Nikon D5100 to Micro 4/3 or NEX, etc?

[aphex]

As much as I love my Nikon D5100 as I use it with my 35mm f/1.8 about 99% of the time, I can't help but wonder if I should sell it all and go for a micro 4/3, Sony NEX (or similar equivalent) system with a similar lens just for sheer portability.

Anyone contemplated a similar switch? Which ones to look into?

 

[dougp]

I've thought about it, but don't think I can get the return I want on my a33 and lenses to make it worth switching.

 

[AkumaX]

As much as I love my Nikon D5100 as I use it with my 3.5mm f/1.8 about 99% of the time, I can't help but wonder if I should sell it all and go for a micro 4/3, Sony NEX (or similar equivalent) system with a similar lens just for sheer portability.

Anyone contemplated a similar switch? Which ones to look into?

You mean 35mm f/1.8 right? 😛

Not sure if there's an NEX-equivalent for that lens. There's a bunch of f/2.8 lenses though (sony 16mm f/2.8 and sigma 30mm f/2.8). Just keep a DSLR and ILC, haha. Don't forget that the NEX has the same APS-C sensor (1.6x), whereas other m4/3 is 2.0x

 

[aphex]

You mean 35mm f/1.8 right? 😛

Not sure if there's an NEX-equivalent for that lens. There's a bunch of f/2.8 lenses though (sony 16mm f/2.8 and sigma 30mm f/2.8). Just keep a DSLR and ILC, haha. Don't forget that the NEX has the same APS-C sensor (1.6x), whereas other m4/3 is 2.0x

oops, edited, thx.

I dunno, even with the small size of my D5100, there has been a number of times I've just decided not to take it with me so i didn't have to worry about carrying it around.

The NEX with that 16mm would indeed be quite a bit smaller, but i dunno.

 

[Syborg1211]

The d5100 with 35mm isn't that much larger than the NEX or 4/3. Maybe you just need to find the right carrying bag so that it's not such a hassle. I've never understood the appeal of a NEX or 4/3 over a DSLR since all those cameras are still not pocketable. If you have to carry a camera bag or carrying case either way, then is the extra size really that big of a concern at that point?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

m4/3 with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is right up your alley. Luckily, DPReview had similar thoughts and paired up almost the exact comparison!

Panasonic GF1 with 20/1.7 vs. Nikon D3000 with 35/1.8

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/2

The Panny with lens is about the same depth as the D3000 body alone. I would imagine that your D5100 is a bit bigger than the D3000, too. While it certainly wouldn't fit in every pocket, I think that it would fit easily in most jacket pockets, or cargo pockets on pants. Certainly a pocket is more of an option with a m4/3 body and this lens than with any DSLR (and the D3000 is the smallest DSLR that I've ever held, personally). In fact, if you carried the lens and body detached (with appropriate caps, of course) then I think they should slide separately into jeans pockets without too much trouble.

The weight of the GF1 body+battery and 20mm lens is given as 15.8oz. The weight of the D5100 body+battery (no lens included) is 19.75oz. The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 is another 7.4oz for a total of roughly 27oz, or close to double that of the Panasonic combo. I would imagine that even wearing this combo on a strap around your neck would be much less tiring than a DSLR (but then I'm used to my 5D + 24-105 which comes in at a whopping 3.5lbs -- double the D5100+30mm combo -- and which gives me a neck/back ache pretty quickly when carried around the neck, which I try to avoid).

(Note, I'm not necessarily saying to get the GF1, but just using it as representative of what's possible in m4/3 bodies. If I were to buy a m4/3 system today, the 20mm f/1.7 would be a definite must-buy; but the choice of a body would take some time and consideration. I definitely like the fact that both Panasonic and Olympus make competing bodies and lenses that are interchangeable, rather than being locked into one vendor like with Sony NEX or Nikon 1. I also happen to think that the m4/3 sensor size is a great compromise for small-ish ILC cameras, with the APS-C NEX line being too big and the Nikon 1 being too small.)

