Small cameras for serious photographers

Having recently bought a new camera, I am still riding the excitement wave and I continue to spend a lot of time thinking about photos I want to take and reading online about photography (equipment, tips and looking at great photos by others). As part of this excitement, here is another post about photography - on equipment which I believe hasn't been getting as much attention as it deserves.

If you want to take seriously good pictures, you'll be most likely be recommended a DSLR, most probably a Nikon or a Canon. Which is not wrong at all as both companies make excellent cameras at all price ranges. The sales figures reflect this - entry level Canon and Nikon DSLRs are among the largest selling cameras in the world.

But I've seen many people complain that these cameras are bigger than they would like to carry everywhere. These people not professional photographers, so its not like they lose money by not carrying their cameras. What they lose is a number of interesting opportunities to get a good photograph. And even for pros sometimes smaller size helps.

Thus, I've compiled a list of some great recent cameras that can replace your DSLRs giving your similar image quality and many other features at similar price, but are much more smaller. All these cameras are 'mirrorless' which means that they don't have a mirror to reflect the image formed by the lens into the optical viewfinder of an SLR (this is the definition of an Single Lens Reflex cameras), and this is what makes them small. To compose the image, only electronic finder is made available - which is either just the LCD on the back or sometimes an EVF (Electronic View Finder) which is useful in bright light. The reason they offer image quality at similar level to modern DSLRs is because of their large sensors (read more about sensor sizes here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm).

Here is a comparison of the camera I bought, the Olympus E-M5, with the Canon Rebel DSLR, for size. The cameras listed below are similar in size to the E-M5 or even smaller.

Photo credit - dpreview.com

The camera names in headings below are linked to the dpreview.com review page of that camera.

Panasonic G3

Belonging to the Micro Four Thirds standard (for which Olympus also makes cameras), this is one of the best value cameras that exist in the market. It is a traditional DSLR styled camera which has an integrated EVF. It has a 16 MP sensor which has really image quality - almost as good as DSLRs like Nikon D5100. One of the best things about Micro Four Thirds standard is that the lenses for this system are also very small. One of the most highly recommended lenses is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, which is so small, its called a 'pancake' lens!

Sony NEX-5N

This the mid range model in the Sony's relatively new NEX range. It has a 16MP APS-C size sensor (same as Nikon DX size) and its image quality is thus just as good as the Nikon or Canon DSLRs and slightly better than the Panasonic G3 above. But the downsides include no inbuilt EVF and that the lenses are not quite as small as the cameras itself. The lens range is also a bit small right now. Overall, though, this has some of the best image quality for the money and size, and its no wonder it got a Gold award from dpreview.com.

Nikon J1

This is the Nikon's entry in the mirrorless market and has its own pros and cons. It uses a 1" sensor which is smaller than both Micro Four Thirds and APS-C sensors. It makes do with 10MP whereas most of its competitors have 12 or 16 MP (but I believe 10MP is enough for most), and its low light image quality is not as good either. Though, it's still a big step up from the compact cameras which have much smaller sensors and is good enough for indoor photography. Its biggest plus point is its picture taking speed and its Auto Focus system - its blazing fast and gets you accurately focused pictures even when your subject is moving fast or erratically.

Sony RX100

This is the latest camera from Sony and isn't even available for purchase yet. It features a 1" sensor like the Nikon J1, and packs 20MP instead of 10 in the Nikon. But unlike other cameras mentioned here, it has a fixed lens. Early reports suggest that its image quality is very good. Among other things Sony emphasizes is its control system (the ring around the lens rotates to change settings like shutter speed or aperture) and its fast Auto Focus speeds. Of course, the real reason to consider this camera is that it packs all that in a really small size - its in the same league as compact cameras like Canon S100, Panasonic LX5 or Olympus XZ-1. If you didn't think you'd ever buy other lenses with DSLRs or want a second camera to take carry everywhere, this looks like the best option currently available.

Why I bought the Olympus E-M5 instead of Nikon D7000?

After thinking about what camera to buy for the last week or so, I bought the Olympus E-M5. This means a shift of systems for me because I've been using a Nikon D40 for last 5 years. I currently have 3 AF Nikon mount lenses: Sigma 18-200mm, Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro (which I use for portrait), all bought within last 2 years. Plus a couple of old MF lenses: 50mm f/1.8 and 75-150mm f/3.5 E series lenses which I occasionally use. It would seem foolish to change systems, especially considering the excellence of latest Nikon cameras.

