Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands
Thread started 30 Dec 2015 (Wednesday) 22:26
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Adding a Mirrorless, Maybe a switch.

 
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
mystik610's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Houston, TX
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by mystik610.
Jan 09, 2016 00:11 |  #61

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17850622 (external link)
Just throwing out there IRT the 55 1.8, I got mine open box for $700. Deals are out there on this lens, especially since the Batis line rolled out. There are very few things worth paying retail for in this world if you are on a budget.

55 1.8 is expensive if you think in terms of max aperture. But optically its a spectacular 50mm-ish lens. Same with the two Batis lenses. Can't really measure the value of mirrorless lenses by their max aperture, particularly since optical many will perform better wide open than their DSLR counter-parts when stopped down to an equivalent f-stop. There's a perception that f1.2 or f1.4 lenses are inherently better, but 1/3 or 2/3 stop isn't too material in real world use.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART - Sony 70-200GM

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
mickeyb105
Goldmember
mickeyb105's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Vero Beach, FL
Jan 09, 2016 00:36 |  #62

mystik610 wrote in post #17850699 (external link)
55 1.8 is expensive if you think in terms of max aperture. But optically its a spectacular 50mm-ish lens. Same with the two Batis lenses. Can't really measure the value of mirrorless lenses by their max aperture, particularly since optical many will perform better wide open than their DSLR counter-parts when stopped down to an equivalent f-stop. There's a perception that f1.2 or f1.4 lenses are inherently better, but 1/3 or 2/3 stop isn't too material in real world use.

Exactly.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Zeiss 24/2 ZA, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,795 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Jan 09, 2016 00:58 |  #63

JeffreyG wrote in post #17850544 (external link)
You're both right and both wrong. As I said, the Sony A7 stuff is great for AF right up to the point where you want to track and shoot action.

But ignoring that, the lens approach is all over the place.

The clear answer in one way is Sony A7 + native lenses. Except the lens line is super limited and as KenjiS noted some of the options are kind of whack (55mm f/1.8 lens at $1000?)

But then you can adapt lenses....but you lose eye-AF and some are slow, and the tracking sucks and etc. etc. etc.

And just about any MF lens can be adapted to the Sony system and work with peaking. But this again is no solution for moving targets. And in my experience peaking is at best about as good as AF and often a little bit worse. If you think about it, focus peaking is just functionally the same as closed loop (contrast) AF except the focus motor is meat based.

So no overall solution here except to kind of place the relevant challenges in context. I feel in some respects why this shows how the entry of one of the two big camera companies into the mirrorless market could really refine things.

if you have the right budget, you can make do with the sony system easily. I really do hesitate recommending the A7, since the A7ii isnt too much more (but out of budget), and offers a TON more.

the lens approach IS all over the place, and that's because this is a huge exercise in compromise. You want to give up size and maintain good IQ, then I'm offering opinions. TS isnt happy with the 28mm on the 7D, and honestly, going m43 is adding salt to the wounds in that regards. Many of his shots are low light, hence the reason I shy away from zooms, but if he needs a zoom to match his current zoom, there are options. 16-XXX, 24-70, 28-70, 24-240. I mean matching that zoom isnt a tough feat to accomplish, but wanting BETTER while maintaining a small size IS. You can go to m43 and get worse IQ, that's not hard to do.

Most of what TS shoots doesnt require a crop or pixels on target, so why bother with even further of a crop? My baseline IQ will be the 7D and how it performs, hence my odd recommendations. If I bought gear to maximize the 1% of action shooting, then I get the 1Dx..... it just so happens that the 1Dx is a bear and burden. So I get a camera that I'm comfortable shooting 99% of the time, and just make due with it for the 1%.

btw, with the new A7ii's the AF and tracking is quite good. You may not get eye focus, however you may find that face detection and tracking is pretty darn awesome. Accuracy seems better as well, nails it time after time.


