Question on camera change
Goodmorning friends of the forum, I would like some help from you experts on the choice I am doing: I would like to replace my Fujifilm x-m1 with 27mm f2.8 lens with the Canon EOS 200d, but I can not evaluate if I will get an improvement as regards the quality of the images, I state that I am not an expert and usually shoot in JPEG ...
thank you
antrus
thank you
antrus
Frankly I don't think you will see any improvement in image quality, ok the 200d has an extra 8mp resolution but in all honesty 16mp in your Fuji is more than enough for most needs especially as you are usually shooting JPEG files.
The biggest differences will be in the ergonomics, perhaps rather than change systems add to your existing one to make it more versatile, maybe a couple of different focal length lenses dependant of course on your budget.
The biggest differences will be in the ergonomics, perhaps rather than change systems add to your existing one to make it more versatile, maybe a couple of different focal length lenses dependant of course on your budget.
I agree with Philh04. I think when people have asked me a similar question in the past I always ask them what there intended use of their images is? For example, if you are posting to a website (such as ePhotozine) then 2mp is enough (and I have posted images taken from a Canon S10). However if you are printing at A3 then the more megapixels the merrier. Also if you have a specialist use (such as astrophotography) then megapixels may not be the most important perhaps something like noise might be a decider?
You state you are not an expert but by asking important questions in a forum like this you are doing the right thing and quickly will become an expert. You mention you shoot in jpeg and that is fine but in time you may move to RAW and gain great improvement but will be required to put extra effort into preparing your images. A great pleasure to many (including me) but unwarranted work to many.
Also the more megapixels you have the more 'latitude' you have if you alter your composition after exposure (in post). A well composed 16 megapixel image may exceed the quality of a poorly composed and exposed 24 megapixel image. So technique plays a part here.
I am not sure you will see much change 16 -> 24 megapixel but there will be an improvement in the size of the maximum print available (at a given quality) also a change to a newer camera can bring many improvements (faster focusing, more fps etc).
I feel you have more latitude moving from 16 to 24 megapixels but its down to you, your technique and future intentions but it is a step forward not backwards,
This was a good forum question that others may be considering.
You state you are not an expert but by asking important questions in a forum like this you are doing the right thing and quickly will become an expert. You mention you shoot in jpeg and that is fine but in time you may move to RAW and gain great improvement but will be required to put extra effort into preparing your images. A great pleasure to many (including me) but unwarranted work to many.
Also the more megapixels you have the more 'latitude' you have if you alter your composition after exposure (in post). A well composed 16 megapixel image may exceed the quality of a poorly composed and exposed 24 megapixel image. So technique plays a part here.
I am not sure you will see much change 16 -> 24 megapixel but there will be an improvement in the size of the maximum print available (at a given quality) also a change to a newer camera can bring many improvements (faster focusing, more fps etc).
I feel you have more latitude moving from 16 to 24 megapixels but its down to you, your technique and future intentions but it is a step forward not backwards,
This was a good forum question that others may be considering.
Quote:However if you are printing at A3 then the more megapixels the merrier.
10mp is fine for an A3, even for A3+
So even a 16mp image has some room for composing after the fact...Whilst I don't disagree that a move to the 200D might have benefits I do believe that the budget (if any) might be better used to expand the versatility of the OP's existing system and learning more with something that is familiar, indeed moving to raw (no caps please) capture is a good learning move... So (again and as ever, depending on budget) I would look to adding maybe a wider angle prime and a slightly longer prime, learn to get the best from them and then consider a move either to another system or a more advanced Fuji....
Just my thoughts and yes a good question and one that should bring with it some interesting and informative replies
Budgets for photography are limited for many, I also cannot disagree with the fact that more and different types of photography can be encompassed by a better selection of lenses. However many detest carrying more than one lens. I am not in that group and carry a heavy weight but my back pays dearly!
On the subject of photo budgets. I have on occasion taken to me photo club my 9 tripods and probably 12 heads. The point being not to boast but to demonstrate that buying the best first is a great saving rather than (in the case of my tripods) buying many on the road to what you 'really need'. You might think I ended up with a Gitzo but you would be wrong. I use a Gitzo copy, a carbon Benro Mach 3 which although without head is over £330. It is a fabulous tripod and I really dont see the same Gitzo at 3 times the price necessary. Of course if you are a pro then you do not pay for your equipment, your customer or employer does then why not have a Gitzo?
This brings me to lenses, good glass costs a fortune! There is no argument there. Buying more lenses when on a restricted budget will increase your opportunities and fun for a while but you may (will) be disappointed eventually when you see what good and great glass can do. Again lenses like this are not only expensive but often heavy!
Traipsing around with a heavy tripod and heavy lenses soons pales but is necessary for the best quality as is field technique and timing. Of course some get a great shot without prep occasionally but is usually hard work that makes some photographers lucky
If the original poster does decide to remain with there original camera and go the lens route then consider a future-proof high quality lens rather than a 'consumer' lens. Then when you next upgrade your camera body from 16 megapixels to say 45 megapixels your lens will last and not have to be sold.
On the subject of photo budgets. I have on occasion taken to me photo club my 9 tripods and probably 12 heads. The point being not to boast but to demonstrate that buying the best first is a great saving rather than (in the case of my tripods) buying many on the road to what you 'really need'. You might think I ended up with a Gitzo but you would be wrong. I use a Gitzo copy, a carbon Benro Mach 3 which although without head is over £330. It is a fabulous tripod and I really dont see the same Gitzo at 3 times the price necessary. Of course if you are a pro then you do not pay for your equipment, your customer or employer does then why not have a Gitzo?
