# Switch from Canon 450d EOS. Which mirrorless to consider.



## lbsu

Hi everyone. I've been with my canon 450 d paired with tamron 17-50 2.8 for 10 years. Now I feel time has come to switch to something better. I was thinking about full frame but the dslrs are so heavy and expensive as well, although I am prepared for a £2000 budget for all. The only light full frames are Sony 7 generation. I read a lot of reviews about A7ii. There Is something which I am not particularly happy about or I am uncertain. For example, since it became A7ii it added weight due to ibis. Together with good zeiss glass it's gona again come to just under a kilo which even more than I carry now. Also from the reviews I am not sure if a7ii is great for landscapes - my favourite area. Alternatively, I read a lot about Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic. But again I am not sure if yet another APS C sensor or micro 4/3 would make me a difference compared to my current old canon 450d. Should I switch at all then?
Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.


----------



## jaomul

What exactly do you want to improve with your new camera?


----------



## lbsu

jaomul said:


> What exactly do you want to improve with your new camera?



Image quality first. Second - focus. My canon with tamron shoots the way the faces are always out of focus. When I do manually it is still out of focus. I think this is just due to diccoordination between cannon and tamron since I dropped the camera several years ago.


----------



## jaomul

I had few older Canon cameras. I now have Nikon and m4/3rds. 

I would say that the 450d is a very good camera but almost any newer purchase will be an improvement.

The m4/3 cameras focus almost instantly for static subject. Moving subjects is a different matter. Image quality is for the most part excellent but it is a little more difficult to achieve shallow dof.

To be honest, if your tamron lens is ok I'd look at a Canon 70d. Not everyone needs full frame. The 70d will offer better autofocus, more megapixels, better iso performance, video, touchscreen and you'll be somewhat familiar with the menus.


----------



## lbsu

Thank you jaomul

I read some reviews on cannon 70d. Sounds a very good cam. But it's still dslr and hence heavy. My obsession now is mirrorless I do not know why. May be I am wrong and should stick with dslr.


----------



## beagle100

lbsu said:


> Thank you jaomul
> 
> I read some reviews on cannon 70d. Sounds a very good cam. But it's still dslr and hence heavy. My obsession now is mirrorless I do not know why. May be I am wrong and should stick with dslr.



maybe it's just an obsession.  the newer cameras have more megapixels and other features but *image quality* ....

these where shot with a *10 year old* Canon 450D  digital Rebel XSi


----------



## Ron Evers

And these were shot with a M4/3 Olympus E- M5.


----------



## Usul

Ron Evers and beagle100 showed photos of static objects in very goo lighting conditions in my opinion with such conditions EVERY modern (and not very old) DSLR or mirrorles gives good results. The differense is getting noticeable when eather light is poor or subject is moving. Bigger sensor means better quality and bigger lenses thus more weight . If you want save some weight you should look at m4/3 or APS-C mirrorles.


----------



## lbsu

Very nice pictures from both although Olympus ones do not show enough shallow dof. 
And why '...but image quality...'  Don't you think that over 10 years the sensors changed and can now provide a much better IQ?


----------



## jaomul

If you need fullframe mirrorless Sony is probably your only option. If apc-s is good enough look at the Sony a6000 and Fufi xt1 and or x10. These are not the only options but most other options seem bit bigger, and at least if you research these the articles may point other options.

Sensor tech has definetely changed. Older cameras can still give fab photos. Newer tech allows these photos in more challenging conditions


----------



## Usul

lbsu said:


> Very nice pictures from both although Olympus ones do not show enough shallow dof.
> And why '...but image quality...'  Don't you think that over 10 years the sensors changed and can now provide a much better IQ?



I guess it's refering to my post. 
 IQ is much better now but one can't see much difference on the photos taken in good condtions and then resized. I had D90 (2008) and now I have D7100 (2013) so I can compare them. In low light or in scenes with high contrast  of course D7100 has noticeable advantages.


----------



## jaomul

However, in not so good conditions, or where you don't resize, or if you print big, (or if you pixel peep )newer tech has the edge


----------



## sashbar

lbsu said:


> Sounds a very good cam. But it's still dslr and hence heavy. My obsession now is mirrorless I do not know why. May be I am wrong and should stick with dslr.



Modern APS-C sensor gives you a better image quality and low light performance than a 10 y.o. pro grade Full Frame camera.

If your obsession is a Mirrorless camera, and you are looking for higher image quality, smallish size and weight, then FUJI X system would be a very sensible choice. It will give you a clean, working ISO 6400 and ability to compensate exposure errors, highlight and shadow recovery beyond your dreams with your old Canon. Most importantly it will give you a pro quality APS-C glass line that you will not find with a DSLR, unless you go for a heavy and bulky pro grade full frame glass.

You said your priority after IQ is focus. If it is the fastest focus, you would be better with a DSLR. If it is a more precise focus, then a mirrorless has an edge, because it simply has no back or forth focus problems due to its design. It has no focus mirror and needs no calibration, it is focusing precisely on the sensor. In that respect its focus is always spot on even with a wide open f/1,2 lense. You will not get it even with a pro DSLR camera. But a good modern DSLR will give you a much faster focus in low light.

With your £2,000 you will be able to get a camera with a kit 18-55 zoom (which is not really a kit, it is a quality lense and comes highly recommended) plus a couple of used primes from eBay.

Just to give you an idea of a modern APS-C sensor - here is a snapshot in a very dark room with FUJI X-T1 and FUJI 18-55 kit lense, ISO *25600*, f/4, 1/9 sec,  straight out of the camera JPEG with no additional post processing, apart from reducing its size.






And here is the same shot with exposure compensation by 1 stop and no other post processing.





