http://www.dpreview.com …e-choosing-one-any-easier
Largely inspired by this
I can wholeheartedly relate to it in fact. Lately I've been trying to get a mirrorless camera to supplement or possibly replace my beloved workhorse 7D, If not for everything, then at least for some types of photography... to sum up, its been incredibly hard to do so.
I started at micro 4/3, its the oldest, the sensor tech has come a long ways, and the lens selection is pretty full, with a lot of fairly affordable primes
My journey started at the GX7, The image quality was awesome, but the viewfinder did not work for me, i had to cram my eye into it painfully to see, Sure it was big, it was bright, fairly accurate and it updated quickly, but it wasnt usable for me, and i kept having to use the rear screen to shoot. It cramped up my hand something terrible and I just couldn't live with it. But I can easily see how someone else could, Heck, I actually really had a soft spot for it, it was a glorious piece of design, very well made, and the IQ on it really was quite good, Files were crisp, had good DR, and high ISO had good detail retention vs noise. I also didnt get on with the 20mm f/1.7 for some reason, I shot a 28mm on my 7D so I expected a 40mm FOV would be lovely, instead i found it kind of awkward, Not quite wide, not quite telephoto... But it was a very lovely lens (it also autofocused slow as dirt however) the in body IS worked lovely too, even holding the camera out at odd angles, despite the reviews poo pooing it.
The next stop on my m4/3 journey was trying out the EM10 Mark II, along with the 25mm f/1.4 Summilux and the 60mm f/2.8 Macro, This was frought with several problems. The 25mm f/1.4 was excellent, superb, quick focusing, extremely lovely bokeh, colors and rendering. The 60mm however disappointed, Not optically, No, optically its a tackdriver, its sharp, contrasty, punchy right from f/2.8, Truly a super macro lens, but its focus by wire was the issue. Simply put, focusing it involved a lot of cranking..and cranking..and cranking..and getting nowhere, The autofocus system i found couldnt even be used to get the lens in "the ballpark" to shoot, limiter or not. I felt disconnected and frustrated trying to focus on anything and do any actual macro work with it. The focus in my case also hunted a lot, picked background subjects to focus on, or outright refused to go to the right spot when i wanted. Then came the other, somewhat odd issue, Olympus' better IBIS system actually didnt work well for me at all.. it seemed to do little for the 60mm macro, and i struggled to get anything good out of it. I'm someone who can easily break the reciprocal rule with unstabilized lenses on my 7D with no issue. Not so with the Olympus. I had better results turning the IBIS off completely in fact. I used electronic first curtain, like every review says, but no matter what I seemed to do, i could not get consistent results from it, I threw out a lot of images that were out of focus, or otherwise motion blurred and unusable. I came to the conclusion that there were two possibilities. Either i hold the camera too stable for the IBIS to be effective, or the fact is due to the light weight of the camera, every little shake or movement is translated into the camera tenfold andthe IBIS is working overtime to the point of it not making a difference if its on or off.
But are either bad cameras? No. Not really. the OMD fails in image quality(On the few -perfect- shots I managed to get) simply compared to the GX7. I felt the GX7's IQ was crisper, more detailed and sharp. the OMD somehow lacked this. But the OMD wasnt "bad" just different. I know for other people the IBIS works awesome, so its a me and the camera issue, not a camera issue. Heck the GX7's supposedly poor IBIS worked fine for me. So theres that.
Which comes back to a key point in the article. Both werent the right camera for me, but that does not make them actually bad cameras. After all I adore my 7D, which gets a lot of flak for its IQ, but I have some amazing images with my 7D with awesome detail and color. I've had it what.. 6 years now?
I did extensive research on both, read reviews and comparisons, Sure, a review here mentioned the 60mm macro's poor focus by wire in his opinion, but thats one man versus hundreds of others that love it, turns out I agreed with him (Funny enough he also agreed on Panasonic's IBIS working better for him. Go figure) But the lens isnt bad, Perhaps on a camera with a better AF system (the EM1 or the GX8, Upcoming PEN F) the 60mm Macro would be more lovely. Or to someone very used to focus by wire versus a direct couple like myself (For the record, my first lens was...oddly enough a 105mm Kiron Macro for my Nikon N70..Im quite used to MF Macro)
Which brings to another point, Getting opinions is hard sometimes.
Take for example a google search trying to compare the a6000 and the a7, Because you're genuinely curious on opinions from people who own both of the cameras whether its really worth it, or if one camera perhaps does one thing better than the other. Most people asking said question tend to get balked at and treated like they're clueless, Obviously Full Frame is always better! Or they're told buy the a6000 because they're obviously too new to understand the greatness of full frame.
Truthfully its been so long since I shot film I'm not sure I even remember.I can look at my old film shots sure, and they look good. But are they "better" than the 7D? I'm genuinely not sure, Colors yes, nothing beats velvia, Back then I bought fast lenses because of a love for that ISO 50 film. I learned to work with shallow depth of field because shooting, at most, ISO200 meant that yeah, you are shooting things wide open to get a usable image quite frequently. In fact going to digital gave me more freedom to actually stop my lenses down. I could explore the world of f/5.6 and f/8!
Basically I could go full frame and go "wow" or I could go full frame and go "Oh.. thats all?"....Plus I actually genuinely find the higher pixel density of crop cameras to be useful for wildlife shooting. Macros too to an extent.
Back to the question, its not as stupid as it sounds, If for example you compare the 24mm f/1.8 on the a6000 and the 35mm f/2.8 on the a7 you end up with almost identical practical real world performance, Theres no much to choose on field of view or depth of field, both lenses are exceptionally good glass on top of it, Theres only a stop or so in high ISO performance on the a7 over the a6000, but the 24mm is a stop and third faster which negates that in practical terms. The a6000 is lighter, has better AF and is more compact to round it out.
Of course the lens that "makes" the A7 is not the 35mm f/2.8.. its the 55 f/1.8. Now there.. there I see the justification. But then again that starts pushing the pricepoint way, way beyond the a6000, and at that point why not just buy a 6D instead? Oh right, because I was trying to get something smaller and easier to carry. Thats why.
Even then I'm perhaps prepared to pay...but its more "at this point the 7D gets replaced" and then I look at the lens system. No 24-105, No uber wildlife zoom. Two essential lenses for me, Two lenses I know, from experience, that I use heavily and i want for my system. I could convert the epic 70-400 II I suppose. But by that point i can also just buy a D7200 and a 200-500. Or keep the 7D and throw a 150-600 on it. Not to mention converting that 70-400 gives up any form of stabilization.
Consider it all food for thought. Or a rant. Probubly more the second 
This has been racking my brain for over a month now after all
the viewfinder was also quite hard for me to see through (and I'd still have to buy a lens on top of it either way, I lack the fast 35-50 fov lens i want) Tracking AF isnt important in this application, i just want something decently accurate and quick to respond.. Neither mirrorless quite did that for me. SL1 looks to be similar to my 30D so it should be sufficient mind you
