Support NeoGAF

[TerryLee81]

mirrorless is slightly smaller and more compact but supposedly at the cost of reduced image quality.

Image quality has nothing to do with mirrorless or DSLR. The Fujifilm GFX 50s for example is a mirrorless camera...

 

[Quick]

Is it cool to ask about action cameras (GoPro) here or do we have a separate thread for those?

 

[giga]

Nor is it a concern if you like prime lenses. There are professional lenses other than 28-70 and 70-200.

Like sigma art?

 

[JadedWriter]

Sometimes but not always.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.516,557.330,ha,t

Exactly this. You pretty much say good bye to any sort of size advantage with mirrorless when you put on any sort of modern lens, whether it be a prime or a zoom. Unless you're talking about mircro 4/3rds the argument barely has a leg to stand on. Unless you're talking about a low element count vintage prime lens. Not to mention when you strap on a battery grip if you're shooting an event and a lens adapter cause you're using adapted Canon glass then essentially you have no "size" advantage, then there's also the factor of multiple lens adapters to throw into your bag. My event bag is simple...cause I frankly might need a bigger bag at this point. 2.8 Nikon 24-70, 2.8 Tamron 70-200, D810, D600 (both gripped), flash, two Black Rapid straps, air blower, lens cleaner, micro fiber cloth. That's it. I'd pack my 85 in there but it won't fit.

Like sigma art?

I think the art 85 is the size of my 24-70. I say nope to that shit.

 

[Astral/H3X]

mirrorless is slightly smaller and more compact but supposedly at the cost of reduced image quality.

1: It's more than "slightly" -- my A7 is full frame and feels smaller than even an APSC DSLR.
2: There is absolutely zero impact on image quality of any kind, whatsoever, as a result of MILC vs DSLR. They will take the exact same images, it's just how you interface with the camera to get to that point.

Exactly this. You pretty much say good bye to any sort of size advantage with mirrorless when you put on any sort of modern lens, whether it be a prime or a zoom. Unless you're talking about mircro 4/3rds the argument barely has a leg to stand on. Unless you're talking about a low element count vintage prime lens. Not to mention when you strap on a battery grip if you're shooting an event and a lens adapter cause you're using adapted Canon glass then essentially you have no "size" advantage, then there's also the factor of multiple lens adapters to throw into your bag. My event bag is simple...cause I frankly might need a bigger bag at this point. 2.8 Nikon 24-70, 2.8 Tamron 70-200, D810, D600 (both gripped), flash, two Black Rapid straps, air blower, lens cleaner, micro fiber cloth. That's it. I'd pack my 85 in there but it won't fit.

I think the art 85 is the size of my 24-70. I say nope to that shit.

I mean, sure, a MILC can be in the same neighborhood of size if you're going for the largest lenses and camera grips and all that stuff. But a 5D can never, ever be as small as an A7 with a 50mm on it, and that's how I use it 99% of the time. Do you have a 70-200mm permanently glued to your lens mount? Okay, probably not a large noticable difference for you. Do you use a 50mm a lot? Damn sure bet your ass there's a difference.

Not everyone needs giant kachunkatron lenses. Stop pretending there's no size advantage to be had, because it's utterly false. Yes, there are big lenses regardless of which system you use, and that can somewhat diminish the impact of the size advantage (though an A7 with a Canon 70-200 will STILL be smaller and lighter than a 5D with that same 70-200, even if it may not be as noticable in practice as a7+50mm vs 5D+50mm). When picking up just the body of the 5D feels tiring compared to my a7 and 50mm, there's weight savings there. I mean, shit, there's a reason why the military issues M4's over M16's -- weight is weight.
I've used my 50mm for all of my event work, and it has done absolute wonders for me. People love the images I hand them, even if long time pros might be able to get a little nit picky with them. I have *VERY* little interest in a 28-70, so I'll continue to enjoy the size advantages.

Not only that, but an EVF has several advantages over an OVF. It's not a cut and dry "A is superior to B".

 

[giga]

I mean, sure, a MILC can be in the same neighborhood of size if you're going for the largest lenses and camera grips and all that stuff. But a 5D can never, ever be as small as an A7 with a 50mm on it, and that's how I use it 99% of the time. Do you have a 70-200mm permanently glued to your lens mount? Okay, probably not a large noticable difference for you. Do you use a 50mm a lot? Damn sure bet your ass there's a difference.

My 35mm is permanently glued to my 5D 90% of the time. But, it's one of the best 35mm lenses there, the sigma art. And a smaller body isn't doing much for me there.

So yes, depends on what lens. But it's not limited to just pro telephotos. The best primes are large too.

 

[JadedWriter]

I mean, sure, a MILC can be in the same neighborhood of size if you're going for the largest lenses and camera grips and all that stuff. But a 5D can never, ever be as small as an A7 with a 50mm on it, and that's how I use it 99% of the time. Do you have a 70-200mm permanently glued to your lens mount? Okay, probably not a large noticable difference for you. Do you use a 50mm a lot? Damn sure bet your ass there's a difference.