Sony A7rii x2 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by KenjiS. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 09, 2016 02:51 |  #64

The 28 was.. eh.. too much flare and quite soft, Theres a reason i used it at f/2.8-4 a lot (it seemed, at least my copy, to get quite sharp there) but still suffered from poor contrast at times and other things.. Probubly because it was a pretty old design.

Horses for courses. I like a selection of primes and zooms in my main system, The zooms are for situations im uncertain what i may encounter and may not be able to easily change lenses or need the ability to cover a lot of bases without swapping, I prefer 24-105 because it offers a large number of options when it comes to perspective, the combo of say, a 24-105 and the 100-400 worked lovely for me and gave me fairly seamless coverage from 24-400 with good glass between two lenses. Im picking primes for the mirrorless supplement because i know specifically what i want to use it for and im picking specific lenses for those uses. The idea is still the 7D will be grabbed when i know specifically i am going to X and shooting. the GX7 is going in my bag everywhere i go.

m4/3 weakness is in its zooms (IE the 12-50 which is f/6.3 at the long end, or about f/11 in DoF terms) their "best" zooms are equal to f/5.6 on full frame, id need a 12-50 f/2.8-4 or so to match my 15-85, and such a lens would likely end up just as big and heavy (except on a much smaller camera). Heck, stuff like their 300mm f/4 or 40-150 are just as big as a full frame 300mm f/4 or 70-200 type of lens.. But because the camera is smaller its harder to work with.

The selection of m4/3 had less to do with more pixels on target in this case and more to do with size, The lenses are very tiny, very light, as i said, the hypothetical GX7/20/45 system weighs about the same as my 7D body all by itself (And well under half of the 7D and my 50mm f/1.4 Sigmalux which ive been using instead of a proper 50mm equivalent)

If I tried to replace my 7D entirely with mirrorless the closest i could do probubly is the A6000, 16-70 OSS, 90mm OSS Macro and 35mm f/1.8 OSS(OR the 24mm f/1.8). Still lack a long tele that way...not sure I'd buy the 70-200 f/4 And what you said re A7/A7II I agree, I really preferred the A7II in my hand over the A7, something about the grip contour made it probubly the best of any of the mirrorless cameras I held. So if I did the A7II the closest I could do conceivably.. would be the A7II, 35mm Sonnar, 24-70 f/4 OSS, 90mm OSS Macro.. Same issue at the long end.. Not to mention the cost of this is quite a bit higher($2300 for the A7II and 35mm Sonnar... id be up in the 5K territory im guessing when all is said and done)... I'd imagine Sony HAS to be coming with something along the lines of their rather lovely 70-400 id imagine, but im looking at it now, and that could be 5 years from now. I'd also suspect a 24-105 type of lens to come too. So as i stated before, the most "optimistic trade" would be keeping my 7D with something like a 150-600 and going mirrorless for everything else until a good solid telephoto zoom came out.

Really the 16-70 is the only mirrorless lens that matches the 15-85.. And I'll say this, constant f/4 and the fact its a good bit lighter (200g) are big points in its favor. I dont know how good the 90mm's OSS is vs the Hybrid-IS on the 100L nor how its AF compares to the 100L, But id imagine the lens itself is probubly extremely good. The 35mm Sonnar is gorgeous. No complaints there. Not sure on the 16-70 or 24-70 vs the 15-85 optically however...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
speedync
Goldmember
Joined May 2011
Geelong, Australia
Jan 09, 2016 05:34 as a reply to KenjiS's post |  #65

I think you're way over analyzing things. I'd bet you won't tell any difference between your APS-C & m4/3. I certainly don't.




LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,187 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Jan 09, 2016 05:39 |  #66

mystik610 wrote in post #17850699 (external link)
55 1.8 is expensive if you think in terms of max aperture. But optically its a spectacular 50mm-ish lens. Same with the two Batis lenses. Can't really measure the value of mirrorless lenses by their max aperture, particularly since optical many will perform better wide open than their DSLR counter-parts when stopped down to an equivalent f-stop. There's a perception that f1.2 or f1.4 lenses are inherently better, but 1/3 or 2/3 stop isn't too material in real world use.

