Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

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.

Which really makes me wonder why no one talks about ISO in this way. It's explained in textbooks and just about everywhere as one of the corners of the "exposure triangle," but this is just not the case, at least when shooting raw. I'm finding it really crazy just how widespread the misunderstanding of it is, even among expert photographers.

 

[Übermatik]

Honestly, I rarely adjust ISO past 100. I really don't see the point.

Also thanks theepicoftyler! Downloaded, and will try it out now!

 

[Rentahamster]

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.

Yup. ISO is just like the gain on a video camera or radio or whatever device that gathers electromagnetic signals. You're just boosting what's already there. It does nothing to improve your signal to noise ratio.

The experiment you describe isn't necessarily equal across all brands though. It works better for Nikons in some cases, and in Canons, sometimes your optimal technique might actually be to expose in the other direction and then recover highlights.

For all the flack that angry photographer gets, he's right like 99% of the time. Dude knows what he's talking about.

 

[Rentahamster]

Which really makes me wonder why no one talks about ISO in this way. It's explained in textbooks and just about everywhere as one of the corners of the "exposure triangle," but this is just not the case, at least when shooting raw. I'm finding it really crazy just how widespread the misunderstanding of it is, even among expert photographers.

The exposure triangle explanation is a flawed, yet easy to understand way of knowing what settings to change in your camera. Basically, "these settings make your picture brighter".

It works well enough for the majority of use case scenarios.

Knowing what ISO really is doesn't matter to most people, in a practical sense.

 

[Rentahamster]

Honestly, I rarely adjust ISO past 100. I really don't see the point.

Also thanks theepicoftyler! Downloaded, and will try it out now!

It helps if you need to use a faster shutter speed.

 

[RuGalz]

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.

Not all sensors behave that way. Some get noisier if you do it post. Sony's sensor nowadays *in general* behave like you described. A7/9 have staircasing behavior. You can read all the numeric analysis Jim Kasson did on the A7/9 series on his blog. http://blog.kasson.com/

 

[JadedWriter]

Honestly, I rarely adjust ISO past 100. I really don't see the point.

Also thanks theepicoftyler! Downloaded, and will try it out now!

You can fix being a little off, but if I'm way the fuck off I don't even bother trying to exposure correct. I think even post in raw has it's limits. I think depending on how important the shot is I won't even bother correcting something more than like a stop and a half off. Granted I've gotten pretty good at fixing over exposed stuff.

Which really makes me wonder why no one talks about ISO in this way. It's explained in textbooks and just about everywhere as one of the corners of the "exposure triangle," but this is just not the case, at least when shooting raw. I'm finding it really crazy just how widespread the misunderstanding of it is, even among expert photographers.

It's probably too technical or confusing to discuss I guess.

It helps if you need to use a faster shutter speed.

I shoot people, they move, therefore my shutter speed must go up. I shot to yoga sessions at this park near my job. Tried to keep my iso low and use a shutter speed of around 1/250th and below...fucking blur city. I go back the following week use Iso 800-1600 for a higher shutter speed and increased my keeper rate by about 100%. Sometimes you just have to iso climb.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Yup. ISO is just like the gain on a video camera or radio or whatever device that gathers electromagnetic signals. You're just boosting what's already there. It does nothing to improve your signal to noise ratio.

The experiment you describe isn't necessarily equal across all brands though. It works better for Nikons in some cases, and in Canons, sometimes your optimal technique might actually be to expose in the other direction and then recover highlights.

For all the flack that angry photographer gets, he's right like 99% of the time. Dude knows what he's talking about.

Interesting. I'm using a Sony, so I definitely plan to experiment a bit more, but I was honestly a bit shocked to see a more-or-less identical image after jacking up the 100 ISO exposure 3 stops in Lightroom to what I got when I shot it at ISO 800. I need to do some more tests to see if I'm actually gaining detail/information by sticking with the native ISO in all cases and ignoring the in-camera image.

Not all sensors behave that way. Some get noisier if you do it post. Sony's sensor nowadays *in general* behave like you described. A7/9 have staircasing behavior. You can read all the numeric analysis Jim Kasson did on the A7/9 series on his blog. http://blog.kasson.com/

Very interesting. So there can be situations where adjusting ISO in the camera preserves more detail than under/over exposing and fixing in post? I'll definitely check that blog out.

