bthotugigem05

I have the 55mm, 90mm macro, 70-200, and the 16-35. The 90mm is absolutely superb in almost every way and is probably my favorite, the others are more about function than they are about image quality for me. I find myself making excuses to pull out the 90mm.

Up next is a Canon adapter and the 24mm T/S.

The images are sharper coming out of the a6300 simply because it's using the middle of the lens, which is the sharpest part. Using the 90mm macro on the a6300 is the stuff of dreams.

RSSrsvp

Did you ever consider buying the 10-18, 16-70 or 18-105?

RSSrsvp

Update: Don't laugh but yesterday I stopped looking at the Sony models and purchased the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II along with their M.Zuiko ED 12-40mm f2.8 PRO lens. The camera body is waterproof and has a rock solid build and the lens has great glass and is waterproof as well. I decided on this camera because of the smaller size of a micro four thirds body and excellent reviews on DP review and elsewhere. This is exactly what i wanted for a trip like Machu Picchu. ^

wco81

That Olympus combo is like $1900 at Amazon vs $1148 for the a6300 with the 16-50 lens.

Despite the Olympus being a year older?

Build quality? Size? Lens selection?

Is it really waterproof or more water resistant and you don't have to worry about being caught in light rain?

RSSrsvp

They call it a Weatherproof body and say it is Body Dust, Splash, and Freeze-proof.

The camera body is small and the lenses they offer because it is a micro four thirds system are smaller also. This camera has received rave reviews for its solid magnesium alloy body. Did I forget to mention it has a 3 inch LCD touch screen and the 5-axis in body Image Stabilization blows away the a6300 which needs a lens with OSS and also has been reviewed as superior to the in body stabilization on the Sony a7 series?

The 2 lenses you are comparing are totally different. On a micro four thirds lens you multiply 2x to get the equivalent of a normal lens so this is like having a 24-80mm lens with an F2.8 aperture and in addition this is the top of the line glass from Olympus which would be like getting Zeiss from Sony.
The 16-50 lens from Sony has a F3.5-5.6 aperture is what they include in their kit packages and is average glass and extremely slow compared to the Olympus.

The closest lens in the Sony lineup with a F2.8 aperture is their Vario-Sonnar T* 24–70 mm F2.8 ZA SSM II that sells for $1099.

They say the Olympus lens has splashproof construction and is fully weather sealed for moisture and dust so I would not worry about getting caught in the rain.

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lens...-f2-8-pro.html


Also another factor was the large selection of lenses from both Olympus, Panasonic and the third party lens manufactures in the micro four thirds market that are all compatible and definitely less expensive than Sony glass.

PS, Olympus currently has a sale on their website where you save $100 each on the body and the lens and when you go to checkout they give you an additional $100 so you are saving $300 with this bundle from their normal pricing.

wco81

Yeah that makes sense, they're charging almost $1000 for that lens, mainly for the 2.8 aperture on a zoom.

a6300 got a good review from DPReview too.

I've seen some guy on Youtube using the same DSLR that I have in a rain storm. But when I contacted Nikon about it, they deny the model is weather-sealed.

So I'll use one of those bags to cover the camera when there's more than a drizzle.

RSSrsvp

By the way, here is a review of the camera and as you can see it is highly recommended.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...s-e-m5-iiA.HTM

michalis

You have to multiply the aperture on crop bodies too.

An F2.8 on a micro 4/3 body is an F5.6 full-frame equivalent.
An F2.8 on a APS-C body is F4.2 full frame equivalent.

ND Sol

That has some truth with respect to depth of field, but I wouldn't say such with respect to light gathering ability.

michalis

Of course it does. A full frame sensor has 3.8 times the surface area of a micro 4/3 sensor. Of course it is able to gather more light.

ND Sol

You stated that, "An f2.8 on a micro 4/3 body is an F5.6 full-frame equivalent." That would imply if I was shooting at ISO 100 at 1/100 at f2.8 on a full frame, I would have to shoot at ISO 400 at 1/100 (or ISO 100 at 1/25, or some combination thereof) at f2.8 on a micro 4/3 to get the same exposure. But that is not the case, which is why I noted about light gathering ability.

Dieuwer

For Machu Picchu, a standard camera with wide angle lens (24-80+) would suffice. There is no need whatsoever to use a 200+ mm zoom. I used a Canon S120 which worked well.
You definitely do not want to lug up a lot of weight because the altitude and low oxygen atmosphere will get you.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/evanlo...57645992007679

RSSrsvp

I am bringing the OM-D E-M5 Mark II and 3 lenses in my Tenba DNA 8 bag.
M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8
M.Zuiko ED 12-40mm f2.8 PRO
M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150 mm f4.0-5.6 R
The total weight including the bag is 3.75 pounds.

By the way, did you even bring a tripod?

Dieuwer

A tripod for my S120?? No...
Just make sure you bring a hat and use suncream liberally. The UV index up the Andes is off the scale. The cool air makes you think you don't need any, but before you now it you are burned. Badly.

RSSrsvp

I was thinking a small tripod for shooting astrophotography.

Also the new Olympus models have a Live Composite feature where the camera combines several images shot over a period of time and you need a tripod in order to do this. The resulting image is something that Olympus calls star trails and is stunning.