detail of the 42 MP A7riii, over my other cam the A7iii. But the lesser gets it done quite well at 24 mp. A decent apples to apples comparison.

 

[UpTheAnte]

xxx

 

[shekky]

the main focus of my photography is trains in scenic locations. thus, when it comes time to purchase a new camera mirrorless will be a consideration, based on what i've read in this thread.

however, i see the cost of an F to Z mount adaptor is well north of two grand. if i end up selling my D-7100, i'd like to use my 18-200 on whatever new camera i buy.

as for carrying a brand new mirrorless with me on rides, i'd probably stick with toting around my trusty d-80 with an 18-105 kit lens. that's enough camera to get me shots like these:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/49176477417/in/dateposted-public/

 

[Mudguard]

Wow that was a nice photo

 

[Andrewphoto]

I will take as much resolution as possible, until it negatively affects something that I consider more important (FPS, processing speed, etc). For printing on my Pixma Pro100 I find anything above 10mpx to be fine.

 

[speedygz]

To answer the OP's question, yes it does. A modern 20MP micro 4/3 camera will comfortably walk right over your 60D. I went from Canon 18MP APSC to 36x24 (6D), & now happily shoot m4/3. I miss nothing about the DSLR's. Nothing. Pop some tiny light little large aperture (f/1.4-1.7) primes on a modern m4/3 body, & you have a VERY capable little setup. I cart mine around all over the place on my hardtail, without a second thought. A picture (or two) tells the story.

Johnny Rea at about 200 km/hr

Nice soft background

A little bit of panning

Playing ultrawide

Can do low light easily with tiny little light primes

 

[edubfromktown]

At the extremes of low light, sensor size, ISO perf (almost the same as sensor generation, as newer sensors are usually much better), and lens aperture really do make a huge difference.

...

Its the "in between" where its not amazing full sunlight, and "its almost black in here" where you get to decide how much you want to spend, and/or carry to get the quality of photos you're comfortable with.

In my experience so far, sharp photos worth printing have more to do with technique and setup than sensor size. Its just that larger sensors can help you capture shots you may not be able to get at acceptable quality levels with other gear.

To each their own of course though .

I continue carrying a Nikon D5600 with a prime or zoom lens when I want to capture Raw images. It is quite a compact little DSLR. If I were to go mirrorless, I'd probably get the Fuji XT3. One thing that has kept me from going there is that Lightroom 6 perpetual doesn't support the Fuji and I don't want to pony up for a monthly Adobe subscription.

Along the lines of what ocnLogan stated, I've caught some awesome shots with less than top notch equipment a surprising number of times. Most often during a spontaneous moment when it was quicker to get my phone or (in the old days) a pocket camera out or the lighting just "clicked" straight away with what I was shooting (instead of missing the moment having to fiddle with settings).

This was shot on a very treacherous trail that as it turned out, was actually closed (sign was posted on one side but not the other!).

 

[speedygz]

Some more bicycle related photography from my baby m4/3 camera. It’s one of my favorite things to do. Chuck camera in kids size school bag/backpack, go for a pedal, and see what interesting sights I find to snap.

 

[OutdoorsBen]

I'm a big Fuji fan, I carry my X100F everywhere. Works perfect for me. I know I won't get any tele shots and I'm ok with that. Before Fuji, I shot Sony. IMO Sony has the best auto focus but the WORST menu system. I moved over to the X100F due to the great color profiles. I want to spend less time editing raws and the jpgs are very very good as long as you get it right in camera. Also the hybrid view finder is awesome.

As mentioned many times. If you are shooting a lot in low light or astro get a full frame. Everything else a crop is more than enough. M4/3 is good however anything above ISO800 or 1600 it can get noisy fast. However, a little noise doesn't matter if you are telling a good story with the photo's.

 

[speedygz]

I'm a big Fuji fan, I carry my X100F everywhere. Works perfect for me. I know I won't get any tele shots and I'm ok with that. Before Fuji, I shot Sony. IMO Sony has the best auto focus but the WORST menu system. I moved over to the X100F due to the great color profiles. I want to spend less time editing raws and the jpgs are very very good as long as you get it right in camera. Also the hybrid view finder is awesome.

