The Smartest Way to Buy a Camera

Hearken ye! I'd like to blather just a bit about a very old word, yeoman.

But first: I'm being kind of a stumblebum this year. A sluggard. What used to be called, back in the dim, swiftly receding days of the 'nineties, a slacker. I posted Part I of the "Recommended Cameras" list way back on December 6th, and haven't even gotten around to writing Part II yet. (This isn't that.)

I hate it when I do things like that. I think at some point during my fifties, my get up and go got up and went.

I'll work on that soon. (The list, I mean, not my gumption, moxie, work ethic, spirit of enterprise, etc.—my current activity level is age-appropriate. As the great Uncle Arthur Kramer used to say, I'd work harder, but it would interfere with my nap.)

Meantime, it struck me that like many reviewers, I naturally concentrate on talking about high-level cameras in every line. The ones that offer the highest performance and the most appealing "it" factor. Before it arrived, I assumed I would include the new Olympus E-M1 Mark II on the TOP list.

But when it arrived on the scene, I was taken aback by the price. Two thousand dollars. For a Micro 4/3 body? You can get a Panasonic GX8 for $800 less even when it's not on sale. Same for Olympus's own Pen-F. You can get a full-frame Sony A7 Mark II mirrorless for $500 less.

So is that...smart?

Granted, it's an "overdeveloped" camera, as Olympus told DPReview. Granted, it's targeted at pros, who might like a striver's level of snappy performance and to whom a few hundred dollars tacked onto the purchase price might not matter in the grand scheme of the financial statement. Granted, its level of performance is class-leading in many ways. And it's well designed and pleasant to use, despite having its On/Off switch in an annoying place. I liked the Mark I, which I owned briefly. (And which is still available. For a nice price. You can get it in a kit bundled with the $700 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 zoom for $1,300—$700 less than the Mark II body with no lens.)

But...two grand. It made me think twice, and then think again. Is the E-M1 Mark II truly recommendable at that exalted price?

I know people who will buy it, many of them gladly. But what about people for whom the value equation is important? That includes a lot of us. It even includes a lot of people who could afford an E-M1 Mark II if they wanted to.

The E-M1 Mark II's stabilization may be the best of any camera's.

It's so, so tempting to chase the latest and best. Top models of anything are "no apologies." (Well, at least for three or four years, until they get superseded.)

But it might be smartest, just in terms of spending your money intelligently, to pick the lineup you like the best and then buy the next best camera, whatever that is. Thus:

• E-M5 Mark II rather than E-M1 Mark II.
• D7200 rather than D500.
• A6300 rather than A6500.
• 6D rather than 5D Mark IV.
• X-T10 rather than X-T2.
• A7II rather than A7rII.

Or even...

• E-M10 Mark II rather than E-M5 Mark II!

And so on. You get the idea.

The strategy might not be sexy, but it's sound.

Medieval metaphor
And now for "yeoman," and you can stop reading right here unless you enjoy reading my nonsense.

Yeoman is a tough word to get a handle on—it means many things, and none of them seem to quite relate to each other. A class in England below the gentry. (Not very helpful, given that most of us are hazy about what "gentry" means, too.) A clerk in the Navy. The owner of a small farm (we have lots of yeomen around where I live, if that's the case. Or can you be both Amish and a yeoman?). In medieval times, a servant ranking higher than a page but not quite as high as a squire. Without getting into a tangle of etymology, competing meanings, and mildly conflicting mental images, I think basically yeoman means one who serves, but solidly; a stalwart; someone who is loyal, dependable, and responsible. Someone who does drudge work because it needs to be done, but works well.

Anyway I think one might call these second-tier, near-top-of-the-line, more value-oriented, second-rank cameras yeoman cameras.

Okay, that name won't catch on. I'm not good at naming things. But you get the idea. From these yeoman cameras you get 80% of the performance of the glamorpuss line-leader cameras, but for more reasonable prices. They're reliable. Sensible.

The smart buy.

The GX85 instead of the GX8. Anybody use the X-T10? Are ya happy enough?

...Because sometimes, you'd like the top of the line, but you just don't feel like parting with two grand for an electronic device that's going to be yesterday's news three to five years from now.

Nothing against the noble Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Yo, man!
Like Mike or Patronize TOP’s affiliates

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Luca: "Cameras are now computers, and with computers the smart strategy has always been exactly the one you just described, i.e. buying the 'second best.' And frankly unless you're a sport / war / extreme situations in general shooter I don't see the point to have an ultrafast camera (and even then something like the A6500 or the A77 II could be all you need anyway). Essentially, maybe 0.1% of us 'need' (as opposed to 'want') an EOS 1Dx, a Nikon D5 or even an Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

"And the X-T10, by the way, is an awesome camera!"