 

[Munky]

What you need is a pocketable camera that can be carried unobtrusively, and m43 or Sony NEX isn't it. Maybe the Panasonic GX1 with the collapsible zoom or compact prime can fit into a coat pocket, but there will still be times when it will be too bulky and you'll leave it behind. The Sony 16mm pancake is a bad focal length for a general use prime, and its optical performance is not even in the same league as the Nikon 35/1.8.

 

[ElFenix]

i carried a canon rangefinder in a jacket pocket last vacation. wasn't difficult though i wouldn't want to wear a jacket in a jungle (though i have carried this camera through SE asia). it's about 120 (132 including strap lugs) x 75 (82 to the top of the shutter button) x 33 (well, 68 including the lens and cap). that's actually not much bigger than a GX1 with the 20/1.7 attached. losing 200 grams by carrying the 4/3 camera would be nice (though i was also carrying my LX3 which added another 265 grams. iow, i could have carried 2 GX1s and lenses).


agreed that 16 is just too short for general use. sony saw that wide was selling so went too far.

 

[CptObvious]

I sold my big DSLR (5D) for something smaller. I bought the Fuji X100 but returned it because of its horribly inconsistent AF on any non-stationary subject, and found the NEX-5N to be about the same. I now use the D5100 with the 35 1.8G and have not found anything better yet. I don't want to go for a smaller sensor than APS-C and CD-AF isn't quite there yet on mirrorless IMO.

Agreed about just using a smaller bag. I use this http://www.adorama.com/KADB453.html and it's inexpensive, very well-made and light, and can hold a couple of lenses. Another more expensive and slightly bigger, but more discreet bag, at Best Buy: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/SwissGe...848&skuId=1150656&st=swissgear zinc&cp=1&lp=1

 

[aylafan]

The d5100 with 35mm isn't that much larger than the NEX or 4/3. Maybe you just need to find the right carrying bag so that it's not such a hassle. I've never understood the appeal of a NEX or 4/3 over a DSLR since all those cameras are still not pocketable. If you have to carry a camera bag or carrying case either way, then is the extra size really that big of a concern at that point?

Actually, it's not just about the extra size, but the weight difference between the 2 cameras. If you held a Sony NEX-5N camera in one hand and the D5100 in the other hand; you'll notice a major difference in weight. I own a Sony NEX-5N (with the Sony 18-55m OSS lens attached) and it slightly weighs more than my portable Sony Cybershoot.

D5100 = 560 g (1.23 lb / 19.75 oz)
NEX-5N = 269 g (9.5 oz.)

I highly recommend that you test the Sony NEX-5N in a store. You'll be blown away by how light it is.

 

[Throckmorton]

The d5100 with 35mm isn't that much larger than the NEX or 4/3. Maybe you just need to find the right carrying bag so that it's not such a hassle. I've never understood the appeal of a NEX or 4/3 over a DSLR since all those cameras are still not pocketable. If you have to carry a camera bag or carrying case either way, then is the extra size really that big of a concern at that point?

I'm guessing the Nex with the kit lens can fit in a superzoom bag, vs a bigger SLR bag.

 

[Syborg1211]

Actually, it's not just about the extra size, but the weight difference between the 2 cameras. If you held a Sony NEX-5N camera in one hand and the D5100 in the other hand; you'll notice a major difference in weight. I own a Sony NEX-5N (with the Sony 18-55m OSS lens attached) and it slightly weighs more than my portable Sony Cybershoot.

D5100 = 560 g (1.23 lb / 19.75 oz)
NEX-5N = 269 g (9.5 oz.)

I highly recommend that you test the Sony NEX-5N in a store. You'll be blown away by how light it is.