As I said this is just a JPEG snaphot, handheld, with an automatic in-camera noise reduction. You can get a better image quality with ISO 25600 if you shoot RAW and use post processing with some good modern convertor like CaptureOne Pro and a dedicated noise reduction engine like Topaz.
You may as well look at this site to get an idea of what FUJI X cameras are capable of. Lots of pros shoot FUJI these days. 

Now, why do you need a full frame?


----------



## Ron Evers

Very nice pictures from both although Olympus ones do not show enough shallow dof.

In both cases the subject is close to the background & in the second pic the lens was stopped down from maximum aperture.  


And why '...but image quality...'  Don't you think that over 10 years the sensors changed and can now provide a much better IQ?


----------



## Ron Evers

Some will say you cannot use m4/3 for action shots - I beg to differ.


----------



## lbsu

sashbar said:


> ....
> If your obsession is a Mirrorless camera, and you are looking for higher image quality, smallish size and weight, then FUJI X system would be a very sensible choice. ...
> Now, why do you need a full frame?



Thank you sashbar for such s comprehensive reply. 
I just now read reviews on Fuji Xt1 and came to saconclusion this is my #1 on the list. 
Metal body and lenses, light weight Leica like look. 
I have some concerns though. It is said in the reviews this cam has not the best dynamic range. I learnt what it is just recently when I started looking for a new cam. From  my understanding a low dynamic range means the faces may be too dark and lack details if shot in front of sun or other light background. Is that right? And how this Fuji cam tackles this problem?
Another question is how the cam works without image stabiliser? Is it essential for low speeds and especially for video? 
Also, video format is mov. I've found that mov is not good for Final Cut Pro. You need a converter and I do not trust converters as I think they can deteriorate the original quality.


----------



## sashbar

lbsu said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> If your obsession is a Mirrorless camera, and you are looking for higher image quality, smallish size and weight, then FUJI X system would be a very sensible choice. ...
> Now, why do you need a full frame?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you sashbar for such s comprehensive reply.
> I just now read reviews on Fuji Xt1 and came to saconclusion this is my #1 on the list.
> Metal body and lenses, light weight Leica like look.
> I have some concerns though. It is said in the reviews this cam has not the best dynamic range. I learnt what it is just recently when I started looking for a new cam. From  my understanding a low dynamic range means the faces may be too dark and lack details if shot in front of sun or other light background. Is that right? And how this Fuji cam tackles this problem?
> Another question is how the cam works without image stabiliser? Is it essential for low speeds and especially for video?
> Also, video format is mov. I've found that mov is not good for Final Cut Pro. You need a converter and I do not trust converters as I think they can deteriorate the original quality.
Click to expand...



Ibsu, any camera will fail if you shoot someone with the sun or a strong light in the background. The face will be dark or the background will be blown out, depending on how do you choose to expose it, with ANY camera. You just need to use a fill flash.

Now, you can fix it in post production if the contrast is not too high and the highlights are not blown but just severely overexposed. You can either use local adjustments, brightening up the subject or just recover highlights, if you have chosen to overexpose the sky/background. In that respect the ability to recover highlights or pull shadows with X-T1 is impressive. But, again, it depends on what digital editor you are using. Some editors do it better than others. CaptureOne Pro RAW convertor/editor is excellent here.I am still amazed at how a seemingly blown white sky is being turned by C1 into a properly exposed one with detailed clouds, good colors etc.

Image stabilizer is really good for low speeds, you can easily lower it by two or three stops compared to standard non-image-stab shooting. It is widely used now, mostly all the time, apart from very high speeds or tripod where it is better to switch it off.

I know nothing about video. If you do a lot of video, FUJI is probably not the best choice, look at Panasonic. If still photography is your thing, then XT-1 will be a big upgrade.

Yes, and by "this site" in my previous post I meant  this site: X-Photographers


----------



## lbsu

sashbar said:


> Some editors do it better than the others...


What about Photoshop raw processor?


----------



## sashbar

lbsu said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some editors do it better than the others...
> 
> 
> 
> What about Photoshop raw processor?
Click to expand...


I prefer the latest CaptureOne Pro to Adobe products.


----------



## lbsu

sashbar said:


> get a camera with a kit 18-55 zoom (which is not really a kit, it is a quality lense and comes highly recommended) plus a couple of used primes from eBay.


Sashbar, thanks for your most helpful remarks. 
Which prime lenses I should consider first? One should be for landscapes.


----------



## sashbar

lbsu said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> get a camera with a kit 18-55 zoom (which is not really a kit, it is a quality lense and comes highly recommended) plus a couple of used primes from eBay.
> 
> 
> 
> Sashbar, thanks for your most helpful remarks.
> Which prime lenses I should consider first? One should be for landscapes.
Click to expand...



I do not shoot landscapes, so can not give you a proper advice here. All I can say is 35 mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lense, very popular, crazy sharp with excellent color and contrast rendition, and it is not too expensive, about £270 mint on eBay, many FUJI shooters will tell you it is a must buy, but you will probably need something wider for landscapes.
14 mm is a great lense as well, but it is bigger and more costly. There is also the new 16 mm lense, 23 mm is a great lense from what I heard... I guess all three would be great for landscapes. There is hardly a dog in FUJI XF line to be honest, probably 18 mm pancake is a bit weaker than the rest.
  I have 35 mm and 56 mm primes, both are top, top glass, and also a little 27 mm pancake lense which is also very good, especially for street shooting, when you want it light and compact.


----------



## lbsu

I've got my new Fuji xt1 with 14 mm and 35 mm lenses. First impression I an very pleased with what i got. Can't wait to test it properly on the next weekend.


----------