Marcelo Guarini: "I was waiting for the OM1 Mk II, but after reading its specifications I realized is not my camera. I don't need a camera for fast action, sealed for Mars sandstorms and freeze-proof for the dark side of the Moon. Amazon had the Pen F for $945 during a couple of days in November, so I got one and I couldn't be happier. Image quality is better than my OM-1 and so is the in-camera stabilizer. Last night I took several perfectly sharp handheld half-second shots. I'm loving this little camera."

Gordon Lewis: "Whether it was wise for Olympus to price the E-M1 Mark II at $2,000 and whether it's wise for someone to pay it are two different issues. The issue is moot for me because I can't justifying paying that much for any camera. I'm doing what you suggest in your post: looking at cameras that do most if not all of what I need a camera to do, at a lower price than the top of the line. Instead, I'll use the money I save to spend on high-quality lenses. As you say, cameras come and go, but good lenses are good for a lifetime."

Mike replies: I agree with you entirely except for the very last word of your comment. Seems to me the only lens line I could have used for my lifetime—mine being similar in span and era to yours—is the Leica M line. And with that there are, and have been, many other compromises. Seems to me when you and I were young we could have invested in the Canon FD lens line, and, while those are newly "good" again—on a full-frame mirrorless digital camera—there have been significant stretches of our lifetimes during which they would not have been good.

But if you had said "for a longer time" or even "for a long time" instead of "for a lifetime," then we would agree.

Dennis (partial comment): "I've noticed many times that I tend to be happier with things that I've paid more than I've wanted for than I am with things where I've compromised out of frugality. I love a good 'price performer' but over time, I have far more regrets about bargains than I do luxuries. So my recommendation is don't buy based on perceived value nor just because something is state of the art—buy what you want."

beuler: "It seems to me that Olympus is putting the E-M1 Mark II up against the Canikon 1D X Mark II / D5. Brave but stupid? Let's wait and see. In any case it is the cheapest of the three."

Arg: "One only needs to read the featured comments by Dennis and Gordon to confirm that the real driver here is one's personal values. By which I don't mean anything unique, but rather the common value sets. For example, valuing exclusivity highly is a common set, as is valuing economy."

Comments

[mike plews]

Maybe it's the leftover eggnog talking but am I the only one who thinks the silver X-T1 looks a lot like a Kodak Retina Reflex with a 50 2.8?
I'm a sucker for retro designs because I am a retro design myself.

[It's beautiful, id'n it? --Mike]

[Steve Biro]

I have both the GX8 and the GX85. I enjoy both and prefer the GX85 in many ways. But when the time comes to pull out the 12-35 and 35-100mm f/2.8 zooms (and don't forget my 100-300mm), only the GX8 balances and handles properly for me. Still, it's clear one could spend far less on the GX85 and be quite happy.

I also have the Fuji X-T10 and have played with the X-T1. Other than the higher-spec electronic viewfinder in the X-T1, I prefer the X-T10 in every way. And the lack of weather resistance on the smaller camera prevents me from buying a lot of lenses with WR that I really don't need. A smart buy, this.

Image quality with the GX8, GX85 and X-T10 is simply not an issue. All approach the quality of medium-format film. Even the smaller 16mp micro four-thirds sensor.

So... go forth and save money in the new year!

[Dave Levingston]

In a lifetime of professional and amateur photography the only top-of-the-line camera I've ever owned is my Nikon F. I always found that the top cameras had many features I knew I'd never use and I didn't care to pay for them. I was very happy with my Nikkormat Ftn. My Nikon FE was my primary camera for two decades. The Nikon D200 did just fine for a lot less than a D2. I'm still pretty happy with my Nikon D7000, though it is staying in the cabinet most of the time now that I have the Panasonic GX8. Yeomen one and all.

[David Zivic]

Again my gear philosophy returns to the axium "The best camera is the one that you have". I always though a Yeomen was the plural of Yo Mo Mo the Cellist ?

[marcin wuu]

Nah. The best way is to just buy anything. Whatever you buy, no matter cheap or expensive, big or small, plastic or metal, will not be what you wanted. Then you can start the traditional, age old process of swapping cameras, until you reach one that will be acceptable. It will never be right, mind you, there's no such thing as right camera, those only exist as the upcoming models. But it will be acceptable, you'll learn to use it for all its quirks and faults, while waiting for the right camera to be finally released. Forever.

[Yonatan K]

... Or wait two years and buy the camera you want when it's on sale (with a free lens). I thought about the gx85, but it was missing some key features that I like (tilty evf and weather resistance most of all).