This brings me to lenses, good glass costs a fortune! There is no argument there. Buying more lenses when on a restricted budget will increase your opportunities and fun for a while but you may (will) be disappointed eventually when you see what good and great glass can do. Again lenses like this are not only expensive but often heavy!
Traipsing around with a heavy tripod and heavy lenses soons pales but is necessary for the best quality as is field technique and timing. Of course some get a great shot without prep occasionally but is usually hard work that makes some photographers lucky
If the original poster does decide to remain with there original camera and go the lens route then consider a future-proof high quality lens rather than a 'consumer' lens. Then when you next upgrade your camera body from 16 megapixels to say 45 megapixels your lens will last and not have to be sold.
Thank you for your valuable advice, I usually use the camera when I'm traveling and although I'm not an expert photographer I like to see beautiful pictures, clear and with beautiful colors.
The reason I would like to change the Fuji X-M1 is because I feel the need for new lenses, but Fuji are expensive and I do not have a sufficient budget available.
I have the opportunity to sell my camera with the XF27mm lens, and to buy the Canon EOS 200D at no additional cost, I have also considered an additional Canon lens for a more accessible cost in the future.
I wonder if it's worth it, the X-M1 makes nice pictures and I'm afraid of being disappointed if I change.
Thank you
The reason I would like to change the Fuji X-M1 is because I feel the need for new lenses, but Fuji are expensive and I do not have a sufficient budget available.
I have the opportunity to sell my camera with the XF27mm lens, and to buy the Canon EOS 200D at no additional cost, I have also considered an additional Canon lens for a more accessible cost in the future.
I wonder if it's worth it, the X-M1 makes nice pictures and I'm afraid of being disappointed if I change.
Thank you
Quote:Thank you for your valuable advice, I usually use the camera when I'm traveling and although I'm not an expert photographer I like to see beautiful pictures, clear and with beautiful colors.
The reason I would like to change the Fuji X-M1 is because I feel the need for new lenses, but Fuji are expensive and I do not have a sufficient budget available.
I have the opportunity to sell my camera with the XF27mm lens, and to buy the Canon EOS 200D at no additional cost, I have also considered an additional Canon lens for a more accessible cost in the future.
I wonder if it's worth it, the X-M1 makes nice pictures and I'm afraid of being disappointed if I change.
Thank you
It is a difficult one and I do feel for you....
The difference in resolution of the sensors will not make a huge difference in quality between the two cameras.
Perhaps it may help if you target what you would like from an extra lens, i.e. are you looking for a wider angle of view, or a narrower angle of view? Plus what do you think you cannot achieve with your current lens.
Whilst you can get some gems in the more cost effective lens ranges (The Canon and Nikon 18-55 standard lenses when used within their limits are very good) it is true with all systems that for 'higher' quality lenses your wallet takes a bit more punishment.
Good luck with what I am sure is going to be a difficult decision...
At two stops down I doubt any difference can be seen between Fuji XC and XF and this is often true of all makes. For a 'super' zoom try 3 stops down. The edges will not be as crisp but this might be nit-picking.
Top glass usually costs an arm and a leg but performs well all over its aperture/zoom range. Cheaper lenses can match them often but usually only when stopped down a bit more.
Any system change (with a limited budget) is best towards Canon (and I am a Nikon user) as there are many more and cheaper Canon fit lenses both new and used on the market. I am not sure why? Perhaps the word 'Canon' is quite evocative and macho so attracts more?
I also have a Fuji XE2 with 18-55mm and agree Fuji lenses are very expensive (as are Sony). This is mostly to do with fashion as mirrorless is 'on trend' at the moment and the greedy importers (not dealers) will milk every last £ from customers.
Top glass usually costs an arm and a leg but performs well all over its aperture/zoom range. Cheaper lenses can match them often but usually only when stopped down a bit more.
Any system change (with a limited budget) is best towards Canon (and I am a Nikon user) as there are many more and cheaper Canon fit lenses both new and used on the market. I am not sure why? Perhaps the word 'Canon' is quite evocative and macho so attracts more?
I also have a Fuji XE2 with 18-55mm and agree Fuji lenses are very expensive (as are Sony). This is mostly to do with fashion as mirrorless is 'on trend' at the moment and the greedy importers (not dealers) will milk every last £ from customers.
For me, the biggest adavantage and most likely thing to improve the results which moving to the Canon would deliver Isnt about sensors or resolution. The Fuji is a screen only camera and the Canon has an optical viewfinder.
Viewfinders, whether optical or LCD, help when composing in bright daylight and the position against the eye can give extra stability for shooting in lower light.
Viewfinders, whether optical or LCD, help when composing in bright daylight and the position against the eye can give extra stability for shooting in lower light.
Concerning pixel counts, more megapixels mean more opportunity for cropping without losing quality. Concerning lenses, since I bought my Tamron 16-300mm it has hardly èver been off the camera and I don't carry around half the weight I used to.
Quote:
10mp is fine for an A3, even for A3+
So even a 16mp image has some room for composing after the fact...This can be true.
It can also be untrue.
For the OP, who prints jpeg, probably not to large sizes and probably does not inspect them closely - 10 MP was just about enough.
Making large prints, cropping a lot or viewing prints closely to check fine detail - 10 MP is definitely not enough.
I said "was" because most recent cameras produce better images, regardless of MP, than in the era when 10 MP was a lot of MP for a DSLR.
