Photoclubalpha

Their APS-C range seems stuck with the same compact body, which as you say isn't going to work that well when using any moderate to larger lens. I've no idea why they keep so many models around, yes they are cheaper but not nearly as cheap as they should be. The A6000 came out 5 years + ago. Only time I would consider E mount is for lens testing purposes, I Might over time expand that - (ie YouTube stuff I do) and maybe other makers later on. I did try a few...they are not cameras I like using, the A7II I played with; didn't really do much for me handling and ergonomics wise.

It's just a block with a grip shoved on, being blunt about it. Controls are cramped and the grip wasn't that nice to hold. If you don't like holding a camera that's a big problem. I might have been critical of some of Sony's Canon look copying on A mount -but all the cameras have vastly superior design/ergonomics. Even the old A77 is just a nice camera to hold. Ergonomics seem to have been completely lost on E mount -it's just another reason to skip them

Trouble is with E mount, there is a mine field of good and not so good lenses lenses and all expensive regardless of how good or bad they are. With A mount you can build a system relatively cheaply if you include some of the Minolta/Konica lenses, even some budget Sony lenses perform quite well.

I did not like and still do not like the Sony APS-C cameras as much as I tried to like them. Now DK went for Olympus, I went for a four lens Fuji outfit and which apart from the 50 - 140 zoom fit into a pretty small bag. My major purchase for the year was the newish X-T 3 at the recent Fuji sale at 1/3 of the announced cost of the A7r IV.

Since buying the Fuji I honestly can't see myself actually buying any new A mount cameras regardless of whether Sony tries to keep these alive.

classiccameras wrote:Trouble is with E mount, there is a mine field of good and not so good lenses lenses and all expensive regardless of how good or bad they are. With A mount you can build a system relatively cheaply if you include some of the Minolta/Konica lenses, even some budget Sony lenses perform quite well.

Let's be frank you can build a system on A mount for absolute peanuts, compared to most other mounts.
Pentax doesn't have a fraction of the AF lenses out there, mostly MF ones. Canikon are in more demand (there are some bargains there if you look); no other mount has such deals. Unless you go mirrorless with adapters on vintage stuff ie manual focus

I would have a bit more interest in Fuji if they had sensor based IS, only one body does. KM were onto something big with that anti shake - far far more useful to me than many other snazzy modern features.

bfitzgerald wrote: I would have a bit more interest in Fuji if they had sensor based IS, only one body does. KM were onto something big with that anti shake - far far more useful to me than many other snazzy modern features.

Yes, I agree. For me the 3 things that have been the biggest improvements with cameras since I started using them in the 1960s are:

- AF
- digital
- IBIS

High fps, composite modes, video, and the thousands of other little things here and there that all the companies keep adding are just not of much interest to me. Most of them I have zero interest in. I realize that for some people they are important though.

My first IBIS camera was the KM 7D in 2005. That was the main reason I bought it. I have since had the Sony A100, A700, Olympus E-M5, E-M10, E-M10II, and PEN-F with IBIS too. I also had the Canon 300D, 30D, and 60D without IBIS, but I had an ILIS lens or two. Not a good substitute for IBIS for me though. Limited choice of lenses, lenses usually bigger because of ILIS, etc.

I much prefer IBIS such as Sony, Olympus, Pentax,

Barry, question, what attracts you to Fuji, I had an X-10 and the picture quality was superb and it was stabilised. Bakubo makes a very valid point and I agree, there are too many gimmicks features and settings on these cameras for me any way, some might like all that but as a point and shoot stills person they are just not needed and just over complicate the camera

Fuji have some good ideas. I did try some of the earlier ones XE1 and XM1. The lack of VF is a show stopper for me so I got shot of the XM1. The XE1 was not good at all for adapting lenses (I had the A to X mount adapter). You can't see what the exposure result is unless you are half pressed on the shutter - just not practical so I sold that too. It also had massive EVF lag in lower light, huge making it unusable for that decisive moment!

Maybe the newer ones are better I would hope so. It is inevitable I would adapt lenses to use on any mirrorless, thus fairly important it works well. That to one side the image are quite nice from the XE1 even jpegs. Some of their lenses are quite good, some have a bit rough background blur it varies.

I'm not hugely interested in Fuji right now, later on I may try a more recent body. The lack of IS in body is a major downer, only the XH1 has it. It's not that likely I would invest in an APS-C only system, I think Fuji's prices are a bit on the high side for crop lenses. They just don't have any budget stuff apart from a few kit lenses - that will probably hurt them long term. If they can get their prices down I might re-consider, but it's a non starter without IS in body. Strangely even Sony only have one APS-C camera with steadyshot, even the new A6400 has nothing.