[Stephen Scharf]

Those are all fine recommendations and choices.

I was wondering when you were going to write Part II.

[Rodolfo Canet]

Indeed it's the best way to get the most from your money but going for the second best or the second latest leaves behind, for those who could have gone for the 'real thing', an standing itch. And isn't an itch the first step of spending again, soon, more?

Just sayin'

[That's a good counter-argument, and it's the one I made in one of my more famous posts, the "Letter to George." The problem in digital is the one Luca rightly compares to computers, that the itch will always be along someday in the form of improved technology. Even people who buy the very best will one day soon no longer own the very best. --Mike]

[Stephen Scharf]

I loved the Silver Graphite X-T1 and pined for one for a long time....

Speaking of silver X-T1s, the news today is that Fuji will announce a Silver Graphite X-T2 in January.

Dagnabbit!

[Dave Van de Mark]

Mike,
I like your Yeoman reference to 2nd tier - OK by me.

However my reason for writing here is in regards to your reference to the Fuji XT-10 being a good smart choice instead of the XT-2. I say NO, but only because the XT-2 is a 2nd generation evolutionary camera and the XT-10 is a 1st within the Fuji family (I won't speak to your other examples).

But surely Fuji is going to create a 2nd generation 24 MP variant of the XT-10 - let's just call it the XT-12 - and now you're cooking with gas.

YES, I would very likely find my hypothetical XT-12 a "Yeoman's smart buy" over the XT-2.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

The cameras that you're talking about as if they were the line leaders are in many ways already the second-tier offerings. Or third. You aren't talking about the Nikon D6 or the Canon equivalent (see that? I don't even know what they call it this week). (The other lines don't have anything that can be considered as a full-on photojournalist's camera, unless the E-M1 mkII makes it.)

I'm currently shooting with the equivalent of a 2007 top-of-the-line camera (my Nikon D700, which is basically equivalent to the D3, which came out in 2007), and I'm considering, hoping, that possibly the Oly OM-D EM-1 mkII might, if I'm lucky, be good enough finally to replace it, which would let me get down to maintaining just one system instead of two. The EM-5 definitely isn't, the EM-5 mkII definitely isn't. From what I've seen and read there's no chance of its being "as good as"; but it might get close enough in the key areas (low-light performance and tracking continuous autofocus in moderate light) for me to "declutter" down to one system. Maybe. But...it's 2016, and it's possible but by no means certain that the breakthrough Oly line-leading camera can largely match Nikon's 2007 top-of-the-line. (In other ways it's far ahead of course, including the ability to capture a lot of extremely color-accurate pictures while perched on a tripod in the woods.)

People who carry tripods around in the woods have different requirements, and they seem much easier to meet to me. Cheaper, too, sigh. Maybe I should give up people and work on leaves full-time.

[Anthony Shaughnessy]

I bought an OMD-EM10 (mark I) instead of EM5 or EM1 simply because I couldn't afford the EM5 or EM1. I'm very happy with the EM10, and can't see anything in the spec sheets that makes me think I should have looked higher. But, there's always that gear lust that makes you think ... "if only I had the EM5/EM1 my pictures would be better". Almost certainly not, but you can't help yourself, can you?
Anthony

[Sixblockseast.blogspot.com]

I bought an XT-10 back in February and love it. I played around with both XT-10 and XT-1 at the store and couldn't justify the more expensive option. However, I did buy the 35mm f2 and plan on getting the 16mm f1.4 next, with an eye on buying an XT-2 down the road, for the weather resistence and Acros film sulimulation if nothing else. The two things that bothered me about the XT-10 were the shallow eyepiece and small grip. I bought a 3D-printed fix for the former, and the metal grip for the latter. Probably would have done the same with an XT-1 though, and would have bemoaned not waiting for the XT-2 :)

[Mike R]

"at some point during my fifties, my get up and go got up and went"

Hey, give it a decade or two. You'll be amazed at how far away it's gone.

[Rodger Kingston]

Mike,
I largely agree with your idea of buying the "Yeoman" version within a line of cameras not just because of the cost, but more importantly, for the reduced size and weight. Over the years I've had a Nikon FM2, a D40X, and a D3200. I used these smaller models on many jobs without any problems.

And now, after nearly six years as a Fuji X10, X20, and X30 user, I'm finally planning to move up to an ILM: a Fuji X-T20. Even if I were offered an X-T2 body at the same price as the about-to-be-announced X-T20, I'd go with the X-T20 for it's smaller size and weight, and its flexibility of use (and I expect that almost no one, looking at the output, could tell the difference).

I get better results with these smaller cameras because I'm aways able to have one of them with me.

[Eric Onore]

Another word used similarly to yeoman that I have always enjoyed is "stakanovite".