This is a serious question with no intended sarcasm or critiquing - please explain to me where weight is really that much of a concern? The point I was trying to make is that a camera bag is a camera bag. If you have to carry something around on your shoulder, then does a little extra size or weight really make the extra picture quality, lowlight capabilities, etc not worth it? To me it does not because a D5100 is not heavy enough to cause any shoulder or back pain for me. The size of the bag is moot to me for the same reason - if you have to carry something on your shoulder and worry about a bag either way, then the size of the bag isn't going to be a big deal, assuming you pick the right bag.

 

[aylafan]

My point wasn't just about the size of the camera bag, but that you can take photos on the NEX-5N with one hand (without much fatigue) instead of holding it with both hands. It's a little heavier than a point-and-shoot, but still lighter than a full size DSLR.

I was originally looking at the Canon EOS Rebel T3i and Nikon D5100, but the Sony NEX-5N won me over due to its thinness and lightness.

The photos look excellent on the NEX-5N (same sensor as the D5100) and videos look great too. Also, lowlight photos are one of the best I have seen.

Below: unedited photos taken on the NEX-5N. No Adobe Lightroom, no HDR, etc. Just simple Intelligent Auto/Program mode with a minor change in exposure. Highly compressed due to Facebook photo resolution limitation, but you get the idea on quality.

1. afternoon photo
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/456581_789900376595_44407063_34944972_377010000_o.jpg
2. night photo
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/471456_807060777015_44407063_35011361_136891315_o.jpg

 

[CuriousMike]

I've read how people actually like a little heft to the camera -- it makes it easier to hold steady.

I used to be a big fan of the Nex/4/3'rds.... as soon as you stick a lens on them, they just get in this area of 'size' that isn't small enough.

Put a 4/3rds sensor in a P&S body/lens for $300 and we'll make macaroni.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

This is a serious question with no intended sarcasm or critiquing - please explain to me where weight is really that much of a concern? The point I was trying to make is that a camera bag is a camera bag. If you have to carry something around on your shoulder, then does a little extra size or weight really make the extra picture quality, lowlight capabilities, etc not worth it? To me it does not because a D5100 is not heavy enough to cause any shoulder or back pain for me. The size of the bag is moot to me for the same reason - if you have to carry something on your shoulder and worry about a bag either way, then the size of the bag isn't going to be a big deal, assuming you pick the right bag.

The OP asked specifically about replacing the D5100 and 35mm f/1.8 combination which he uses "99% of the time". Read the OP again. He wants a "similar lens." A m4/3 body with the Panasonic 20mm f/.7 will replace this almost 100% in terms of capability (granted it loses some low-light due to the sensor, plus whatever ergonomic issues arise from the choice of body) while fitting in about half the size and weight. It IS small enough to fit in a reasonably sized pocket, and does not require a bag. It is light enough that even carrying it around with the strap around your neck does not get remotely as tiring as carrying a 2lb DSLR+lens.

Granted, once you start talking zoom lenses, the size of m4/3 and NEX systems gets much more DSLR-like, and the "pocketable" discussion becomes a question of how ridiculously large your pockets are. But with any of the available pancake lenses, they really will fit into normal-human-sized large pockets like those found in most jackets or cargo pants. They will also fit in most womens' purses (even smaller ones) without making them bulge out of shape. I chose the Panasonic 20mm since, at f/1.7, it is the fastest of the m4/3 pancakes and closely matches the f/1.8 of the 35mm on his D5100. The other pancake lenses are like f/2.5 or f/2.8, which to me seems silly for a standard prime. It needs to be at least f/2.0 for me to take it seriously.

If the OP were talking about using a zoom lens most of the time, there would not be nearly as much benefit to switching to m4/3 (or NEX, if an appropriately fast pancake lens were available). But, taking the OP's current usage into consideration, I think it makes a lot of sense.

 

[brainhulk]

i'm actually debating going the opposite way from my panny gf1 + 20mm 1.7 to a d5100 + fast prime.

I want something with better ISO performance. ISO 800 on the gf1 has too much noise for me. I love the size and the IQ below ISO 800 though