[stoppingdown]

Hi guys.

 

Since this is my first post here, first I feel I have to thank you for the things you do, which have helped me since quite a few time in making my lens buy decisions.

 

I'm a long time Nikonian (13 years) and I'm evaluating the mirrorless world for a number of reasons, the primary one being the need of reducing weigh, at least in some circumstances, because of my increasing back pains (even in the perspective of the next 10/20 years). I shoot landscape and wildlife and the mirrorless evaluation, at the moment, only involves the former, as I don't see any mirrorless system that can at least equate the IQ of my Nikkor AF-S 300 f/4. One fundamental condition for the switch, in fact, is that I don't want to give up with IQ, on the contrary I'd like to increase it, if possible.

 

I've first done some paperwork, collecting evaluations, and then narrowed down the possible choices to m4/3 and Sony. With the lenses I have in mind, the m4/3 solutions are as heavy or possibly heavier than my current landscape setup (based on a Nikon D5100). So, I've decided to try with Sony - also considering that in any case I have to buy and try for some time, and eventually sell back if I'm not satisfied, and a NEX-6 + Sigma 35mm f/2.8 was a not too expensive combination.

 

In a first phase I'm just going to evaluate the NEX camera, that is understand if I like it and how it operates (so a decent lens is good enough). In a second phase I'll replace the lens with a Sony 35mm f/1.8 and start comparing it with the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8. If the thing goes on, it will then be the turn of the AF-S 12-24mm f/4 vs Sony E 4/10-18mm OSS and AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5-7/AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 vs Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 (hoping that by that time the doubts about its QA have been dissipated).

 

The kind of comparative evaluation I'm interested into is visual, and possibly at the end of the workflow (with Lightroom), that is with software corrections applied, since it's the way I use my lenses. After buying the equipment I'll run the tests myself and share the results, but at the moment I'd appreciate some pointers to existing NEX vs Nikkor tests already run, just to avoid a useless buy if possible.   But also opinions, if you have one, will be appreciated as well.

 

Thanks. 

[Brightcolours]

Why do you say that an m4/3s solution will be heavier than your current set up? I find that a bit odd (does not mean that you are not right).

 

And with your back problems, do you want to shoot at an arms length, or with a view finder?

[stoppingdown]

It is odd, indeed, and totally unexpected - I was really going for m4/3 (also because of the wider lens gamma), but then I did the maths and found:

 

Nikon D5100 + Nikkor 12-24mm ƒ/4G DX AF-S = 1045g
Olympus E-M1+ Lumix G Vario 7-14mm ƒ/4 = 797g
Olympus E-M5 + Lumix G Vario 7-14mm ƒ/4 = 725g
Sony NEX-6 + Sony E 4/10-18mm OS = 568g
 
Nikon D5100 + Nikkor 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5G ED DX AF-S = 950g
Olympus E-M1 + Zuiko 12-60mm ƒ/2.8-4 = 1072g
Olympus E-M5 + Zuiko 12-60mm ƒ/2.8-4 = 1000g
Sony NEX-6 + Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm ƒ/4 = 651g
 
The latter combination is the one I most frequently use for landscapes, and with m4/3 is substantially equal in weigh (actually, 50/100g heavier). But even in the former combination there's a clear Sony advantage in weigh. How this happens, it's still a mystery to me, but in the end the Zuiko 12-60mm is heavy (in relative terms). The Zuiko 12-50mm is lighter, but it looks as it's optically bad from some reviews. The two Olympus look as they are the only m4/3 camera bodies whose quality is substantially equal to my D5100 (M5) or possibly superior (M1).
 

<div>Viewfinder all the way. 
 
</div>

[thxbb12]

It is odd, indeed, and totally unexpected - I was really going for m4/3 (also because of the wider lens gamma), but then I did the maths and found:

 

Nikon D5100 + Nikkor 12-24mm ƒ/4G DX AF-S = 1045g
Olympus E-M1+ Lumix G Vario 7-14mm ƒ/4 = 797g
Olympus E-M5 + Lumix G Vario 7-14mm ƒ/4 = 725g
Sony NEX-6 + Sony E 4/10-18mm OS = 568g
 
Nikon D5100 + Nikkor 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5G ED DX AF-S = 950g
Olympus E-M1 + Zuiko 12-60mm ƒ/2.8-4 = 1072g
Olympus E-M5 + Zuiko 12-60mm ƒ/2.8-4 = 1000g
Sony NEX-6 + Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm ƒ/4 = 651g
 
The latter combination is the one I most frequently use for landscapes, and with m4/3 is substantially equal in weigh (actually, 50/100g heavier). But even in the former combination there's a clear Sony advantage in weigh. How this happens, it's still a mystery to me, but in the end the Zuiko 12-60mm is heavy (in relative terms). The Zuiko 12-50mm is lighter, but it looks as it's optically bad from some reviews. The two Olympus look as they are the only m4/3 camera bodies whose quality is substantially equal to my D5100 (M5) or possibly superior (M1).
 