[Norm]

There's much truth in what you say and I'll suggest the principle is applicable in almost all consumer goods. My father, a clothing factory manager, told me years ago more or less the same thing about suits. Never buy the most expensive because you're paying way too much for the status of the label or for fashion that will be passe next year, or both, and the same quality is almost available in cheaper brands or versions. Never buy the cheapest because there's just too many compromises in cut, construction and materials. Anything in between is unlikely to be a mistake and comes down to fit, circumstances and taste.

I bought an OM-D EM-10 II last summer, for hiking and generally travelling about when I don't want the DSLR workout. It's turned out to be a real blast in use. Got one of those neat little Panasonic 20mm lenses to go on it, thinking I'd probably add more lenses later and still haven't bothered because it's such a useful little set as is. Fits in a pocket (my jacket has big pockets) and comfortably does everything I need without fuss* for under $1000. I'm frankly quite surprised at how useful and convivial a tool it is and can't imagine another $1000+ to get the top of the line model is going to get me that much more photographic satisfaction.

* OK, to be fair, it took me a wee while to get to this point because Olympus's literature and the user experience of the camera's setup takes some study and perseverance and the default setup isn't what I would choose. But now I've tamed it to behave just how I like, it's a gem.

[Dave Karp]

My FD lenses lasted me into the 21st century, used on cameras they were designed for. Now my FD lenses work from time to time with an adapter on my E-M1. I know I am an oddity, but I skipped the autofocus DSLR film camera era entirely -- my first autofocus camera that was not a point and shoot was a Pentax K-r!

I would like an E-M1 II, but the $2,000 figure is too high. Unfortunately, the E-M5 II and E-M10 II don't have the same form factor as the E-M1 bodies. The E-M1 is the most comfortable camera I have ever held. I only wish it did better with moving objects like kids doing karate. A used E-M1 II a few years down the line is probably how I will end up owning one, if I ever own one.

[hugh crawford]

As the son of a yeoman farmer I'm pretty sure that most of your neighbors are gentleman farmers or someone who bought or inherited a farmhouse. The difference being that a gentleman* farmer has a source of income other than selling agricultural products from land that they own. An exception might be someone with a dairy or orchard, or maybe a farm to table contract grower.

*gentleman apparently encompassing everyone from hedge fund managers to the guy behind the counter at the auto parts store.

[Good guess Hugh, but no, I meant all the Amish and Mennonite farmers. --Mike]

[Rob L]

It depends - if you make your living with it, then then buying the best equipment you can afford makes sense, as time = money, but for hobbists...well, time still equals money. Often buying the previous version of the best beats the newer, lower specced model(X-T1 vs X-T10,for example) but sometimes, like the D500 - there's really not much like it. Whether you neeed that, is a harder question.

Manufacturers seem to make great yeoman cameras by mistake - a camera that's 'too good', like the F100, and that's when to snap it up and be happy.

[John Krumm]

I picked up my wife's dusty EPM2 the other day, the smallest of Oly's offerings, and really I could take most of my shots with it and be happy. Shooting raw it's good for iso 5000. Combine that with IS and the 25 1.8 and you have a really good indoor camera. They appear to be selling used for a little over $200.

My wife saw me using it and started using it again herself, enjoying it. Sometimes an old camera is like a new camera for free.

[christer almqvist]

I bought a "full loaded" MacBook Pro when they first came out, it is a Mid 2012 model. I'm glad I bought it fully loaded although, at the time, I was more into analogue than digital photography and my picture files were a dozen MBs large, at the most.

Now, almost five years later, my files are 40+ MB and my post processing much more demanding, not only because of the larger files, but there is no reason to upgrade if I want to stay with MacBooks.

So I spent a bit extra on a fully loaded machine a few years ago, but I saved more by not needing an upgrade.

(No, I do not buy fully loaded cars. With cars, it's a different story.)

[Sebastien Lallement]

Hi Mike,

The Sony A6000 has specs that are not too far apart from the A6300 and is an even better value today: $398 (A6000) < $998 (A6300) < $1398 (A6500). For less than 400 bucks, you get a fast, responsive, APS-C camera, with a great 24MPix sensor.

In fact, I just bought an A6000 as a back-up camera for my A7.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Dennis]

I forgot which camera I bought that convinced me that I'd never need a >$1000 camera again. It might have been the D7000 (which I paid less than $1000 for, after it had been out a while).

You mention the question of value and the trick is to know what you want in a camera. The D500 is pretty great and there are certain things I would appreciate in a camera like that, but nothing important enough to me to want to spend the money at this point in time. You mention the A6300 over the A6500, but the A6000 is the true price performer in that bunch.