As mentioned many times. If you are shooting a lot in low light or astro get a full frame. Everything else a crop is more than enough. M4/3 is good however anything above ISO800 or 1600 it can get noisy fast. However, a little noise doesn't matter if you are telling a good story with the photo's.

Fujifilm make some really nice gear. They, & m4/3 are the only manufacturers that do a proper job of making a complete line of smaller format specific lenses. That's the thing I like about m4/3. You can buy tiny, light & fast aperture lenses from f/1.4-f/2, that don't break the bank, & you can actually use those apertures & get more than a cm in focus. Combine that with m4/3 excellent image stabilization/IBIS, & you get a really really competent, small, portable kit. In any light. If I was shooting night time sport/fast action, I'd more than likely go one of the full frame bodies & suitable lenses, but I don't. So m4/3 works really well for me. Fuji has made a big step I think, by now including IBIS in their latest body.

 

[stripes]

Fujifilm make some really nice gear. They, & m4/3 are the only manufacturers that do a proper job of making a complete line of smaller format specific lenses. That's the thing I like about m4/3. You can buy tiny, light & fast aperture lenses from f/1.4-f/2, that don't break the bank, & you can actually use those apertures & get more than a cm in focus. Combine that with m4/3 excellent image stabilization/IBIS, & you get a really really competent, small, portable kit. In any light. If I was shooting night time sport/fast action, I'd more than likely go one of the full frame bodies & suitable lenses, but I don't. So m4/3 works really well for me. Fuji has made a big step I think, by now including IBIS in their latest body.

Thanks is there a particular model you like? I’m debating between Fuji and Nikon.

Right now, Fuji is in the lead.

 

[speedygz]

Thanks is there a particular model you like? I’m debating between Fuji and Nikon.

Right now, Fuji is in the lead.

Well, it all depends on budget, as well as your subject matter, & how you like to shoot. Personally, I like large aperture, fixed focal length lenses. This lets me use a smaller & lighter body. If you want to shoot say birds, motorsports & the like, you’ll need to buy some longer focal length lenses. Generally, a physically larger body works better for this.
As for which Fujifilm bodies I currently like, money no concern, I’d go for the new XT4. It has IBIS (in body image stabilization) to help with slower shutter speeds at longer focal lengths. A more budget oriented option would be the older XH1. It also has IBIS. The XT3 is basically the same camera as the 4, with no IBIS.
For a general purpose walk around shooter, I really like the look of the new XT200. A bit of a bargain really, there’s nothing premium about it, but it just has a nice feature list for the price, & is small, light & compact. Which suits my preferred smaller fixed length prime lens style.

 

[bsieb]

I don't know if you make prints, but m4/3 doesn't have enough resolution to make crisp prints for gallery display. I hang my apsc prints next to m4/3 prints and there is no comparison. M4/3 is closer to 35mm film prints, which look pretty soft compared to higher resolution apsc or full format. It's fine for internet or screen display, but so are cell phone images.

 

[speedygz]

I don't know if you make prints, but m4/3 doesn't have enough resolution to make crisp prints for gallery display. I hang my apsc prints next to m4/3 prints and there is no comparison. M4/3 is closer to 35mm film prints, which look pretty soft compared to higher resolution apsc or full format. It's fine for internet or screen display, but so are cell phone images.

That's simply not true. I shoot both 20mp Canon full frame & 20mp m4/3. If I stripped the EXIF data, I bet you couldn't pick which shot what most of the time. Even at full resolution. Sure, in certain situations, one format will have advantages over the other, & vice versa. If I was printing billboards, I'd probably go medium format. Night sports, 36x24. You can't make blanket statements about one particular format.
And yes, some phone cameras are getting pretty good.

 

[bsieb]

That's simply not true. I shoot both 20mp Canon full frame & 20mp m4/3. If I stripped the EXIF data, I bet you couldn't pick which shot what most of the time. Even at full resolution. Sure, in certain situations, one format will have advantages over the other, & vice versa. If I was printing billboards, I'd probably go medium format. Night sports, 36x24. You can't make blanket statements about one particular format.
And yes, some phone cameras are getting pretty good.

What size prints do you make?

 

[speedygz]

28-30 inches. My 20mp m4/3 is better than my 18mp APSC Canon.

 

[speedygz]

No need to take my word for it. Plenty of people have done tests. This one goes a sensor size up from your APSC, & still no real difference.