Not everyone needs giant kachunkatron lenses. Stop pretending there's no size advantage to be had, because it's utterly false. Yes, there are big lenses regardless of which system you use, and that can somewhat diminish the impact of the size advantage (though an A7 with a Canon 70-200 will STILL be smaller and lighter than a 5D with that same 70-200, even if it may not be as noticable in practice as a7+50mm vs 5D+50mm). When picking up just the body of the 5D feels tiring compared to my a7 and 50mm, there's weight savings there. I mean, shit, there's a reason why the military issues M4's over M16's -- weight is weight.
I've used my 50mm for all of my event work, and it has done absolute wonders for me. People love the images I hand them, even if long time pros might be able to get a little nit picky with them. I have *VERY* little interest in a 28-70, so I'll continue to enjoy the size advantages.

Not only that, but an EVF has several advantages over an OVF. It's not a cut and dry "A is superior to B".

What I'm saying is that it's based around what you do and what you use. I don't use primes that often. A D810 with my 50 isn't even that bad to be honest, but it's a set up that I very rarely even use and nothing I would use for event work, personally. I don't always know what I'm going to be shooting and where I'm going to be shooting so I might as well have all my focal lengths covered. Nor am I saying either is superior to each other? No since I do want a MILC camera. Weight is weight yes, but I also want to make sure I can cover an event that my job throws at me properly, which I can't exactly do with any camera with two prime lenses. I once tried to cover an event early on with my Sigma 18-35...it didn't work, sometimes you really do need actual reach. And with your A7 with a Canon 70-200 statement there's a matter of balancing since that thing will really be front heavy which would tire your wrists out unless you're using a monopod. DSLR grips really do help with that. There's no perfect camera, everything is about trade offs. You do macro photography...mostly, I do random events where I can't exactly plan everything on top of walking into rooms blind without even knowing what anything is going to be like, I can't bring a single prime just to save weight. Would I like to bring something lighter? Yes that'd be great, but at the same time I've gotten pretty used to carrying around and using my stuff. I do want to get some sort of Fuji for my non work fun shit, but it's all about funds. Shit I'd even buy an A7ii, but I really don't like their button layouts that much, which sort of goes for all Sony's at least straight out of the box. I'd actually have an MILC if I was on Canon mount and not Nikon.

My 35mm is permanently glued to my 5D 90% of the time. But, it's one of the best 35mm lenses there, the sigma art. And a smaller body isn't doing much for me there.

So yes, depends on what lens. But it's not limited to just pro telephotos. The best primes are large too.

Modern glass is huge regardless. The biggest prime I'd get would be the Sigma 50. I find the 85 to be the complete antithesis of what the nature of prime lenses is about.

 

[Astral/H3X]

What I'm saying is that it's based around what you do and what you use. I don't use primes that often. A D810 with my 50 isn't even that bad to be honest, but it's a set up that I very rarely even use and nothing I would use for event work, personally. I don't always know what I'm going to be shooting and where I'm going to be shooting so I might as well have all my focal lengths covered. Nor am I saying either is superior to each other? No since I do want a MILC camera. Weight is weight yes, but I also want to make sure I can cover an event that my job throws at me properly, which I can't exactly do with any camera with two prime lenses. I once tried to cover an event early on with my Sigma 18-35...it didn't work, sometimes you really do need actual reach. And with your A7 with a Canon 70-200 statement there's a matter of balancing since that thing will really be front heavy which would tire your wrists out unless you're using a monopod. DSLR grips really do help with that. There's no perfect camera, everything is about trade offs. You do macro photography...mostly, I do random events where I can't exactly plan everything on top of walking into rooms blind without even knowing what anything is going to be like, I can't bring a single prime just to save weight. Would I like to bring something lighter? Yes that'd be great, but at the same time I've gotten pretty used to carrying around and using my stuff. I do want to get some sort of Fuji for my non work fun shit, but it's all about funds. Shit I'd even buy an A7ii, but I really don't like their button layouts that much, which sort of goes for all Sony's at least straight out of the box. I'd actually have an MILC if I was on Canon mount and not Nikon.

Modern glass is huge regardless. The biggest prime I'd get would be the Sigma 50. I find the 85 to be the complete antithesis of what the nature of prime lenses is about.

I suppose my biggest beef is that, if I'm not replying, every question of "What should I get", the answer is almost always "Get a DSLR, because some lenses on MILC are big too", which completely ignores a lot of what MILC brings to the table. Unless it's video, yall are pretty good at recommending the Pannys when video is explicitly mentioned.

I get DSLRs are sort of the "default answer" in a way, but it's kind of annoying when I see MILCs brushed under the rug like the existence of a few large lenses makes them a nonfactor in recommendations.

 

[JadedWriter]

I suppose my biggest beef is that, if I'm not replying, every question of "What should I get", the answer is almost always "Get a DSLR, because some lenses on MILC are big too", which completely ignores a lot of what MILC brings to the table. Unless it's video, yall are pretty good at recommending the Pannys when video is explicitly mentioned.