Manufacturers have gotten better about tweaking their lineups to encourage us to want higher priced cameras. My $1000 stake in the ground looks pretty lame these days when Sony only offers IBIS in the $1500 A6500 (though you can get it for not much more in the A7II if you prefer FF over speed). All the manufacturers seem to have upped their game recently, with flagship products in the m43/APS-C lines in the $1500-$2000 range. It's particularly problematic in mirrorless lines, where technology is still advancing and the latest & greatest offers improvements that you don't see in this year's DSLR versus last year's DSLR.

Finally, contrary to my aforementioned conviction, I've noticed many times that I tend to be happier with things that I've paid more than I've wanted for than I am with things where I've compromised out of frugality. I love a good "price performer" but over time, I have far more regrets about bargains than I do luxuries. So my recommendation is don't buy based on perceived value nor just because something is state of the art - buy what you want. And if you can't afford it, just don't buy it (unless you have no camera at all, odds are your existing camera is capable of great work).

[Leslie Ashe]

My main landscape camera is a D810 but just over a year ago I succumbed to an XT10 as a lightweight camera for mountain walking. It'a a fabulous camera - great image quality and easy to use. For me the only thing missing is weather-sealing. I just put it away when the rain comes on.

[William Lewis]

Heh. And I'm ecstatic to be only 2 generations back now with my recent purchase of an Olympus E-P3. I hope to get a Pen F someday when it's a generation or three old :D

[Jim A]

This next best camera approach has been a recent recommendation of mine as well. I once bought the next best camera in the manufacturers current line if the price of my true desire was just too much. Now that we are in the umpteenth generation of a given camera, we can go back in time to a previous generation and still get a nice bit of kit.

Being price conscious (miserly, stingy) is just part of my DNA. When I was a kid I had to split a bottle of soda with my little brother and now as an adult, I can afford Kopi Luwak but can't justify the price...and besides, it's kinda icky.

[Anthony Collins]

I did just that yesterday evening when a uk retailer knocked £100 off the Panasonic G80/12-60 kit (G85 in the US) so £699. I am keeping the EM1 and cascading the G6 in my two body set up to my wife. Will sell her G3 or pass on down the family. My buying philosophy is "Good enough is good enough"

[robert e]

My first encounter with the word "yeoman" was as a boy watching the original Star Trek TV series, so for the longest time the word conjured in my mind pretty women in miniskirts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rand

It's kinda messed up, but on the other hand, it was a lot sexier than the dictionary definition.

[Ray]

My current and past photography has been photojournalism, documentary and historical photography. I use nothing but the older SHG 4/3 zoom lenses (7-14mm, 14-35mm, 35-100mm and 90-250mm) and so the only mirrorless camera that has been suitable is the E-M1.

I think the E-M1 MkII is an excellent value for money camera and will become part of my kit down the road. From what I have seen and read so far, the 4/3 lenses work even better with the MkII than the MkI and that's great news.

[John Robison]

Ha! I'm finally considering a OMD-EM5, they are about $325 used for a body only. Just can't beat that. I'll get one of those Pen F (half frame film lenses) to micro 4:3 mount adapter from HK and I'll be all set. I already have Pen F lenses from 20mm to 150mm, I know, I know, a 2X factor on AOV, so what.

[Mark]

The sticker shock of the new. My impresssion is that the world is awash with bargain cameras, discounted cameras, end-of-line offers, factory refurbished stock, overstocks, seasonal offers, one-off offers, cash backs, grey market cheapies and everything else which says "Deal". It's like a desperado souk of the end times out there as companies try to keep at least some cash moving through the system. In the circumstances it is pretty brave of Olympus or anyone else to issue a very expensive full-price camera and expect to sell all that many copies of it. I hope they do but looking at the CIPA industry figures for 2016 I fear it's an uphill task. There are too many cameras out there already and most of them are really very good.

[robert e]

Not being able to consider even third choice cameras at the moment, your post got me thinking instead about the role of flagship models, and especially their role within the producing organization.

I'm sure company cultures differ, but for Olympus, with its legacy of brilliant innovation in the smallest fully capable cameras (on which it trades), the flagship has to be a showcase for its envelope-pushing engineering chops, and not just for the market, either. I'm thinking that such a culture requires especially creative engineers, even those willing to take risks, and that such engineers, in turn, will need products they can take pride in for those qualities, in order to stay happy and properly motivated.

For the big two, on the other hand, I would think cleverness plays second fiddle to competence, reliability and consistency. I'm not saying that those things aren't important to Olympus, or that innovation is alien to Canikon--this is about the role of the flagship product. (It's not all positive, either. Check out the menus that only engineers could love.)