 

[Rentahamster]

Interesting. I'm using a Sony, so I definitely plan to experiment a bit more, but I was honestly a bit shocked to see a more-or-less identical image after jacking up the 100 ISO exposure 3 stops in Lightroom to what I got when I shot it at ISO 800. I need to do some more tests to see if I'm actually gaining detail/information by sticking with the native ISO in all cases and ignoring the in-camera image.

Don't go down the rabbit hole of trying to shoot at the lowest ISO all the time. It's not worth it. The gains might be offset by other things like motion blur or lack of depth of field. If you can control all or most aspects of the lighting, go for it. If you can't, be practical.

Case in point:

I shoot people, they move, therefore my shutter speed must go up. I shot to yoga sessions at this park near my job. Tried to keep my iso low and use a shutter speed of around 1/250th and below...fucking blur city. I go back the following week use Iso 800-1600 for a higher shutter speed and increased my keeper rate by about 100%. Sometimes you just have to iso climb.

Sometimes you do. It's practical problem solving.

 

[JadedWriter]

Don't go down the rabbit hole of trying to shoot at the lowest ISO all the time. It's not worth it. The gains might be offset by other things like motion blur or lack of depth of field. If you can control all or most aspects of the lighting, go for it. If you can't, be practical.

Case in point:



Sometimes you do. It's practical problem solving.

Yeah you can't fix motion blur in post. Now sometimes I don't mind it like when I blurred the hands of a violin player, but stuff like yoga you have to freeze the motion because they're moving pretty unpredictably.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yeah you can't fix motion blur in post. Now sometimes I don't mind it like when I blurred the hands of a violin player, but stuff like yoga you have to freeze the motion because they're moving pretty unpredictably.

Seriously. This is a point I keep telling beginners and they keep forgetting lol.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Don't go down the rabbit hole of trying to shoot at the lowest ISO all the time. It's not worth it. The gains might be offset by other things like motion blur or lack of depth of field. If you can control all or most aspects of the lighting, go for it. If you can't, be practical.

Case in point:

Sometimes you do. It's practical problem solving.

I'm not talking about lowering shutter speed or compromising on aperture, just testing whether or not I would be better at purposefully getting an "underexposed" image at the native ISO and then raising the exposure setting in Lightroom than I would by adjusting the ISO settings to make the exposure look "correct" in the camera body.

Most of the photos I take are of my kids, who are still very small, so I definitely know the importance of keeping a high shutter speed if I don't want a blurry mess.

 

[JadedWriter]

Seriously. This is a point I keep telling beginners and they keep forgetting lol.

I learned this shit the hard way of course. I tried shooting ice skaters at stupid ass shutter speeds like 1/80th and 1/125th about a year and change ago at night mind you with crap lighting. I went back earlier this year and shot with my iso cranked to 2000 and up trying to keep my shutter at around 1/250th depending on lighting.

I'm not talking about lowering shutter speed or compromising on aperture, just testing whether or not I would be better at purposefully getting an "underexposed" image at the native ISO and then raising the exposure setting in Lightroom than I would by adjusting the ISO settings to make the exposure look "correct" in the camera body.

Most of the photos I take are of my kids, who are still very small, so I definitely know the importance of keeping a high shutter speed if I don't want a blurry mess.

I underexpose within reason. If you got a blacked out image there's really no recovering from it.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not talking about lowering shutter speed or compromising on aperture, just testing whether or not I would be better at purposefully getting an "underexposed" image at the native ISO and then raising the exposure setting in Lightroom than I would by adjusting the ISO settings to make the exposure look "correct" in the camera body.

Most of the photos I take are of my kids, who are still very small, so I definitely know the importance of keeping a high shutter speed if I don't want a blurry mess.

It's not worth the trouble. Being able to see your shots on the LCD screen is too useful.

I learned this shit the hard way of course. I tried shooting ice skaters at stupid ass shutter speeds like 1/80th and 1/125th about a year and change ago at night mind you with crap lighting. I went back earlier this year and shot with my iso cranked to 2000 and up trying to keep my shutter at around 1/250th depending on lighting.

I underexpose within reason. If you got a blacked out image there's really no recovering from it.

Hehe

 

[JadedWriter]

It's not worth the trouble. Being able to see your shots on the LCD screen is too useful.




Hehe

Can you imagine recovering an image five stops underexposed only to find out that nothing's even in focus?

 

[Rentahamster]

Can you imagine recovering an image five stops underexposed only to find out that nothing's even in focus?

That would definitely suck lol

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It's not worth the trouble. Being able to see your shots on the LCD screen is too useful.