I get DSLRs are sort of the "default answer" in a way, but it's kind of annoying when I see MILCs brushed under the rug like the existence of a few large lenses makes them a nonfactor in recommendations.

No I don't brush MILC under the rug cause I explicitly recommended an X-T1 or X-T10 about a page ago as well. Actually I recommended both on this very page. I do my best to look at a persons budget and recommend as close as I can unless it's some noob coming in here asking for a camera that can do everything for $200. I even like the Olympus cameras, but I'm not sure how those things have aged AF wise so I don't recommend them and I'm not going to tell a dude to randomly buy and EM-1 mk ii as their first camera. The only thing I might slightly sweep under the rug are A6000's and that's mostly because I don't really care for the Sony APSC lens line up and with the newer ones over heating when they do 4K. I do my best to look at ecosystem first and I just personally feel that Sony out of all of them has the weakest ecosystem. Panasonic also seems to have shit customer service, but their cameras and lens line up is still pretty damn good. Sony has great marketing and they bring a lot of tech to the market. I respect that tech and love their sensors...their cameras are something that I don't hate, but at the same time it's not the first thing I would recommend to someone.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

or that MILC's have the advantage in learning manual shooting, as it'll show you roughly what your exposure will look like before you fire away.

I think this advantage is hugely understated, especially when it comes to someone who is just starting to learn photography. Being able to see more or less how your image will turn out with the settings you have chosen before you hit the shutter button is just massive when trying to understand how the different settings affect your picture.

 

[Rentahamster]

Not everyone needs giant kachunkatron lenses. Stop pretending there's no size advantage to be had, because it's utterly false.

That's why I qualified my statement with "pro lenses". For certain demographics of users, there is little size advantage. For a lot of new users, mirrorless is pretty ace.

 

[opticalmace]

I think this advantage is hugely understated, especially when it comes to someone who is just starting to learn photography. Being able to see more or less how your image will turn out with the settings you have chosen before you hit the shutter button is just massive when trying to understand how the different settings affect your picture.

I concur. My first 'real' camera was a Sony A55, which was an SLT with an EVF. I was looking for replacement cameras and was kinda shocked when I learned that DSLRs don't have that feature (I know, I know, I didn't know much about cameras).

I love all the extra stuff you get with an EVF (despite the drawbacks, which can be significant sometimes), so I'm sticking with them for now. Or at least, if I have 2 cameras, one will definitely have an EVF.

 

[v0yce]

I get DSLRs are sort of the "default answer" in a way, but it's kind of annoying when I see MILCs brushed under the rug like the existence of a few large lenses makes them a nonfactor in recommendations.

Yeah, that stuff baffles me too.

I mean sure, when I have a Canon 85 1.2 on my Sony A7r its pretty big. But I can also throw on a 50mm rangefinder lens or the tiny 35 2.8 and put it in a coat pocket.

The versatility of mirrorless is incredible.

My 35mm is permanently glued to my 5D 90% of the time. But, it's one of the best 35mm lenses there, the sigma art. And a smaller body isn't doing much for me there.

So yes, depends on what lens. But it's not limited to just pro telephotos. The best primes are large too.

 

[Radec]

mirrorless is slightly smaller and more compact but supposedly at the cost of reduced image quality.

Bullshit.

 

[Astral/H3X]

As other posts are mentioning, EVFs are by themselves huge.

I just think we'd do a better job of recommending if we help people understand DSLR vs MILC, and then once they decide what style they want, then work on specific camera recommendations.

Also, Voyce? Get some of Dat Peak Design action on your camera strap. For real, it's better than sex.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Changing the subject somewhat, but after around half a year now playing with this thing, I think I've found my ideal settings for the A7r II. I started out mainly in Aperture Priority and then full manual. I've settled on staying in full manual, but leaving the ISO at auto (with a 6400 cap), and I mapped the auto exposure lock button to the "trash" button at the bottom of the camera. I've found this to be ideal for being able to fully control the "look" of the image via shutter speed and aperture, while also not having to fiddle around with ISO to find the right option for a correct exposure. Being able to lock the exposure settings at the tap of a button really helps, too, especially in scenes with uneven lighting. If the camera is going a bit too crazy with the ISO for my tastes, I can quickly adjust via the exposure dial. All in all, this lets me have full control over my picture without needing to dig into any menus, which was a valid complaint that a lot of people had about Sony cameras (and which they sort of rectified by adding more dials on the A9).

What kind of modes do you all typically shoot in and why?

 

[Lasthope106]

No I don't brush MILC under the rug cause I explicitly recommended an X-T1 or X-T10 about a page ago as well. Actually I recommended both on this very page. I do my best to look at a persons budget and recommend as close as I can unless it's some noob coming in here asking for a camera that can do everything for $200. I even like the Olympus cameras, but I'm not sure how those things have aged AF wise so I don't recommend them and I'm not going to tell a dude to randomly buy and EM-1 mk ii as their first camera. The only thing I might slightly sweep under the rug are A6000's and that's mostly because I don't really care for the Sony APSC lens line up and with the newer ones over heating when they do 4K. I do my best to look at ecosystem first and I just personally feel that Sony out of all of them has the weakest ecosystem. Panasonic also seems to have shit customer service, but their cameras and lens line up is still pretty damn good. Sony has great marketing and they bring a lot of tech to the market. I respect that tech and love their sensors...their cameras are something that I don't hate, but at the same time it's not the first thing I would recommend to someone.