Why, then, did I still decide to change my primary system? Simply because I wanted a camera which is with me more of the times and allows me to the take good pictures in all situations. The olympus got chosen over D7000 mainly because its much smaller. I currently also own the Olympus E-PL1 (which I'll obviously sell now). Though I don't like that camera much as compared to Nikon D40 (slower and erratic AF, slightly worse high ISO image quality), I carry that camera more often simply because its small. E-M5 is very similar in size. Both E-M5 and D7000 are better than D40 in other respects:

• Magnesium alloy weather sealed body. Twice the Nikon D40 has given up on me at crucial moments because it got wet (Hogenakkal falls and Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe incident is the reason I had to buy E-PL1). The E-M5 feels very solid and a bit heavy for its size.
• Larger, higher resolution screen on the back.
• Much faster AF and more focus points for manual selection. Having only 3 focus points in D40 is a frequent pain. The AF speed on E-M5 is simply amazing!
• Olympus EVF is better to have than the Nikon D40 viewfinder - its bigger, brighter and shows a lot more info. Of course, the D7000 viewfinder trumps all and is one of the ways Nikon beats the Olympus.
• Live view, with Olympus having a tiltable screen. Helps when camera is mounted on tripod. Also helps in rare situations when I need to focus manually. Olympus actually has a touchscreen which has touch to click feature - I predict this will be frequently used in studio when camera is on tripod. Right now, though, it  only helps takes pictures when I don't want to, so I've assigned it to touch to focus.
• Video is not high on my priority list, but there have been times I wanted a video and had to use my phone even when I had the D40.
• Another feature I don't usually use but can be helpful: Faster continuous shooting rates (6fps on Nikon, 9fps on Olympus).

Of course, one of the biggest reasons for upgrade is the image quality. And that's the critical reason why Olympus got chosen. It's image quality is almost there with Nikon D7000. And Nikon D7000 probably has the best image quality for APS-C sensors (only the new Fujifilm X-Pro1 beats it convincingly). And for me, its more than adequate. Had Olympus put the same sensor as E-PL1 in E-M5, it would've never made the cut. I am not looking for the last iota of improvement in image quality, but rather the other usability features of the camera as long as an image quality bar is met. First impressions suggest that the image quality improvement is no magic bullet as I had assumed before buying. But still, ISO 3200-4000 should see regular use and ISO 5000 is also pretty usable. The picture below is at ISO 5000 (RAW, has seen minor adjustments for tone and colour, plus a little bit of noise reduction in Lightroom).

IIT Madras junta at the Biere Club in Bangalore

There are other factors:

• Lens selection: Nikon simply walks over Micro Four Thirds (MFT) here. But crucially, if I had the money and I wanted to buy 4 lenses right now, MFT has all of them (20mm f/1.7, 40-150mm f/4-5.6, 45mm f/1.8, 7-14mm f/4 if my budget ever allows). The shining stars of Nikon lens range are anyways hopelessly out of my budget (like 85mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2)
• Image Stabilization/Vibration Reduction: Olympus has in body system which works with all lenses. And the implementation in E-M5 is excellent and as good as VR in most Nikon lenses. Combined with lack of mirror shake and the high ISO capabilities over Nikon D40, I think I am able to take usable shots in light levels 3-4 EV less than before. The picture below was taken handheld, with elbows resting on a table, at 1s shutter speed! Its a JPEG out of the camera with a bit of colour correction.
• Battery life: Nikon will usually not consume power for framing with its optical finder, but Olympus always does with its electronic finder. This makes Nikon last upto 3 times longer on a battery charge. Something I'll have to live with by buying backup batteries (I've also started to keep at least one backup camera on trips where photography is important).

Just after purchasing the camera, at Blue Ginger restaurant in Bangalore. The actual light levels were much darker than what it looks like in the image above.

I wondered that if money was no object, what camera system would I buy if I could own only one. Nothing from Nikon because anything better than D7000 is also bigger. Similarly no to Canon. Fujifilm X-Pro1 would've been a great option, but it doesn't have a standard zoom right now, its slow AF speed can be frustrating and has no built in flash. Compact cameras have poor image quality, medium format is way too large, bad in low light etc. Pentax Q has almost compact like image quality, and its K-01 is too large for mirrorless. Sony's NEX range is good and its especially tempting to use M mount lenses with the help of its focus peaking feature, but has very few good (and large) E system lenses and no weather sealed body (it was the closest competitor though). Leica M9 maybe? Lack of AF lenses and zooms have multiple problems - zoom and AF are user friendly and it also means I can't assume anyone else will be able to use the camera (sometimes, I like being in the photograph too :-) ). Don't judge me negatively here - I like using primes and manual focus if its well implemented, but would feel constrained if they were the only choice for the only camera I own. Thus, it seems the camera I bought is the best camera in the money no object scenario!

I'm still keeping my Nikon kit. I would never get rid of Nikon D40 I suppose, it has become an emotional attachment now, being the primary moment capturing device for the last 5 years. Also, it's working as well as when it was new, even after getting dunked in water twice. As for the lenses, I still have hope that Nikon will someday give me a smaller body to attach those to (Nikon 1 doesn't count). Or if I get richer, I may be invested in 2 upto date systems at the same time. I will sell the 18-200mm though, I don't expect it to see any use now.

Lastly, buying a new camera has made me excited over photography again. My studio equipment was lying unused for months but this week I started to practise again. Equipment might not be the biggest reason behind quality photos, but it does motivate the photographer if it's enjoyable to use.