As for price, well, they rightly don't expect to sell very many of these showcases; they also should value their best all-out effort accordingly; and the price forces buyers to take the effort seriously, and, rightly, judge the camera at the level at which it was aimed. For better and worse, I would think that as the level of materials, build, fit and fitness (i.e., non-sensor-related factors) escalates, the significance of the sensor (and sensor size) to overall cost diminishes.

[TC]

This is the very reason my family always bought Buicks. Buicks were known as the second-tier, "yeoman" class in the GM line, just below Cadillacs, which my grandfather felt were just for showing off. Of course this was only relevant in the middle of the last century (and yes, we did have one of those too, a red coupe, because the Regal was the top of the line and defeated the whole purpose of buying a Buick;)

[Heh! My father had a Buick 225 in the '70s. I think he thought a Cadillac would have been pretentious. --Mike]

[Doug C]

Mike,

Thanks for throwing a little cold water on the "lenses are investments" idea. Yes they last a little longer than cameras, but not that much. I have dozens of moldy and orphaned lenses that were or are great, but have little practical use or value.

[Eolake]

There ya go, making me fink again, you...

I'm surprised I kinda like the look of the X-T10. The high shoulders make it reminiscent of the old Leica Rs I think.

And I agree here. While I have bought very expensive cameras in the past when I needed what they offered, I'm just a walk-around photographer, I don't need insane speed and so on of the EM-1 II. I could afford it, but it would be a bit too self-indulgent to get it.
And I find the Pen-F to be about as large as I want to carry these days.

[Lynn]

The yeoman versions of a Leica M are a Barnack, Voigtlander or Minolta CLE. I have a Barnack and couldn't be happier, despite its obvious quirks (separate RF and VF, knob rewind, antiquated film loading). As a bonus (and this applies to a lot of second-tier cameras too) it's smaller than the other M mount cameras. I can always use an adapter if I ever decide to upgrade to an M.

Oh, and I should mention it's a physically beautiful camera with great tactile feel. The new Pen F is very nice, but not a patch on the Barnack, surely one of the prettiest cameras ever, and a good one can be had for less than a third the price of the Pen, and a fifth the price of the E-M1 Mark II.

[Roger Bradbury]

For my first DSLR I lay in wait as the price of the Pentax K10D dropped into my price range. It had just arrived there when the K20D was announced. It went up to 6400 ISO instead of 1600, and had a PC flash socket. It's 14MP instead of 10, though that was of less importance to me.

These things apart, these two cameras are very similar; I'd first chosen the K10D for its handling and the K20D was nigh on the same.

I bought the K20D and haven't regretted it. I've used the extra ISO range and the PC socket so many times now that I know I made the right choice. When buying anything the question is for me, does it do what I want?

[Salvador Moreno]

Few days ago I found a great online deal a Lumix GX8 + 12-60mm for 699€, less than the GX80. That's a good decisition too!! Buy the best at the prize of the second best.

[Mark Cotter]

I think we have reached the point where the draw of a new camera is less than it used to be. Much as I would quite like an XPro2 and an XT2, I need neither, really. The image quality I get from the first generation cameras is more than good enough at the moment and I know I won't use the extra bells and whistles. I'm still inclined to buy the best I can afford as it will satisfy me longer than a 'yeoman camera' would and the GAS is sated for longer. By the time we reach the XPro3 and XT3, I'll be ready for a new camera (provided it doesn't cost me $2000 (or £1500).

[Brad Nichol]

On the em1 mk 2, I guess most people are judging its' value or lack of value on the size of the sensor, which kind of misses the point. As a user of FF, APSC and M4/3 I have no qualms about the potential quality.
The real point is the EM1 mk 2 has features and abilities that present a unique combination, it is very high quality product.
It kind of surprises me that so many folk think that all the tech in this camera should carry no premium.
Frankly for many shooters the amazing IS alone when combined with the 12-100 f4 would be enough to justify the price.....in the end that feature alone could mean a vastly greater number of keepers or significantly expand the envelope of operation.
If you need the features it is fine value, if not there are plenty of cheaper alternatives.

[Björn]

My philosophy is to always buy used, used lenses and bodies. I am always a few years behind the most advanced cameras but I usually always buy cameras that were top of the line when they came out. That way you get great feeling camera bodies for a great price.

I bought an OMD-EM5 with a cracked screen for basically nothing a few months ago, I slapped a glass protector on it and it take wonderful pictures.

The Sony A850 for example. That camera costs basically nothing right now and it has a wonderful OVR and a super solid feel.