The a6000 is a great camera for a beginner. It's packed with features and is the best bang for the buck in IMO. If you are planning to use more advanced lenses, then that's not really the camera you want to have. Same can be said for Canon and Nikon with their APS-C sensor DSLRs. You aren't going to buy a T6 and a 70-200mm L lens and then expect the best results.

I have pretty much every a6000 lens that most people rave about. Those lenses are all great and have produced some amazing images for my girlfriend and I. The only one that I really think is needed is a cheaper 24mm which would give you a "35mm Full frame" equivalent. But other than that, the other lenses have you covered.

As for the 4K issues on the a6300 and a6500, well that's a tradeoff of having a compact camera. If video is the main use case, then there are other better options out there like the Panasonic cameras. I don't do video. Occasionally and for me personally the Sony system works.

It really all comes to down to doing your research and identifying the types of things you plan to do with your camera.

 

[JadedWriter]

The a6000 is a great camera for a beginner. It's packed with features and is the best bang for the buck in IMO. If you are planning to use more advanced lenses, then that's not really the camera you want to have. Same can be said for Canon and Nikon with their APS-C sensor DSLRs. You aren't going to buy a T6 and a 70-200mm L lens and then expect the best results.

I have pretty much every a6000 lens that most people rave about. Those lenses are all great and have produced some amazing images for my girlfriend and I. The only one that I really think is needed is a cheaper 24mm which would give you a "35mm Full frame" equivalent. But other than that, the other lenses have you covered.

As for the 4K issues on the a6300 and a6500, well that's a tradeoff of having a compact camera. If video is the main use case, then there are other better options out there like the Panasonic cameras. I don't do video. Occasionally and for me personally the Sony system works.

It really all comes to down to doing your research and identifying the types of things you plan to do with your camera.

I completely hear you on that front. I'm not even too enthusiastic about Nikon's DX offerings to be honest. I'm pretty sure whatever the hell I get next will be mirrorless, I'm just not super sure what the hell it's even going to be. Could be an X-T1 or 2, X-T20, G85, some sort of Olympus, bargain bin A7ii, I'm not sure. Like it may come off that I'm sour on MILC on here, but I'm honestly not, I just have a lot of Nikon mount stuff that I can't exactly adapt. I almost bought an X-T1 and a manual lens adapter, but just thought against it. With me and the A6000...actually anything Sony (and most MILC's) I don't like stuff where I have to do a ton of menu diving. My main sore point with them is that I currently have no idea how I can switch around my focus points without going into a menu. Once I figure that shit out I'll be fine.

 

[RuGalz]

Dropped my 16-50 f2.8 not once but twice on volcanic rocks. My heart almost skipped a beat. Nothing mechanically is broken but the lens is decentered. Luckily didn't come home empty handed.

What kind of modes do you all typically shoot in and why?

(Hyper) Program mode for me since a turn of one wheel switches it to aperture priority, using the second wheel would put it in shutter priority and a button press resets it back to program mode. Never have to look at menus.

 

[TKM]

Not everyone needs giant kachunkatron lenses. Stop pretending there's no size advantage to be had, because it's utterly false. Yes, there are big lenses regardless of which system you use, and that can somewhat diminish the impact of the size advantage (though an A7 with a Canon 70-200 will STILL be smaller and lighter than a 5D with that same 70-200, even if it may not be as noticable in practice as a7+50mm vs 5D+50mm). When picking up just the body of the 5D feels tiring compared to my a7 and 50mm, there's weight savings there.

Not only that, but an EVF has several advantages over an OVF. It's not a cut and dry "A is superior to B".

Absolutely. I still have a 5DII and used to have one of the older Canon APS-C DSLRs (probably t2i), but was an early enthusiast of MILC starting with the Sony NEX-5. DSLRs are still shackled by the analog limitations of film. There is no reason to have a flapping mirror box. The industry removed the mirror box, and OVF, and next will be the mechanical shutter. These components are expensive to make with precision, wear down, and reduce image quality due to vibration. There's plenty to be gained aside from weight.

I recently upgraded from NEX-7 to an A6500 and it's just about the perfect camera for me. On-sensor PDAF is as fast as I'll ever need. Even with a slow lens like the 18-200mm, it's good enough. And instantaneous with the SEL24F18Z that's on the body 90% of the time.

 

[m_shortpants]

I completely hear you on that front. I'm not even too enthusiastic about Nikon's DX offerings to be honest. I'm pretty sure whatever the hell I get next will be mirrorless, I'm just not super sure what the hell it's even going to be. Could be an X-T1 or 2, X-T20, G85, some sort of Olympus, bargain bin A7ii, I'm not sure. Like it may come off that I'm sour on MILC on here, but I'm honestly not, I just have a lot of Nikon mount stuff that I can't exactly adapt. I almost bought an X-T1 and a manual lens adapter, but just thought against it. With me and the A6000...actually anything Sony (and most MILC's) I don't like stuff where I have to do a ton of menu diving. My main sore point with them is that I currently have no idea how I can switch around my focus points without going into a menu. Once I figure that shit out I'll be fine.