<div>Viewfinder all the way. 
 
</div>

 

Getting the 12-60 for MFT makes little sense. Why not getting the 12-40 f/2.8 instead? Sure, it's a bit shorter, but the IQ seems to pretty very good.

If I were you, this is the kit I'd consider:

 

Olympus 9-18 (155 g.)

Olympus 12-40 (380 g.)

Olympus 40-150 (or Pany 45-150) (190 g.)

 

The 9-18 is much smaller and lighter than the Panasonic 7-14 while accepting filters. It's slower, but in terms of IQ the difference doesn't seem to be that great.

 

Total weight: 1220 g. I think you'll be hard pressed to find something that weighs so little while being so small...

[Brightcolours]

I too would look at the 12-40mm f2.8 instead, if looking at MFT.

 

Another lighter alternative from an unexpected "angle":

Canon EOS 100D:  407 grams

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM: 368 grams

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM: 205 grams

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS STM; 375 grams

 

So that makes for UWA combination: 775 grams (1024 grams for your current setup).

For the standard zoom combination: 612 grams (vs. 950 grams).

And the 55-250mm may just approach the IQ from your 300mm f4, while being a LOT lighter. And offering IS.

Total weight  just 1355 grams.

 

While being a tad more heavy than the NEX combination and the above mentioned Olympus combination, you still have an OVF (something I personally value). But that may not be an important aspect for you.

[stoppingdown]

Thanks for the feedback. Honestly, I didn't evaluate Canon: there are multiple reasons for switching (or maybe just evaluating to switch), one of these is that I think that mirrorless is the future. EVF might be not yet on par with OVF now, but I think that in a couple of years it could be more valuable than OVF - it's not just a matter of weigh, but also the capability of zooming in the VF, seeing a closer version of the image to what will be the final photo, etc... In any case, it's something that I'd like to try on the field, that's why I've restricted the possible switch to the mirrorless world.

 

For what concerns the other suggestions, including the Olympus lenses, I looked at some of these. Generically speaking, all of my current lenses have a minimum focal of f/1.8-2.8 (for primes, excluding the 300) and f/4 for zooms (the f/3.5-4.5 is substantially very close to a f/4). I don't want to go with lenses with a worse minimum aperture (and for what concerns m4/3, it should be really one stop better, for equivalence reasons, even though I could give up in some cases). It's true that with landscapes it shouldn't matter... perhaps here a spin-off discussion should start.

 

Furthermore, the Olympus 12-40 F2.8 has not been reviewed yet, neither at PZ nor at DxO, so for me is substantially a question mark. Three lenses to replace two lenses is not a bit step forward (I mean, I'm not excluding it in the end if it's the only solution, but I'd like first to explore a solution with only two lenses - it's also a matter of costs).

 

As I've said, the m4/3 has not been excluded yet; should Sony fail, I'd sell back the stuff and try with m4/3. It's just that this possibility now is postponed at least to the beginning of 2014, supposing that I'll take a couple of months for decently evaluating the Sony system. In any case, I'm happy to get feedback even for other solutions; I'll write down the suggestions.

[stoppingdown]

... also, while for the next upcoming 12 months my aim is to verify whether it's feasible a replacement of my current lenses, I'd like a lot, in future, the capability of mounting virtually any kind of lens via adapter, and perhaps to buy some "oldies-but-goodies" lens; that's why Canon is not an option, and any mirrorless would be.

[Brightcolours]

... also, while for the next upcoming 12 months my aim is to verify whether it's feasible a replacement of my current lenses, I'd like a lot, in future, the capability of mounting virtually any kind of lens via adapter, and perhaps to buy some "oldies-but-goodies" lens; that's why Canon is not an option, and any mirrorless would be.

That is fine, you have your own priorities. I just mentioned the Canon because of its OVF.

 

Meanwhile I'll use my Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8, Nikkor-Q 135mm f3.5, Nikkor-S 50mm f2, Micro-Nikkor AUTO 55mm f3.5 and 55mm f2.8 AI-S, Ultra Micro Nikkor 55mm f2 (and soonish my Ultra Micro Nikkor 28mm f1.8) on  my Canon  

And hopefully soon my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 after arrival and conversion

 

(Kidding, i know you can mount rangefinder lenses on the NEX of course)