[Geoffrey Heard]

Looks to me like the Olympus E-M1 II is a flagship with flagship capabilities and pricing. Looks like the most compleat camera in the world at present, a great pro tool which can take on anything, under just about any conditions. A super flagship which will drench the whole Oly line in a warm glow -- and none too expensive given what it can do. Seems no other single camera can match it. For me, though, the best sgle middle level camera is the go: the Lumix G80/85. That does more tha I wat ad doe it very, very well, it seems. Ad buggerit, the letter betwee "b" ad "m" oi the keyboard has just died! So has Retur !!! Cheers, Geoff

[Steve Higgins]

"I bought an OMD-EM10 (mark I) instead of EM5 or EM1 simply because I couldn't afford the EM5 or EM1. I'm very happy with the EM10, and can't see anything in the spec sheets that makes me think I should have looked higher. But, there's always that gear lust that makes you think ... "if only I had the EM5/EM1 my pictures would be better". Almost certainly not, but you can't help yourself, can you?"
Anthony Shaughnessy

Almost exactly my situation. However, while a lottery win MIGHT lead to me getting an EM5 (not an EM1 - don't like the shape), I can't use the 'if I had a ... my pictures would be better' excuse. With the EM10, I occasionally manage to produce the image I am after, so it can't be the camera that needs to improve, unfortunately... :-(

[sneye]

Buying a second-tier product may be smart from a practical point of view. In photography equipment, 'yeoman' class articles often offer much more than 80% of the state of the art in capability. However, to many hobbyists photography goes a longer way than the sheer practical considerations. We buy new cameras while still owning fully functional ones that satisfy our needs. My wife calls it self-indulgence. I do it to show that photography is importamt in my life. As recreation, even as art.
Most of all, I find second-tier cameras boring. Everybody seems to use them. I'm not wealthy, so I borrowed the handicap principle from evolutionary theory and applied it to photo gear. I settled for a smaller-sensor system (which is affordable for me to maintain), convincing myself that I can compensate for the inherent physical limitations with skill and 'artistic' proficiency.
Still, the E-M1 Mark II costs way more than I intended to pay for it. I may settle for a Pen-F, stretching the handicap rationalization a little bit further.

[David Babsky]

Tut tut.

"..it means many things, and none of them seem to quite relate to each other.."

And you, an editor!

"..and none of them seems.." Ya gotta get it right, Mike..

[I see nothing wrong with my construction. "none" is plural but "seem" agrees with each of the singular things that make up the many. --Mike]

[Omer]

I too (like Dennis above) feel more comfortable after splurging for the "better" gear. But I'm acutely aware that some young Mozart upstart could well plunge my comfort into a dark abyss solely on their vision and a smartphone camera.

[Darlene]

I purchased my first mirrorless camera in 2012, a used NEX-7. I found enjoyment in mirrorless and decided to upgrade when the right equipment showed up. Even though SONY was making great strives in the market over the next couple of years with their A7 line, I decided to pass on SONY. In 2016 when the Fuji X-Pro2 appeared, I rented one after doing research into the latest mirrorless offerings and I am glad I did. Fuji won me over because IMO, they design cameras for photographers' use, and not from an engineer's POV like I have experienced from other camera manufacturers.

Cameras are tools for me and I desire to have the easiest using tool with a quality lens line-up. How I go about spending money for this is probably different than what others may do. I read a lot and rent a lot, and when I find what works for me, I spend a lot, but I also hold onto my gear and use it. I only spring for new stuff when technology makes a big win in an area that fits my "easiest to use" category.

I think my next big purchase besides a MF mirrorless, will be a low-light performer that will enable me to photograph cathedrals and historic architecture inside without a tripod and will be virtually noiseless.

[Ed Waring]

I'm a firm believer in buying the model down. Actually just finally bought an X-T10 to be the 18mm camera in my three lens/three body Fuji System (the other two bodies are X-E2's with the 56mm and the 35mm 1.4).

Got a refurb straight from Fuji UK for about £330 with 12 months warranty. It's great! Great image quality, all the buttons are in the right place and assignable, snappy to use. Even though the internals are exactly the same it does feel a little more refined than the X-E2's. The extra wheel and buttons do make a difference... It's a real pleasure.

If me and my big old roman nose didn't prefer the rangefinder style of the X-E2 I'd definitely be shooting three X-T10's. That's me set for a year or two until I can afford the triple body upgrade to the hopefully forthcoming X-E3 if it has a tilt screen or else 2 X-E3's and an X-T20.

Oh and the X-E2, X-T10 and X-T1 have exactly the same EVF. The X-T1 just has a magnifier built in. The main differences are the weatherproofing and larger size which some may prefer....