The A6000 has a couple programmable buttons...handy for assigning common functions to.

 

[opticalmace]

The a6000 is a great camera for a beginner. It's packed with features and is the best bang for the buck in IMO. If you are planning to use more advanced lenses, then that's not really the camera you want to have. Same can be said for Canon and Nikon with their APS-C sensor DSLRs. You aren't going to buy a T6 and a 70-200mm L lens and then expect the best results.

I have pretty much every a6000 lens that most people rave about. Those lenses are all great and have produced some amazing images for my girlfriend and I. The only one that I really think is needed is a cheaper 24mm which would give you a "35mm Full frame" equivalent. But other than that, the other lenses have you covered.

As for the 4K issues on the a6300 and a6500, well that's a tradeoff of having a compact camera. If video is the main use case, then there are other better options out there like the Panasonic cameras. I don't do video. Occasionally and for me personally the Sony system works.

It really all comes to down to doing your research and identifying the types of things you plan to do with your camera.

What e mount lenses do you have? I might have a couple questions for you..

 

[JadedWriter]

The A6000 has a couple programmable buttons...handy for assigning common functions to.

See that's the thing. I think I memorize static buttons better than programmable buttons.

Absolutely. I still have a 5DII and used to have one of the older Canon APS-C DSLRs (probably t2i), but was an early enthusiast of MILC starting with the Sony NEX-5. DSLRs are still shackled by the analog limitations of film. There is no reason to have a flapping mirror box. The industry removed the mirror box, and OVF, and next will be the mechanical shutter. These components are expensive to make with precision, wear down, and reduce image quality due to vibration. There's plenty to be gained aside from weight.

I recently upgraded from NEX-7 to an A6500 and it's just about the perfect camera for me. On-sensor PDAF is as fast as I'll ever need. Even with a slow lens like the 18-200mm, it's good enough. And instantaneous with the SEL24F18Z that's on the body 90% of the time.

Take one second and google what a golf swing looks like with an electronic shutter.

 

[Lasthope106]

What e mount lenses do you have? I might have a couple questions for you..

Here is a list from the top of my head:

Sony 50mm f1.8
Sony 35mm f1.8
Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f1.8
Sigma 19mm f2.8
Sony 16-50mm a.k.a. kit lens
Sony 55-210mm
Sony 10-18mm

I also have the following adapted lenses

Canon FD Macro 50mm f/3.5
Pentax-M SMC 50mm f/1.4
Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5

 

[sneaky77]

See that's the thing. I think I memorize static buttons better than programmable buttons.

Take one second and google what a golf swing looks like with an electronic shutter.

Tech will get better but yeah, really high speed ES can have weird effects

 

[JadedWriter]

Tech will get better but yeah, really high speed ES can have weird effects

I'm fine with technology advancement as long as it's at a point where nobody can tell the difference. I also heard not having the lens cap on a MILC camera could bake the lens a bit if it's pointed at something that reflects the sun back at it. It's not exactly a deal breaker, but it's something I'd have to be mindful of. I wouldn't mind MILC at all, it's just sort of not in my budget, I'd have to rebuy so many damn focal lengths. It's great for beginners though or somebody not heavily invested in Nikon glass.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Take one second and google what a golf swing looks like with an electronic shutter.

Take one second to Google the Sony A9?

We're not 100% there yet, especially on affordable bodies, but it's clear that's where the technology is going.

 

[JadedWriter]

Take one second to Google the Sony A9?

We're not 100% there yet, especially on affordable bodies, but it's clear that's where the technology is going.

I'm completely aware of it and the A9 still suffers from banding. ES is great in perfect lighting conditions. Not whatever the hell a sports photographer, not to mention general wedding and event photographers would be shooting in in real life situations. I thought this was discussed already? Yeah you can switch to the mechanical shutter but if you're going to do that then why get the A9 in the first place?

 

[sneaky77]

I'm fine with technology advancement as long as it's at a point where nobody can tell the difference. I also heard not having the lens cap on a MILC camera could bake the lens a bit if it's pointed at something that reflects the sun back at it. It's not exactly a deal breaker, but it's something I'd have to be mindful of. I wouldn't mind MILC at all, it's just sort of not in my budget, I'd have to rebuy so many damn focal lengths. It's great for beginners though or somebody not heavily invested in Nikon glass.

I am all for anyone to use whatever they like best, I've been pretty happy with Fuji for the last few yrs so I don't see a reason for me to change

 

[TKM]

See that's the thing. I think I memorize static buttons better than programmable buttons.

Take one second and google what a golf swing looks like with an electronic shutter.