If it's honestly not worth the trouble, then I can see why people describe ISO as part of an exposure triangle, even if it's not technically accurate. Either way, I'll experiment a bit to see what I get out of my A7r II. To be truthful, I hope it's not worth it, because correcting the exposure in Lightroom for every photo that didn't expose well at 100 ISO in the camera doesn't sound like fun.

Speaking of which, one other thing the Angry Photographer mentioned is that every camera sensor has it's own "base" or "native" ISO. Is there any site that breaks it down? I've read in places that the A7s II, for example, has a base ISO of 1,600, which is part of why it has such great low light capability. Is 100 ISO the base for most sensors out there?

 

[JadedWriter]

If it's honestly not worth the trouble, then I can see why people describe ISO as part of an exposure triangle, even if it's not technically accurate. Either way, I'll experiment a bit to see what I get out of my A7r II. To be truthful, I hope it's not worth it, because correcting the exposure in Lightroom for every photo that didn't expose well at 100 ISO in the camera doesn't sound like fun.

Speaking of which, one other thing the Angry Photographer mentioned is that every camera sensor has it's own "base" or "native" ISO. Is there any site that breaks it down? I've read in places that the A7s II, for example, has a base ISO of 1,600, which is part of why it has such great low light capability. Is 100 ISO the base for most sensors out there?

This depends. I think most base ISO's are technically about 100, I think Fuji's depending on camera are around 200. My D810 has a base of 64, but I don't think this translates to the same thing since I heard the Fuji's are like a stop below what they are on other cameras at equal settings since I believe the Bayer sensor is laid out differently.

 

[RuGalz]

If it's honestly not worth the trouble, then I can see why people describe ISO as part of an exposure triangle, even if it's not technically accurate. Either way, I'll experiment a bit to see what I get out of my A7r II. To be truthful, I hope it's not worth it, because correcting the exposure in Lightroom for every photo that didn't expose well at 100 ISO in the camera doesn't sound like fun.

If you want to be that technical about it don't shoot between 200-700 ISO or so on A7r2 because you lose dynamic range. Most of the time, worry about shutter and aperture to get the exposure you want before deciding what iso you can get away with.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

If you want to be that technical about it don't shoot between 200-700 ISO or so on A7r2 because you lose dynamic range. Most of the time, worry about shutter and aperture to get the exposure you want before deciding what iso you can get away with.

Interesting. Any more info on why dynamic range is limited specifically from 200-700?

I always set up my shutter speed and aperture first and foremost when shooting. Up until now, though, I've left my ISO on auto (with a cap of 6,400) so that I can get a correct exposure in the camera.

 

[RuGalz]

Interesting. Any more info on why dynamic range is limited specifically from 200-700?

No idea why Sony decides to utilize their sensor that way. Nikon/Pentax has a much more linear behavior.

 

[TheTylerDurden]

Interesting. Any more info on why dynamic range is limited specifically from 200-700?

I always set up my shutter speed and aperture first and foremost when shooting. Up until now, though, I've left my ISO on auto (with a cap of 6,400) so that I can get a correct exposure in the camera.

It has something to do with how the sensor performs it's gain at certain ISO's. I believe Sony acquired some kind of tech where at ISOs between 125 and 640, DR lessens. Then at 640 is becomes exactly the same as ISO 100 and starts to ramp down again. I followed some threads on this in another forum where this was all explained.

So the take away was, there is tech in place to handle this stuff differently at different ISO's, and shooting at *either* 100 or 640 would produce the same results, so if you need to go above 100, try and aim for 640.

(A7RII owner here - I shoot studio stuff primarily, so I am rarely out of ISO 100)

 

[JadedWriter]

No idea why Sony decides to utilize their sensor that way. Nikon/Pentax has a much more linear behavior.

I also heard the D5 has horrible low Iso performance, which seems to work better at the higher iso range. It's just the way the sensor was tuned.

 

[RuGalz]

I also heard the D5 has horrible low Iso performance, which seems to work better at the higher iso range. It's just the way the sensor was tuned.

cuz D5 is tune for sports/wild life. a7r2 isn't so I don't know the reason behind the staircasing behavior.

 

[JadedWriter]

cuz D5 is tune for sports/wild life. a7r2 isn't so I don't know the reason behind the staircasing behavior.

Meanwhile you have wedding photographers and photojournalists using them. Personally I'd buy a D4, but that's honestly just me since I can't shoot wildlife in NYC...like I technically do since humans are creatures too, but it's not the same.

