Yes – very true.
Actually there is a whole pile of reasons why DSLRs are better, but whether these matter depends on whether you can set up the photo in your own time.
Most landscape and other fixed stuff is easy, even in bad light (use a tripod), if the camera is basically good enough, regardless of how crappy the user interface is. And if you look at photo libraries etc, most stuff on them in that category is heavily photoshopped anyway.
Stuff like people is a lot harder especially if they move about 
You need very fast autofocus.
The NX1 claims to have very good focus tracking, which would be relevant to airborne photos too. For some reason the obvious solution (fixed infinity focus) doesn’t work on any modern camera. To support autofocus (which needs the lens to move either side of perfect focus) all modern lenses don’t actually stop at infinity.
Autofocus tracking isn’t necessary when taking images from an aircraft. (Unless, of course the subject is ridiculously close, such as another aircraft in formation).
Set the aperture at f8, the sharpest setting for 90% of lenses, and when the lens has focused on an object a long distance away turn off autofocus.
Shoot away. All subjects will be far beyond the lens’ hyperfocal distance.
Yes – agreed. However it is easy to move the focus afterwards. You need to only touch the lens against something…
I have a Pentax K-30 and Samsung NX3000. I have a fairly extensive range of Pentax compatible lenses covering ranges from 16mm to 400mm. I also have some powerful flash guns for it. But when it comes to flying on my own, my best camera by far is my Samsung NX3000 + either the Samsung NX 30mm F2 or 16mm F2.4. The 30mm F2 is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever encountered.
I find that for images of the ground from the air that sharpest images are captured when using F2 or F2.4. At first thought this doesn’t really make sense when you think of aerial images as landscapes, but when you think about it landscapes on the ground, they are all about maximum depth of field from the position of the photographer to the horizon. However from the air you are looking at the ground and unless there is some feature in between (not a good idea when flying) the depth of field required is very short, so using fastest shutter is good and using largest aperture achieves this. I usually aim for F2-F4 (depending on the weather and the lens)
So when I am flying my samsung NX3000 which is barely larger than a Panasonic (TZ) travel camera but uses an APS-C sensor that is equivalent to my Pentax K-30 but it produces the best images in single pilot operations I can think of. It’s small, light and has a really good live view function (so no having to look through an optical viewfinder)
An example here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/neilmacg/20332854518/in/dateposted-public/
If you have a flickr account you can download the full resolution version to see the level of detail.
And how much did I pay for NX3000 + 30mm F2 and 16mm F2.4? Total of around £300.
As indicated earlier in the thread – the main downside to the NX system is a lack of longer focus lenses – but for that I have my Pentax system. In practice, even on the ground my Pentax system only goes with me about 1 trip in 10.
I think my problem is that no way I would want to carry around two “SLR”-sized cameras
In terms of the way one carries around a camera, a m4/3 is identical to a full DSLR. Neither is pocket sized, both will get you robbed in the wrong place, etc.
Carrying two would take me back to the bad old days when “we” used to go on holidays with a massive camera bad containing an OM1, 5 lenses, and 25 rolls of film (close to 10kg total)
My feeling is that, looking at the prices of this stuff now (the NX1 for example is hardly cheap), people are willing to pay top money for “convergence” i.e. carrying as little junk as possible. If there was a smartphone which did what the NX1 with a 15-200 zoom range might do (obviously way impossible in the foreseeable future) I reckon people would pay £3000+ for it.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Weird – I think the camera on my iPhone 6 is rubbish except in the best of lighting conditions
There is an issue with some iPhone6+ cameras that Apple has acknowledged and is offering a replacement camera for: https://www.apple.com/support/iphone6plus-isightcamera/ – check if your device is possibly affected.
I’ve just gone through a few of these in a camera shop
and it was interesting… no way would I go back from the K3 to one of these. Obviously their specs are good enough to produce great photos, and there are photographers who use this system all the time and get great results, but I found the whole “feel” a huge step backwards. Also nobody in the shop could find a way to configure them for M mode with auto-ISO (the equivalent of the ultra useful Pentax TAV mode) and while I did find it myself on the Olympus, the camera would not save the setting… maybe it was duff.
The weight saving remains substantial however – of the order of 50%.
I just came back from Japan. I carried my Nikon D4 and my new SONY RX-100 II. Next trip the D4 stays home, because the little SONY is actually so good that I know i will not need more camera on trips like that. I’ll keep the D4 (although i don’t work as a photographer anymore) for some air-to-air shots … but maybe I’ll also sell all that heavy stuff soon.
I’ll post some examples soon.
If the RX100 does the job for you then you have loads of options.
I have just had another serious look at the E-M1… The only lens which would do what I want (basically a zoom which can more or less stay on it, like my 15-85 one does now) is the not exactly new 12-60 which bought new is about €1000, and with a 72mm front is almost as big as my 16-85 Pentax one I have on the K3. It’s amazing this is a m4/3 lens! So I would end up with something which is almost as bulky as I have now, but the K3 outperforms every m4/3 camera, so why bother? The next option down, a lot smaller and lighter, is the 12-50 lens, but I don’t want to lose the zoom range, and the wider range zooms lose a lot of quality. The shops tell you to buy the 12-50 and the 50-whatever but that’s two lenses to carry around.
I was going to get some of this stuff to try on the Slovenia/Croatia/Greece trip but decided to not bother.
The Nikon D4 is however a huge camera and I can fully understand giving that up unless absolutely needed.
Not sure if you saw my comment before, but have you looked at the Nikon D5500? It’s of comparable quality to your Pentax (probably better in some regards, less good in others, but broadly the same and certainly better than the Olympus). With an 18/55 it weighs in at 680g, versus your Pentax at 1025g or the Olympus with the 12-60 at 1075g. It’s also physically smaller than your K3 and about the same size as the Olympus.
So if you want Pentax quality in less weight, the Nikon does it. It’s twice the weight of a Sony RX100 of course, but the quality is better and it’s significantly more flexible.
The D5300 is the same size/weight as the D5500 and has a built-in GPS which might interest you. Because it’s not the latest model it’s almost certainly cheaper too. It has wifi too. And a flip out screen, which might be useful in the cockpit.
I don’t have a D5500 but I can lend you another modern Nikon body if you want to try it out to see if you like the Nikon style of controls, menus, etc. I’m not as familiar with the Canon lineup, but maybe they have a lightweight SLR too.