Don't need to, I know the limitations (also flash limits). But it'll be solved. The Sony A9 is already a decent step towards solving the golf swing problem.

edit: Eh, I'm late on replying. Others already pointed out the A9. I just think throwing out legacy mechanical bits will result in cheaper, more reliable, and faster cameras. It's something the electronics makers like Sony/Panasonic have to do, as it's their competitive edge over Canon/Nikon.

 

[JadedWriter]

Don't need to, I know the limitations (also flash limits). But it'll be solved. The Sony A9 is already a decent step towards solving the golf swing problem.

If it's half solved then that's good. As long as they're working their way towards fixing it then that's fine. It'll probably be sorted by the A11 comes out then. Last time I checked flash don't even work with electronic shutter.

I am all for anyone to use whatever they like best, I've been pretty happy with Fuji for the last few yrs so I don't see a reason for me to change

I want an X-T2 so bad...I'm pretty pro Fuji actually.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm completely aware of it and the A9 still suffers from banding. ES is great in perfect lighting conditions. Not whatever the hell a sports photographer, not to mention general wedding and event photographers would be shooting in in real life situations. I thought this was discussed already? Yeah you can switch to the mechanical shutter but if you're going to do that then why get the A9 in the first place?

The banding and rolling shutter is extremely minor in only extreme action shots or places with worst-case-scenario lighting.

Here's a blog post specifically from a guy who shot golf with the A9.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/shooting-golf-with-the-sony-a9/

Yeah, there are a few instances where there is noticeable banding, but the A9 is already way ahead of any other electronic shutter and is totally usable. Better yet, it lets you shoot silently, so you're taking shots of golf that otherwise wouldn't be possible due to the noise of a mechanical shutter. This will also be super helpful in weddings or pretty much any other scenario where noise is an issue. I use the silent shutter option (only single shots) on my A7r II in certain situations and even with it's limited uses, it's super helpful when I don't want to make noise.

Give it a few more years and the tech will be near perfect and available in even the lower end models.

 

[JadedWriter]

The banding and rolling shutter is extremely minor in only extreme action shots or places with worst-case-scenario lighting.

Here's a blog post specifically from a guy who shot golf with the A9.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/shooting-golf-with-the-sony-a9/

Yeah, there are a few instances where there is noticeable banding, but the A9 is already way ahead of any other electronic shutter and is totally usable. Better yet, it lets you shoot silently, so you're taking shots of golf that otherwise wouldn't be possible due to the noise of a mechanical shutter. This will also be super helpful in weddings or pretty much any other scenario where noise is an issue. I use the silent shutter option (only single shots) on my A7r II in certain situations and even with it's limited uses, it's super helpful when I don't want to make noise.

Give it a few more years and the tech will be near perfect and available in even the lower end models.

Will this is good to hear. Would make street photography a fuck ton easier as well...and landscapes cause shutter shock is some annoying ass shit.

 

[TheShinobi]

I would be interested in mirrorless, but they dont seem to work well for wildlife from what I can tell. They dont seem to have the glass for wildlife yet like the big primes from canon or nikon.
On another note, I just got my 7d mark ii and I love it!! Planning on getting the 100-400mm f5.6L ii soon and in a couple of years I'll maybe have the 12,000 to get the 600mm f4l ii. God this hobby is expensive...

 

[Astral/H3X]

I'd say that MILC is soon to be the system of choice for wedding photographers, once batteries are "solved", because of shit like Eye-AF, Face detection, and even facial registration. With these, the system AF's on someone's eyes automatically, with no need to pick an AF point. Facial registration (apparently) lets you even tell the camera who to prioritize. That means that you can just let the shutter fly without concern for needing to refocus on the subject, or needing to recompose between shots as you refocus. There's lots of cool little things like that.

Course I don't use any of that shit because I'm all manual, but I do plan on picking up the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 to take advantage of those.

There's probably a lot more shit out there that simply won't come to DSLR's simply due to their nature. And I'm sure someone will come in and say "Oh but no REAL photographer needs any of that shit", to which I retort, I'm sure the exact same shit was said about AF lenses and digital cameras that didn't have rolls of film too.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'd say that MILC is soon to be the system of choice for wedding photographers, once batteries are "solved", because of shit like Eye-AF, Face detection, and even facial registration. With these, the system AF's on someone's eyes automatically, with no need to pick an AF point. Facial registration (apparently) lets you even tell the camera who to prioritize. That means that you can just let the shutter fly without concern for needing to refocus on the subject, or needing to recompose between shots as you refocus. There's lots of cool little things like that.

Course I don't use any of that shit because I'm all manual, but I do plan on picking up the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 to take advantage of those.

There's probably a lot more shit out there that simply won't come to DSLR's simply due to their nature. And I'm sure someone will come in and say "Oh but no REAL photographer needs any of that shit", to which I retort, I'm sure the exact same shit was said about AF lenses and digital cameras that didn't have rolls of film too.

The recent FE 85 1.8 is really good, especially for the price. According the dxomark and other places, the lens is just as sharp if not sharper than the Zeiss 85 1.8, which is near twice the price and bulkier to boot.

I've been using it for a little while now and I think it's incredible. I had never shot an 85mm prime before, but it's quickly becoming one of my favorites. Feels just as sharp as my Zeiss 55mm 1.8.