 

[RuGalz]

Meanwhile you have wedding photographers and photojournalists using them. Personally I'd buy a D4, but that's honestly just me since I can't shoot wildlife in NYC...like I technically do since humans are creatures too, but it's not the same.

It just depends on the needs. Sports/wild life is just a way to describe that it's not the best choice for static scene that needs as much DR as possible (i.e. landscape). Lots wedding clients probably are fine with iso 6400 images anyway, lol. When we were picking out our engagement photos I could tell the photographer was getting annoyed when I spelled out everything that need to be fixed in each image. All the other couples are just like whatever they all look good.

 

[Astral/H3X]

As I understand it, not all cameras are equal in this regard -- what you're referring to, where it's done as "post processing", I've heard referred to as "ISO-less" -- reason being is it's not actually affecting the sensor itself. Older digital cameras (and some current DSLRs? At least as of two years ago?) do actually change voltages on the sensor or some shit, so changing ISO does lead to a large difference in results.

It was a topic that I delved into pretty deep but forgot half the shit because so much of it depends on your individual sensor. There's no one answer.

I do know that the A7II, at least, is "ISOless".
My one question, though, is if underexposing on your ISO would cause you to clip shadows, or clip highlights if overexposing your ISO.

 

[JadedWriter]

Over exposing does indeed fuck the shit out of your highlights.

 

[captive]

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?

No. It used to be Fuji's colors were from CCD sensors while everyone else was using CMOS. I've always loved Fuji colors, but there are tangible differences in the way CCD sensors handle things like blown highlights or pointing the camera directly at the sun vs the way CMOS handles that same situation.
Yes theoretically you can match colors from one camera manufacturer to another, but natively out of camera some cameras produce results that some prefer to others, which potentially leads to less time in the editing room.

 

[Rentahamster]

One video that has some good things to say about the A9, and another that's not as "hot".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elZ_GSotP30

I like the testing under fluorescent lighting in the first video. It's good to know that you really have to have shit lighting in order for banding issues to pop up.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It has something to do with how the sensor performs it's gain at certain ISO's. I believe Sony acquired some kind of tech where at ISOs between 125 and 640, DR lessens. Then at 640 is becomes exactly the same as ISO 100 and starts to ramp down again. I followed some threads on this in another forum where this was all explained.

So the take away was, there is tech in place to handle this stuff differently at different ISO's, and shooting at *either* 100 or 640 would produce the same results, so if you need to go above 100, try and aim for 640.

(A7RII owner here - I shoot studio stuff primarily, so I am rarely out of ISO 100)

You don't mean that ISO 640 should produce the same amount of noise as ISO 100, do you?

That doesn't seem to be the case in my tests so far, at least, since I'm definitely seeing a bit more noise in the shadows at ISO 640 than ISO 100.

 

[TheTurboFD]

Hey guys, I'm currently looking at a Sony A7II for $750 but the issue is that he states there's a scratch on the low pass filter. Anyone have any idea how much this would cost to replace? Or is it worth just looking elsewhere ?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4

Shooting with the A9 looks super fun, but I wouldn't look forward to sorting through the files in Lightroom. I have enough time choosing which shots to discard when shooting at 5 fps and relatively shitty auto-focus tracking of moving subjects on my A7r II, I couldn't imagine doing the same thing at 20 fps when most of the shots are perfectly in focus.

 

[TFGB]

Hi folks, great thread!!

I've recently take a leave of absence from my gaming hobby addiction and decided to get back into my photography, as I've got a bit of kit that I've rarely used and I've neglected it as a hobby for far too long now.

My partner and I are on our honeymoon next week with a trip to Venice and Lake Garda, taking in the Dolomites too, so thought it would be a great opportunity to get back in to the swing of things amidst some stunning scenery.

I went to Park Cameras here in the UK and treated us to a few bits and bobs for the trip, but I fear the addiction I had to gaming is being transferred into Photography lol. I think I may be able to kerb it for a while, but this thread could be dangerous!

It's t'other half's birthday next week while we're away, but I decided to give him his presents early so he can get used to it a bit before we go. He's well chuffed with it to say the least!

Lumix GH5, Battery Grip, Battery and Sandisk 64GB 300MB/s U3 SDXC so he can get some nice 4K footage hopefully.

