Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
kyle d Member
Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 521 | TRs | Pics Location: Ogden, UT |
|
kyle d
Member
|
Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:28 pm
|
|
|
Iron:
I have the Sony A7riii (not the most up-to-date riv; since it older you could find it used or at leat discounted). The 3rd generation has a bigger battery, which I think is nice. I think it's a nice balance between a landscape camera and camera for taking pictures of my son. I certainly appreciate seeing the exposure in the evf, and the eye and face detect in focusing. From my understanding, Sony is still the best at eye and face detection autofocus (useful for fast moving kids). It's pretty light for a full frame camera. Of course, some lenses are quite heavy...
Some recent examples:
Colorful hillside Climbing trees Scrub jay West Temple from Kinesava Hiding spot
|
Back to top |
|
|
awilsondc Member
Joined: 03 Apr 2016 Posts: 1323 | TRs | Pics
|
I absolutely love my a7rii. Same sensor and nearly identical image quality as the a7riii, but cheaper. The smaller battery doesn't bother me. See any of my '19 trip reports. The a7ii or a7iii is also a great camera and unless you are going to be making large prints, it's got more than enough resolution. Geyer has been shooting with an a7iii since last year. Great cameras. The original a7 is probably a bit out dated, but still a decent camera. Of course make sure you pair it with a good lens. Don't skimp on the lens!
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:12 pm
|
|
|
thanks SF.
for lens selection: does the sony allow you to use both canon and nikon lenses? are sony lenses better anyway since the camera doesn't need IS in the lens?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
The most versatile lens mount out there going forward will be the Nikon Z-mount; it's big enough that assuming someone makes an adapter it'll be able to accept lenses from pretty much any other manufacturers (I think maybe with the exception of the Canon RF lenses). But yes, you can put Canon EF and Nikon F mount lenses on the Sony E mount bodies with an adapter - that's why a bunch of people ditched Canon for Sony, because they could keep their lenses.
As to whether the Sony lenses are better, I can't really offer much input there - never used Sony gear myself. Everything I've heard is the Sony lenses are generally quite good, but they're also a bit pricier, somewhat heavier and a bit bulkier in many situations. Not having IS in the lens does have benefits (weight reduction and size probably the biggest for me), but I don't think it necessarily means one is better or worse than the other.
Having the IS module in the body does allow for pixel shift shooting though, which is a big plus for the Sony system (I think the Fuji bodies have it too), and one I'm really hoping Nikon will patch in with a firmware update, because it's probably the biggest omission right now. That might not be a feature that'd make or break your decision though, unless you're real interested in getting super pixel-peepy.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Whats the latest Sony full frame offering. Secondly, why change from a Nikon/Canon system when you can simply lock the mirror open for each shot? To back up that philosophy, if a shot is important to you you should be using a tripod when you shoot anyway?
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
iron Member
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics Location: southeast kootenays |
|
iron
Member
|
Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:35 pm
|
|
|
Backpacker Joe wrote: | if a shot is important to you you should be using a tripod when you shoot anyway? |
do you have kids?
let me know how the photopurity works out.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:01 pm
|
|
|
Backpacker Joe wrote: | Whats the latest Sony full frame offering. Secondly, why change from a Nikon/Canon system when you can simply lock the mirror open for each shot? To back up that philosophy, if a shot is important to you you should be using a tripod when you shoot anyway? |
LOLWUT???
None of that makes any sense. What point are you trying to make?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Damian Member
Joined: 18 Dec 2001 Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Damian
Member
|
Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:27 pm
|
|
|
BPJ's question makes sense, though there is no one correct answer IMO. I think he's questioning why one would buy a mirrorless camera when you can eliminate the vibration effect of the mirror by simply locking it up vs buying a mirrorless camera. Which is true. I own a Canon RP mirrorless and really like it but- I was initially impressed by the small body size, allowable by elimination of the mirror, mechanism, and space provisions. This is true, until you put a lens on it. If you use one of your old lenses you need an adaptor which puts you pretty much back to the original total weight of a mirror camera. Maybe a bit less. If you buy the uber expensive new Canon lenses that do not require an adaptor, the lenses essentially have the adaptor built in as the glass still needs to be the same distance from the sensor as with the old mirrored versions. Again, you are back to your original weight.