And as for your last comment, of course you'll see those comments. You already do. Anytime something that used to be somewhat specialized becomes more accessible and easy to use, there will be severe backlash from a certain segment of people who liked being in the minority of people who took the time to master needlessly complex systems.

 

[Astral/H3X]

The recent FE 85 1.8 is really good, especially for the price. According the dxomark and other places, the lens is just as sharp if not sharper than the Zeiss 85 1.8, which is near twice the price and bulkier to boot.

I've been using it for a little while now and I think it's incredible. I had never shot an 85mm prime before, but it's quickly becoming one of my favorites. Feels just as sharp as my Zeiss 55mm 1.8.

And as for your last comment, of course you'll see those comments. You already do. Anytime something that used to be somewhat specialized becomes more accessible and easy to use, there will be severe backlash from a certain segment of people who liked being in the minority of people who took the time to master needlessly complex systems.

Yeah, I've heard really great things about it -- I've got the Samyang 85mm 1.4, and while I like it, it's not quite as sharp as I'd like it to be wide open, and AF would be better once I start asking for money haha.

And yup, just wanted to head that discussion off.

 

[Rentahamster]

And as for your last comment, of course you'll see those comments. You already do. Anytime something that used to be somewhat specialized becomes more accessible and easy to use, there will be severe backlash from a certain segment of people who liked being in the minority of people who took the time to master needlessly complex systems.

For what it's worth, that's not the position from where my thoughts are coming from. I'm just evaluating each system based on its merits. I like mirrorless systems for what they do well, and point out the areas that still need work. Each new generation improves upon the last, and I'm optimistic about the direction it is heading in.

 

[opticalmace]

Here is a list from the top of my head:

Sony 50mm f1.8
Sony 35mm f1.8
Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f1.8
Sigma 19mm f2.8
Sony 16-50mm a.k.a. kit lens
Sony 55-210mm
Sony 10-18mm

I also have the following adapted lenses

Canon FD Macro 50mm f/3.5
Pentax-M SMC 50mm f/1.4
Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5

What's your impression of the Sony 35mm f/1.8? I'm considering that or (maybe more likely) the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (IIRC). A nice everyday prime is the only thing I really want right now.

 

[Lasthope106]

What's your impression of the Sony 35mm f/1.8? I'm considering that or (maybe more likely) the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (IIRC). A nice everyday prime is the only thing I really want right now.

I had to go through the same decision you are facing now. And I ended up going with the Sony option. It is much smaller than the Sigma, and has Optical Steady Shot, which is more important to me than the partial stop of light you get with the Sigma.

The pictures I've taken with the Sony 35mm have come out great, and almost match the 50mm in terms of sharpness to my eye. The reason I mention the 50mm as reference is because I consider that lens to be one of the sharpest for the APS-C E-mount.

I've researched quite a bit about the Sigma, and it is slightly sharper, but the auto focus isn't as good as with the Sony 35mm. If also depends what kind of situations you will be photographing. Even with the 35mm you will still find yourself bumping into walls trying to back away to capture your shot in tight spaces, especially indoors. Perhaps the slightly wider angle of the 30mm might serve you better. Again, it depends on what you are looking for.

Overall, I think the Sony 35mm f1.8 maximizes the small size advantage of the a6x00 cameras and takes advantage of the auto focusing features. Paired together, your setup will be lighter.

Whichever you end up choosing, you really can't go wrong. I think you will be very satisfied with either the Sigma or the Sony.

If it's half solved then that's good. As long as they're working their way towards fixing it then that's fine. It'll probably be sorted by the A11 comes out then. Last time I checked flash don't even work with electronic shutter.

I want an X-T2 so bad...I'm pretty pro Fuji actually.

Same here. I like the "Fuji colors" and the ergonomics of the X-T2. I can afford to buy one, but I don't need another system to stock up on lenses, and learn the menus, button layout, etc.

I'll just get the Sony 70-200mm f2.8, and that will give a better tool to take pictures, than another body, where I will still need a lens with that range.

GAS sucks.

 

[JadedWriter]

Same here. I like the "Fuji colors" and the ergonomics of the X-T2. I can afford to buy one, but I don't need another system to stock up on lenses, and learn the menus, button layout, etc.

I'll just get the Sony 70-200mm f2.8, and that will give a better tool to take pictures, than another body, where I will still need a lens with that range.

GAS sucks.

I had to double up on bodies cause I shoot events, lens switching doesn't always work with events. I actually might need something with a snappier AF than my D600 so I'm looking at D750's but holy fuck money doesn't grow on trees.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

When people talk about Canon colors and Fuji colors or any manufacturer's "color science" they are specifically talking about how it processes the photo into JPEGs, right?

I see the argument about colors all the time and it seems to conflict with the nearly universal advice to always be shooting in raw format.

Is there something more to it?

 

[JadedWriter]

When people talk about Canon colors and Fuji colors or any manufacturer's "color science" they are specifically talking about how it processes the photo into JPEGs, right?