He has a G1 and G3 with a few lenses so knows the Lumix system a bit, but he's a bit bewildered by this and it's features, but hopefully it won't be too overwhelming for him to use. :/

I treated myself to a couple of bits too: a battery grip & spare battery for my D800E, a Black Rapid Sport Breathe (which I love!), some quick release heads and carbon monopod, and a Thinktank Airport Helipak V2 so I can take my Phantom 4 Pro away with me to hopefully capture some nice footage of the Dolomites.

I was a bit gutted to have to pay the price for the Black Rapid Fastnr, but it'll make life easier switching from strap to my Manfrotto monopod/tripods and vice versa.

Just waiting for my Nikkor 200-500 and B+W 95mm XS Pro UV filter to arrive tomorrow and I think I should be all set, though I'm unsure as to whether or not I'll take my new lens away with me also. :/

Anyway, cheers for looking!

 

[Astral/H3X]

You don't mean that ISO 640 should produce the same amount of noise as ISO 100, do you?

That doesn't seem to be the case in my tests so far, at least, since I'm definitely seeing a bit more noise in the shadows at ISO 640 than ISO 100.

They are saying that if you take a photo at ISO640, and take an underexposed photo at ISO100 and lift your exposure in post up to what it would be at ISO640, they would look the same, as (at least in this camera for these two ISO's) this camera is "ISOless".

TFGB, why did you go for the Black Rapid over a Peak Design strap? I was under the impression that Peak Design straps more or less superceded Black Rapids, but to be fair most of that is the hilarious cost of the BR's.

 

[TFGB]

TFGB, why did you go for the Black Rapid over a Peak Design strap? I was under the impression that Peak Design straps more or less superceded Black Rapids, but to be fair most of that is the hilarious cost of the BR's.

I originally tried a Nikon AN-SBR2 strap (made by BlackRapid) a while back and found it perfect for my needs in both comfort, design and usability. However, it's now discontinued and impossible to get hold of, but the BlackRapid Sport Breathe is essentially exactly the same strap without the Nikon branding.

 

[RuGalz]

Hey guys, I'm currently looking at a Sony A7II for $750 but the issue is that he states there's a scratch on the low pass filter. Anyone have any idea how much this would cost to replace? Or is it worth just looking elsewhere ?

I would just look else where tbh.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

They are saying that if you take a photo at ISO640, and take an underexposed photo at ISO100 and lift your exposure in post up to what it would be at ISO640, they would look the same, as (at least in this camera for these two ISO's) this camera is "ISOless".

TFGB, why did you go for the Black Rapid over a Peak Design strap? I was under the impression that Peak Design straps more or less superceded Black Rapids, but to be fair most of that is the hilarious cost of the BR's.

Ahh, that makes sense. It would certainly align with the test I did earlier where ISO 100 underexposed 3 stops and brought back up in Lightroom looked *almost* the same as a correct in-camera exposure at ISO 800. When doing some severe pixel peaking, I could see a tiny bit more detail and cleaner noise grain on the ISO 800 image, but they looked nearly identical. I'll try it with ISO 100 vs 640 again tonight.

 

[Thraktor]

As I understand it, not all cameras are equal in this regard -- what you're referring to, where it's done as "post processing", I've heard referred to as "ISO-less" -- reason being is it's not actually affecting the sensor itself. Older digital cameras (and some current DSLRs? At least as of two years ago?) do actually change voltages on the sensor or some shit, so changing ISO does lead to a large difference in results.

It was a topic that I delved into pretty deep but forgot half the shit because so much of it depends on your individual sensor. There's no one answer.

I do know that the A7II, at least, is "ISOless".
My one question, though, is if underexposing on your ISO would cause you to clip shadows, or clip highlights if overexposing your ISO.

Shadows don't really "clip", at least not in the same way that highlights do. Assuming a perfectly ISO-invariant sensor, then when you underexpose you're just losing precision, rather than actually clipping.

Even though it's not actually a digital operation, it can be helpful to think of it as one to understand this. The A7II outputs 14-bit RAW files, and as you underexpose by one stop you effectively lose one bit of precision. So, if you've underexposed by two stops, you're working with 12 bits of precision, by three stops you've got 11 bits of precision, etc. The reason this isn't that big of an issue is that you don't really need that much precision to begin with, as you're most likely only outputting your final images at 8 bits per channel. To actually get visible effects from precision loss (i.e. banding) you'd have to underexpose by 7 or more stops. That is, you'd have to shoot at 100 ISO when the "correct" ISO is 12,800. That's basically shooting blind, and even if you're crazy enough to try this, the noise (and noise-reduction) will largely mask the banding from the lower precision anyway.

