# Which System to Invest In?



## Centropolis (Aug 12, 2015)

I currently own two mirrorless "systems".

1) Olympus E-PL2 with 2 kit lenses and a Sigma DN 19mm f/2.8

2) Sony A6000 with kit PZ 16-50mm and a few Minolta MC/MD lenses

My question is not so much with which specific camera would be better, but rather, if you have a fresh start, would you invest in a micro 4/3 or a Sony APS-C E-mount system?  Assuming you don't have a ton of money to spend on both, would you rather buy better lenses for m43 or Sony E-Mount?

The reason why I ask is that I've read recently that Sony is "moving away" from APS-C development and focusing on FF.  This has me worried that if I spend good money on say the 16-70mm Zeiss f4 zoom, that in 3 years, there will not be any new E-Mount bodies to upgrade to.

On the other side, Oly and Panasonic seem to be moving fast and forward with the m4/3 system.

Any comments?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2015)

Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras Digital Photography Review

It's very difficult to fortell the future! Sony has introduced, is it _three_ different lens mounts, within the past decade. There is also Fuji, since you mentioned the idea of a fresh start. Fuji is another APS-C mirrorless option, but I see that even dPreview's writers are worried that Fuji has not modernized and moved to a 24 MP sensor or higher, and is seemingly stuck at 16 MP, in a world where 24 is the new norm, 36 MP has been here a while, Canon now has 50MP, and Sony's new 42MP sensor is set to hit soon in cameras from _______ and _____, and probably also from _____.

I dunno...I say buy what you actually LIKE. if you are worried about depreciation, then buy the lenses all used, and when the time comes to part ways, sell them off at whatever the market prices will bring, and you will not be too bad out of pocket.

Additionally, if one reads the dPReview article, it is laughable, utterly laughable, that Sony can somehow move into the lead of the "gross interchangeable lens market"...no way in Hell that Sony can knock Canon AND Nikon off their #1 and #2 positions...no way at all....utter pipe dreaming and simple PR bluster with that stated claim. Sony has shown that it cannot even commit to a strategy for more than two years at a time. I really do not think that Sony can abandon the lower- and mid-level mirrorless camera market, and make a living on only the high-end mirrorless market; that is NOT how the camera business actually works. For every $3,400 camera body sold, there are fifty $800 bodies sold...that is the way camera sales actually works.


----------



## runnah (Aug 12, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I really do not think that Sony can abandon the lower- and mid-level mirrorless camera market, and make a living on only the high-end mirrorless market; that is NOT how the camera business actually works. For every $3,400 camera body sold, there are fifty $800 bodies sold...that is the way camera sales actually works.



A normal company wouldn't do that but this is Sony we are talking about here. All bets are off when it comes to their decisions.

I still maintain that if they were smart they'd say screw it to their mounts and just release canon/nikon FF mounts.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2015)

What kind of photography do you do?

Unless you are into this in a huge way, buying lots and lot of lenses and stuff, this equipment is semi-disposable.


----------



## ak_ (Aug 12, 2015)

Centropolis said:


> The reason why I ask is that I've read recently that Sony is "moving away" from APS-C development and focusing on FF.  This has me worried that if I spend good money on say the 16-70mm Zeiss f4 zoom, that in 3 years, there will not be any new E-Mount bodies to upgrade to.
> 
> Any comments?



Can you do without AF? I agree, it's mainly all about the glass. And legacy glass seems enduringly adaptable (at least so far) - whether onto E mount or whatever follows. Tamron's Adaptall-2 allows me to use the same lenses on 4/3 and Nikon SLR, and I could shift onto other camera bodies with just another adaptor.


----------



## PropilotBW (Aug 12, 2015)

I'm really enjoying the Olympus m4/3 system.  I'm actually enjoying taking my camera places.  Plus they have Awesome pro lenses!!


----------



## ak_ (Aug 12, 2015)

Derrel said:


> For every $3,400 camera body sold, there are fifty $800 bodies sold...that is the way camera sales actually works.



Yes, and with Zeiss there are maybe ~1000:1 smartphone optics for every i/c camera lens sold.


----------



## Centropolis (Aug 13, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> What kind of photography do you do?
> 
> Unless you are into this in a huge way, buying lots and lot of lenses and stuff, this equipment is semi-disposable.