Saw this about Fuji yesterday:

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.c ... undup.html

They both make reasonable points, though this time I tend to agree more with Thom. Clearly APS-C can only be priced at a certain level, and if my memory is correct the XH-1 was a hefty almost £2000 price tag at launch. Bit of a non starter and unrealistic
Boils down to different folks look for their own needs/wants. Speaking as a long time APS-C users, who also used quite a lot of FF lenses. I have both, though most of my lenses are for 35mm. I'd be somewhat reluctant to buy into Fuji at their current pricing. Bodies and lenses, but more on the lenses side of things - it's just not that attractive v what DSLR users have had (ie affordable 35/50 and some 85mm optics)> Mix in a lack of third party lenses (hello Tamron 17-50mm good lens at a very reasonable price)

That's just my take, if I were invested in nothing - situation might be different. But I probably would go for an EOS RP with in body IS v a Fuji XT3

I'm getting more and more impressed with Panasonic, I use a FZ330 bridge for a lot of my picture taking and its a joy to use, I can't fault the exposure or focusing and a fab EVF. Jpeg Colours remind me very much of the old Olympus E mount cameras such as my E-510 which use Panasonic sensors, I wonder if there is some legacy there. I might go for a G6 or G7 body and build a small system round that. I already have a M/4/3 Olympus OMD EM 10 but I prefer the Panasonic colours, and the G6 was so much easier to operate up at your eye. So that will be part of the trade in. Other than that, a used A mount such as a A37 or A57 HAS not been forgotten if I decide to stay with APS-C

If you already have lenses for micro 4/3, then it makes sense to stick with that. I don't know what you have A Mount wise -the A57 is pretty cheap s/h and a fairly solid performer. Least I still use mine on a regular basis (more than the A77 at times)
I knew a former A mount shooter ie KM5D and A700 - who moved to Canon EOS -built up a system for wildlife/birding mostly. He's now sold his FF Canon stuff - and uses micro 4/3. Said it was getting too heavy for him, he's in his 70's

I'm not using long/big/heavy tele lenses, so the weight difference I can easily make up. A99 isn't small, though not quite as heavy as others. The Minolta lenses are mostly small/compact/lightweight - Canon's stuff was always fairly hefty, and the FF mirrorless lenses have no advantage is size/weight v DSLR optics. I may toy with another mount, reality is it's a pain. Even simple things like one battery across all the bodies - using multiple systems has it's drawbacks.

Well I'm the wrong side of 65 so smaller and lighter is now my aim. Yes indeed, Canon have always been hefty but solid as well, same with Nikon. as I said, I have the Olympus OMD-EM-10 and prefer the small Panasonic 12-32 F/3.5 as my basic kit lens, it out performs the Olympus kit in nearly every aspect. Many of the Olympus consumer lenses are under performers a couple outrageously bad unlike Panasonic where you get a decent lens for around the same price. Olympus need to up their game with the consumer glass

So I might build my kit round M/4/3, I prefer the Panasonic bodies as they are ergonomically nicer to hold and operate, they are more like miniature DSLR's. The 12-32 will do as my wide/standard lens so one other lens with a moderate tele zoom is the next step. Talking of Canon, I have had my 650D for a long time and its image quality is hard to beat, but its now in semi retirement. I guess at the end of the day we need to consolidate

I've little experience of micro 4/3 bar the Lumix I played with briefly - the kit lens did seem to be pretty good, for a kit lens
Run with what works for you, we're all different in terms of needs. I don't take any notice of the Northrup "this is dead" videos be it A mount or micro 4/3, Pentax etc. Olympus used to have a good rep for lenses, back in 35mm days no idea about recent times
I'm staying put as I say, what I have does the job. The cost of moving mount/mirrorless is excessive and not worth it for me personally. No point selling those lenses I've spent long enough trying different ones, so I know what delivers/works well. If I start over I've to re-build a system, costly and time consuming trying to find what I like.

If I were starting from scratch what would I buy (ie have nothing). I really have no idea at all - nothing much grabs me at this time

As I said its very tempting to build a small kit round Micro/4/3, as I already have a Olympus OMD EM-10, but prefer Panasonic but I'm still pondering whether to either go with M/4/3 or APS-C, both have good and bad points. I think my other half gave me the best advice keep the EM-10 and get a couple of lenses that suits your needs, however, the choice is very small compared to APS-C and expensive by comparison. It seems you have got what you need and like and its best to stay with it.

What Minolta/Sony A stuff do you have though? Reason I say is you can still pick up the smaller bodies s/h. That's why I didn't bail out, too much value around right now on A Mount. Even for crop users - bodies and lenses are silly cheap.
Whilst I wouldn't 100% suggest someone new goes for A mount (def not buying high end G stuff new), it still has serious appeal - loads of lenses and bodies around tons of them, and some are excellent optically

If I went to any other mount, it would be much more costly. Even micro 4/3. That wouldn't bother me, but I can't get some of those lenses on other mounts. Unless you wanted to use an adapter, for the 2 x crop fine for tele, less appealing wider end.
I will probably add another a99 at some point - quirks aside it's a bargain. I did consider the A900 for some OVF fun, waiting for prices to drop down more.