 

[ecosse_011172]

I've had a Nikon D90 for a few years now and it's a bit battered, I've never fully gotten into DSLRs although I love the quality of the photos even an idiot like me can take.
A lot of the photos I take are when travelling so I've been wondering if something small, mirrorless like the Sony A6000/6300 would be a better fit for my use case.

Which other models should I consider?
Any glaring pros/cons to watch out for?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

 

[JadedWriter]

I've had a Nikon D90 for a few years now and it's a bit battered, I've never fully gotten into DSLRs although I love the quality of the photos even an idiot like me can take.
A lot of the photos I take are when travelling so I've been wondering if something small, mirrorless like the Sony A6000/6300 would be a better fit for my use case.

Which other models should I consider?
Any glaring pros/cons to watch out for?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

You should probably look at the Fuji X-T20.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I've had a Nikon D90 for a few years now and it's a bit battered, I've never fully gotten into DSLRs although I love the quality of the photos even an idiot like me can take.
A lot of the photos I take are when travelling so I've been wondering if something small, mirrorless like the Sony A6000/6300 would be a better fit for my use case.

Which other models should I consider?
Any glaring pros/cons to watch out for?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

If you're looking at Mirrorless, you'll want to look at offerings from Sony, Fuji, and Micro 4/3rds (Either Panasonic or Olympus).

Do you have a budget? Anything that's going to be really important to you? Do you plan on getting lenses with it, or just going to use the basic lens that comes with it?

 

[itsbenoclock]

Anyone with a Manfrotto fluid head ever had a problem with the pan tension wheel getting stuck? My fluid drag wheel is jammed at the loosest setting so the pan is completely useless now.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I've had a Nikon D90 for a few years now and it's a bit battered, I've never fully gotten into DSLRs although I love the quality of the photos even an idiot like me can take.
A lot of the photos I take are when travelling so I've been wondering if something small, mirrorless like the Sony A6000/6300 would be a better fit for my use case.

Which other models should I consider?
Any glaring pros/cons to watch out for?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

If you're not going full frame and really care a lot about the size, I would highly recommend looking into Fuji's line up as Astral said. They seem committed to the APS-C format, whereas Sony seems far more interested in their full frame lineup these days.

 

[Rentahamster]

If you're not going full frame and really care a lot about the size, I would highly recommend looking into Fuji's line up as Astral said. They seem committed to the APS-C format, whereas Sony seems far more interested in their full frame lineup these days.

Yup.

 

[JadedWriter]

Yup.

Yeah I said X-T20 for a reason. Seems like a really legit entry camera into Fuji, whom actually care about crop sensor instead of everyone else.

 

[Rentahamster]

Angry Photographer's testing indicates that he couldn't get the A9 to overheat and that banding wasn't an issue.

Good to hear about the minimal banding via that video and the one I posted earlier shooting MMA. What could be causing the difference in experience among users?

 

[ecosse_011172]

If you're looking at Mirrorless, you'll want to look at offerings from Sony, Fuji, and Micro 4/3rds (Either Panasonic or Olympus).

Do you have a budget? Anything that's going to be really important to you? Do you plan on getting lenses with it, or just going to use the basic lens that comes with it?

I'd like to get lenses but ideally not immediately.
Budget is probably 500-600 Euros
I just want to take good quality photos in a practical, smallish camera and be able to have decent manual control if I do try and improve my skills again. GPS would be nice too.

 

[ecosse_011172]

If you're not going full frame and really care a lot about the size, I would highly recommend looking into Fuji's line up as Astral said. They seem committed to the APS-C format, whereas Sony seems far more interested in their full frame lineup these days.

What are the pros/cons between full frame and APS-C?

 

[Astral/H3X]

I'd like to get lenses but ideally not immediately.
Budget is probably 500-600 Euros
I just want to take good quality photos in a practical, smallish camera and be able to have decent manual control if I do try and improve my skills again. GPS would be nice too.

If you want GPS, you don't want Sony. I don't know if Fuji, Panasonic, or Olympus have GPS in theirs, but Sony for sure doesn't.

What are the pros/cons between full frame and APS-C?

"Full frame" refers to a sensor that matches the size of a film camera. APSC is a cropped, smaller sensor.

APSC will lead to smaller cameras with smaller lenses and less weight, Full Frame will lead to more bokeh and higher image quality (Though you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you're really into shit).

I would recommend you go with APSC.