[Tom Burke]

Yeoman: my take on this is that a yeoman was from the very top rung of those people who actually worked the land themselves, with their own hands. So a farmer would almost certainly be a yeoman, especially a small farmer, and a skilled farm worker might also qualify. Some of these would be tenants, others would own their own small amounts of land.

The 'gentry' consisted of Gentlemen, and the defining mark of a gentleman was he did not work - his income came from rents and dividends (but not from trade - oh no!). Military officers were also likely to be members of the gentry, as were most clergymen in the Church of England - but probably not those in the non-conformist churches, e.g. Methodist clergy. The 'landed gentry' were the actual owners of much of England, and it was their tenants who worked the farms and who were therefore yeomen.

The landed gentry ranged from the phenomenally wealthy (any owner of a large estate who didn't have a title, e.g. Lord, Earl, or Duke) to those just about clinging on by their fingernails - Jane Austen's Bennet family (in Pride and Prejudice) were pretty close to that, while Darcy was right at the top.

Star Trek's usage of the term is just wrong....

[David Babsky]

In response to Mike, up above, saying ".."none" is plural.." ..no; it's an abbreviation of "not-one". It's singular.

"Not one of these trees is dropping its leaves.." and thus "None of these trees is dropping its leaves." Not "None of these trees are dropping its [..or "their"..] leaves".

[No, no, no. "None" is its own separate word, not an abbreviation of anything, and the idea that "none" is singular is specifically cited as an example of "folklore grammar" by Joseph M. Williams in his book "Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace" which I've just been reading. "None of these trees are dropping their leaves" is awkward but correct. If you mean "not one," you'd say "Not one of these trees is dropping its leaves," and leave "none" out of it altogether.

Williams points out that a lot of faux-grammar actually concerns peoples' taste and preferences in matters of style, and aren't matters of grammar at all. He even traces the "rules" about "that" and "which" to Henry Fowler's wife, who didn't care for the untidiness of those situations where either word will do. --Mike]

[Tom Bell]

I cant quite see the point of the Olympus top on the range. The OMD5 is a great camera .... the Panasonic GM5 takes advantage of the small size of the m43. But why would a large number of people pay £2000 plus for an M43body when thay can buy. Pentax K1 or Fuji XT2 or Sony A7 11 for less ...all of which will give higher quality results

I love the m43for its portability and tiny primes. But if were selling my photographs and could afford it I would not tie myself to a small sensor. I would keep the m43 for my own pleasure and look elsewhere for higher quality results.

I think Olympus will loose out to others ar this price.

[Mark]

In response to the post by David Babsky and answered by Mike, I'll just add that according to the New Oxford Style Manual (for which God be praised), none is "treated as sing. or pl. depending on emphasis". And in Usage and Abusage, the great Eric Partridge devotes more than a page to the singular and plural uses of none. As to the singular usage, he says "The superstition was I think invented by some 18th-century sciolist, who, misled by appearances and regardless of history and logic, decided that 'none' was a contraction of 'no one' and decreed that it should be followed by a singular verb. In point of fact the truth is the opposite." Here endeth my pedantry.

[Moose]

"But what about people for whom the value equation is important?

But what about people for whom the capabilities of the top of the line cameras that are not included in the lower/older models are important?

I don't know about all those other brands, but this is significant with Olympus µ4/3.

As you pointed out, the E-M1 II has IBIS better than anything else. Also an HR mode that's a step up from the E-M5 II and wasn't in the E-M1 I, and focus bracketing.

I would probably buy one, if it weren't for that huge grip and paying for PDAF for which I have no need. As it is, the focus bracketing, IBIS and HR Mode of the E-M5 II will suffice for a while.

The E-M10s and Pen-F are innocent of these capabilities.

[TC]

[Heh! My father had a Buick 225 in the '70s. I think he thought a Cadillac would have been pretentious. --Mike]

That makes perfect sense. We were handed down a 1969 Electra 225 sedan from my grandparents, two-tone/gold with a white top (the car, not my grandparents...although that would describe them as well). My brother drove it into a lightpole, spraining his wrist in the process, and necessitating a new front end, making it one-tone blue. That car was an absolute tank.

[Brian Taylor]

I've been looking at some memorable images taken with older cameras, some of which barely qualified for 'yeoman' status in their day. A Samsung EX1 with its tiny sensor, and a Panasonic GH2 served me well.

For my current purposes 16MP sensors are perfectly adequate, so I expect to be using my XT10 and GX7, both excellent in different ways (and bought when the price came down) for a few years yet.

[Neilclasper]

I've had my X-T10 a few months now, and I'm really very pleased with it. Lightweight but feels quality; image quality is great; handles well; and it was relatively cheap. I keep wondering about an upgrade but think I'd be better spending the money on a new lens.