I see the argument about colors all the time and it seems to conflict with the nearly universal advice to always be shooting in raw format.

Is there something more to it?

I'd probably only shoot Jpeg on a Fuji because of the film simulation modes. I have too much fun experimenting a bit at times with RAW files other wise.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'd probably only shoot Jpeg on a Fuji because of the film simulation modes. I have too much fun experimenting a bit at times with RAW files other wise.

Oh, for sure. I am just trying to understand if this color science stuff actually affects the raw files that the various cameras put out, or if it's just for the internal JPEG rendering. I don't mean to say that there aren't situations where shooting in JPEG can be a good idea.

 

[Rentahamster]

When people talk about Canon colors and Fuji colors or any manufacturer's "color science" they are specifically talking about how it processes the photo into JPEGs, right?

Yes, and whatever RAW development presets that manufacturer might have.

Is there something more to it?

No, not really. You can make a RAW file's colors look however you want it to look. What you can't change so easily would be the camera's dynamic range, or signal processing characteristics.

In other words, you can change colors, but you can't recover shadow or highlight detail once it's been clipped.

 

[JadedWriter]

Oh, for sure. I am just trying to understand if this color science stuff actually affects the raw files that the various cameras put out, or if it's just for the internal JPEG rendering. I don't mean to say that there aren't situations where shooting in JPEG can be a good idea.

I think, but don't quote me on this only sports and photojournalist shooters shoot in Jpeg. All cameras seem to translate an image differently, but I'm not sure how that really effects the raws. Granted I don't think I can process a Canon or Nikon raw the same way and have it look 1:1 exact.

 

[Übermatik]

Can anyone recommend me some HDR software for Windows? Photoshop's HDR Pro is woefully poor. Had better results with just combining layers.

 

[theepicoftyler]

Can anyone recommend me some HDR software for Windows? Photoshop's HDR Pro is woefully poor. Had better results with just combining layers.

Download Google's Nik Collection plug-in before it goes away:
https://www.google.com/nikcollection/

Their HDR Efex Pro plug-in is pretty good.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The recent back and forth between Jason Lanier's ISO tests with the A9 and the Angry Photographer (Theoria Apophasis channel) set me down a rabbit hole of learning what ISO actually is on digital cameras. I had always heard it be described as a sensor's sensitivity to light, but apparently that is completely nonsense. I had always written off the Angry Photographer's channel because he has a really grating personality and is a total dick, but he appears to be completely right at least on this topic.

It seems that any ISO setting beyond whatever the camera sensor's "base" or native ISO is, pretty much just amount to post processing or adjusting the exposure slider in Lightroom. If you take a raw photo that is 3 stops underexposed and then go into Lightroom and move the exposure slider so it's 3 stops higher, the end result will look more or less identical to the same photo taken at 800 ISO for a "correct" exposure in the camera.

I gave this experiment a try a bit earlier and, sure enough, the end results looked pretty much identical to each other.

This makes me think that, as long as you are shooting still photos in raw, then it's almost always going to be better to shoot at your camera sensor's native ISO even if you are 3 ~ 5 stops under/over exposing in the camera, since that should preserve more detail and micro-contrast and you're going to be able to get the same exposure by editing in Lightroom or whatever anyway.

Obviously this does not apply when shooting JPEG or video, but reading up and watching some YouTube videos on this topic was rather enlightening to me since I had always heard ISO described as changing the sensor's sensitivity to light, which just isn't an accurate description.

 

[JadedWriter]

The recent back and forth between Jason Lanier's ISO tests with the A9 and the Angry Photographer (Theoria Apophasis channel) set me down a rabbit hole of learning what ISO actually is on digital cameras. I had always heard it be described as a sensor's sensitivity to light, but apparently that is completely nonsense. I had always written off the Angry Photographer's channel because he has a really grating personality and is a total dick, but he appears to be completely right at least on this topic.

It seems that any ISO setting beyond whatever the camera sensor's "base" or native ISO is, pretty much just amount to post processing or adjusting the exposure slider in Lightroom. If you take a raw photo that is 3 stops underexposed and then go into Lightroom and move the exposure slider so it's 3 stops higher, the end result will look more or less identical to the same photo taken at 800 ISO for a "correct" exposure in the camera.

I gave this experiment a try a bit earlier and, sure enough, the end results looked pretty much identical to each other.

This makes me think that, as long as you are shooting still photos in raw, then it's almost always going to be better to shoot at your camera sensor's native ISO even if you are 3 ~ 5 stops under/over exposing in the camera, since that should preserve more detail and micro-contrast and you're going to be able to get the same exposure by editing in Lightroom or whatever anyway.

Obviously this does not apply when shooting JPEG or video, but reading up and watching some YouTube videos on this topic was rather enlightening to me since I had always heard ISO described as changing the sensor's sensitivity to light, which just isn't an accurate description.

It's nothing but applied gain. Angry Photographer is fucking annoying but he isn't exactly dumb, which is part of the reason why I'm not super into Sony cameras. I don't hate them at all, but yikes. Some of the stuff he sort of finds is eye opening.