Eliminating the mirror is clearly the right thing to do in this day and age. I have to say they did a great job covering all the bases and working out the bugs on the RP. Just be careful to look at apples vs apples when comparing weight of mirrorless vs mirrored.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:00 pm
|
|
|
How does saying to just lock the mirror up on a traditional DSLR instead of switching to a mirrorless system make sense? It's not the same thing at all. Just to start with the totally obvious and biggest difference- you can't see what you're aiming at with the mirror locked up, and the differences add up from there.
The point of a mirrorless interchangable lens camera isn't to eliminate mirror vibration, and that's only one minor benefit to the design.
I haven't directly compared lenses of the same focal length and aperture between the two systems but I find it hard to believe the lenses for Canon's and Nikon's new mirrorless systems are bigger and heavier than an equivalent lens for their traditional cameras. The shape of the lens elements determines how far behind the rear element the image circle is projected. I find it hard to believe the elements couldn't be designed in such a way as to project the image where needed without making the lens bigger.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:04 am
|
|
|
Where smaller sensors and correspondingly smaller lenses makes a difference is not so much in camera bodies, but when one wants to carry a suite of lenses, and especially telephoto focal lengths. I regularly carry lenses that include a 16mm FE (which I shoot rectilinearly in most cases), a 24-80 zoom, and a 70-200 zoom. All are topnotch lenses. I sometimes carry a teeny 120mm macro and a 150-600mm telephoto, the latter of mid-range quality and rather small size. My gear is a mix of Olympus and Panasonic. I've had this gear for five years now. Olympus stabilization is state of art and means no tripod except when shooting astro or highly detailed macro - focus stacked or bracketed. The newest and highest tech bodies can allow 2 or 3 second handheld shots.
What caused me to abandon my old Nikon film gear (with topnotch EF lenses) was the realization that it was very difficult in many cases to get a truly sharp shot with a lens of 105mm length because of the rule that - at that time - one needed to have an inverse SS of double the focal length handheld. Stabilization makes all the difference, and I can now shoot at 1/4 SS of the focal length. Of course, the other issue is the significantly smaller bulk and weight when mountain-carried. But even when birding with my newest body - the EM-1 II - I easily carry in my hand the body and a 150-600mm lens - all day even. The EM-1 II turns an average lens into a super-quick focusing lens even for small songbirds deep in vegetation. Some skilled folks get 600 or even 840 mm (1.4X) spectacular Swallow and Swift birds in flight images. At this point with my skill set, and with a mid-range telephoto, that is well beyond my ability. But in the future I may upgrade my telephoto.
Vass gets amazing Swallow and Swift images! He is the best but not the only one.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Damian Member
Joined: 18 Dec 2001 Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Damian
Member
|
Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:38 pm
|
|
|
Bedivere wrote: | The point of a mirrorless interchangable lens camera isn't to eliminate mirror vibration, and that's only one minor benefit to the design. |
Ah the dis-benefits of communicating by posts. Of course you are correct. There was still discussion value to be found in BPJs question.
My subjective observation is that mirrorless its not a significant weight saver in the aggregate. I could be wrong of course.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Thanks Damian, you nailed it. I think Ive got to much money invested in Canon glass to make a change now.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:00 pm
|
|
|
Sore Feet wrote: | Not having IS in the lens does have benefits (weight reduction and size probably the biggest for me) |
For what it's worth: in theory a lens without IS should be better than an identical lens with. It's less glass in the light path. I've used Canon's 300 mm f/4 both with and without IS, and the older version without is sharper wide open and more contrasty than the newer version with. (I bought the IS version anyway.)
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
I always use a tripod when Im taking really important shots. In that environment I turn off the IS and lock the mirror open. Otherwise I up the ISO, use the IS and hand shoot. Its worked out well for me.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
|