I am one of those people that doesn't really focus on any one or two types of photography.  So it's just general.  I am not heavily invested in any of the system yet.  But I want to make an informed decision and weight my options.  There seems to be more lens selection on the m43 system but there are more than enough e-mount lenses to cover most situations.  I am just worried that Sony will stop making new e-mount aps-c bodies in the near future.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2015)

[QUOTE="Centropolis"[/QUOTE] _I am one of those people that doesn't really focus on any one or two types of photography.  So it's just general.  I am not heavily invested in any of the systems yet.  But I want to make an informed decision and weigh my options.  There seems to be more lens selection on the m43 system but there are more than enough e-mount lenses to cover most situations.  I am just worried that Sony will stop making new e-mount aps-c bodies in the near future._[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure that m4/3 is the optimal choice for a generalist in photography; the image, the sensor, is rather small to begin with, so that limits the camera's higher ISO capabilities and the cropping capability of the files; I think APS-C is a sweeter spot, a better format, for the generalist. Lens SIZE and weight is one thing a lot of people seem to say they want to keep small, and I get that as far as pancake primes for m4/3--there are many small,light lenses for m4/3. And the lenses are brand-agnostic...Panasonic and Olympus and the Panasonic and Leica-branded lenses, as well as other brands, can be interchanged among the various m4/3 cameras, which is I think the real strength and allure of the m4/3 cameras. THAT is what makes the m4/3 format cameras so appealing,at least to me: lens options and lots of body brand and model choices.

With Sony, one is allied with only a one-man band. Same with the Fuji X-mount...there are no other options for cameras or lenses with those two brands of cameras.

With Nikon, you can use any of their crop-format lenses on their FX format cameras, and vice-versa, which makes a dual format Nikon system a possibility, with something small and light and cheap, like a D3200 or D3300, or a D5500, PLUS a larger camera, like a D610 or a $1700 used D800 another option. Nikon has made some fairly good strides in video performance in the D5xxx line, as I understand it.

Lens wise--it seems to me that there's too much worry about what the camera company might do; I say just BUY a whole kit,*from ANY brand*, and use it, and stop worrying what the company might or might not do. Lenses last for 15,20 years most of the time. I have 15+ year-old Nikon AF lenses now...still working...I suspect the better lenses from Sony will last as long, and the best-quality Sony/Zeiss lenses ought to last 20+ years. I think you need to worry less about the camera-maker, and more about what you can buy right now, and let the future take care of itself. It's easy to get wrapped up in analysis: paralysis by over-analysis. Might be time to stop the marginal utility analysis/rational consumer behavior and just buy a kit and start enjoying it. Best of luck to you!


----------



## PropilotBW (Aug 17, 2015)

Great post^^^


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 17, 2015)

yes, don't worry be happy

I use both DSLR and mirrorless




Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## thereyougo! (Aug 21, 2015)

Digital photography is great.  It enables you to see what you are shooting, but there are downsides.  I think that discussion so often get down to specifications.  There is a regular poster on another forum, who has been posting for two years saying he wants to get a camera to shoot landscapes.  He has posted 4,000 posts on the forum, not an image in all of those (which is of course his prerogative).  The closest he gets to posting an image are resolution charts and other technical charts.  He has spent so long dithering about the theoretical possibilities that he's lost the plot entirely on what photography is meant to be about.  

Go to some stores try out some cameras and see which one suits you best, in usability and in rendition.  Take an sd card with you, and take the images home and see which suits your style most.  To an extent, most digital images can be manipulated to create certain looks but individual makes sometimes have particular looks.  Don't look at charts, look at images you take and process.  

Different formats have different trade offs.  Generally APS-C has more flexibility than M3/4 but see what suits you.  It's no good picking one system then leaving it at home most of the time.  Pick something you will definitely shoot with...


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 26, 2015)

Hrr, hrr. Predictions are hard ... especially about the future. I honestly dont know whats coming. Will DSLRs die ? The doomsayers have so far been proven drastically wrong. Olympus said a while ago they could switch to full frame in the future because at least back then, MFT wasnt profitable for them. So will MFT go on ? I dont know.

MFT is 13x17.33mm, APS-C is ~24x16mm, Full Frame is ~36x24mm. Obviously theres no point in owning both MFT and APS-C as mirrorless. The sensor size difference is just not big enough.

Personally I would drop the Sony E (APS-C) system because it is STILL poorly supported by Sony, despite being on the market since about half a decade now. The lens selection is simply awful, both few options and those that exist are either costy or of really poor quality or quite often even both. The test site LenScore for example keeps Sony E glas very consistently at the end of their performance charts.

The system I'm using right now is Nikon F (full frame) - and if I had to choose a system right now, thats what I would pick again, because of best performance, no real weakness, very good lens selection with only few stinkers. But Nikon F (APS-C) is already suffering from a quite less than satisfying lens selection, but then again they have some really good glas really cheap (18-105mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens, 35mm f1.8 bright prime, 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 telephoto zoom)

The other systems I personally would consider would be Canon EOS (full frame; APS-C suffers from the same issues as Nikon, though they have a very important affordable 10-18mm wide angle option as well), Fuji X, and finally MFT. Sony FE (i.e. full frame Sony E, currently only the A7* cameras) might join this club at a later point; right now there are still to many issues on secondary categories.

In your shoes (lack of money) I would keep the MFT system. MFTs advantage is the great cameras and the very high quality lenses for it. Also these lenses are often surprisingly affordable


----------