Yes, and no. The favorable comparison is of course Leica. The Leica superfast stuff (Noctilux, Summilux) costs both arms, and both legs. They also offer slower lenses (The Crummicrons  :p) that are pretty much just as good optically but that are slower. These only cost one arm and one leg. You could say the 55/1.8 is a Sony Crummicron. :p

So yeah......optically excellent primes that are not super fast and that cost a ton of money have a basis in history. But is that what Sony is looking to do with the A7 approach.....to be Leica?

Two thoughts then:
Are these Batis and FE lenses really all that if I were to compare them to most other (cheaper) primes at the same aperture?
What are the options for people like Kenji who is not working with a Leica budget? I think this leads to adapted or MF lenses, yes?

I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate here. I realize that the FE 55 is a bit expensive, but also not quite so much as Leica. But I guess you could say that the filling out the FE mount with primes of that cost level suggests a native-lens kit is going to be pricy.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
mystik610's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Houston, TX
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by mystik610.
Jan 09, 2016 07:40 |  #67

JeffreyG wrote in post #17850883 (external link)
Yes, and no. The favorable comparison is of course Leica. The Leica superfast stuff (Noctilux, Summilux) costs both arms, and both legs. They also offer slower lenses (The Crummicrons  :p) that are pretty much just as good optically but that are slower. These only cost one arm and one leg. You could say the 55/1.8 is a Sony Crummicron. :p

So yeah......optically excellent primes that are not super fast and that cost a ton of money have a basis in history. But is that what Sony is looking to do with the A7 approach.....to be Leica?

Two thoughts then:
Are these Batis and FE lenses really all that if I were to compare them to most other (cheaper) primes at the same aperture?
What are the options for people like Kenji who is not working with a Leica budget? I think this leads to adapted or MF lenses, yes?

I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate here. I realize that the FE 55 is a bit expensive, but also not quite so much as Leica. But I guess you could say that the filling out the FE mount with primes of that cost level suggests a native-lens kit is going to be pricy.

Optically the Sony FE primes and the primes made by Zeiss directly (Batis and Loxia) are in line with the Zeiss glass you'd pay quite a bit of money for EF mount. They're Canon "L" caliber glass or better, so the appropriate comparisons would be the FE 55 vs the 50L, and the Batis 85 vs the 85L. Smaller max aperture of course, but the optical quality is there and the Sony lenses wide open outperform the Canon L lenses when they're stopped down to f1.8. For reference....FE 55 1.8 measured on a7r vs 50L measured on 5DSR via DXO mark: http://www.dxomark.com ...-5DS-R__1252_917_197_1009 (external link)


Of course a case can be made for the rendering of Canon L glass at f1.2, but a similar case can be made for the distinctive 3D rendering that Zeiss lenses provide. This actually matter more to me than MTF measurements. The rendering of the Zeiss lenses was my motivation for selling off the 85L and 135L in favor of the Sony equivalents. (I owned the 50L prior to ever shooting Sony).

So yes it is expensive to build out a kit of FE primes, but no more expensive than it would be to build out a kit of "L" primes around a Canon body. The criticism is that there aren't many affordable lenses for the FE mount, but the mount is basically two years old and when you release a set of $2k+ bodies, it makes more sense to lead with high optical quality lenses than more affordable, but lessor quality lenses. The FE 28f2 is the first budget friendly lens for the FE mount, and it makes a very interesting value proposition. Basically very sharp wide open, but corners were cut to keep the price down by delegating distortion correction to digital corrections done via the body (or in post) vs building corrections into the optical design.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART - Sony 70-200GM

LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,187 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Jan 09, 2016 08:16 as a reply to mystik610's post |  #68

Yeah, I guess basically relative to the OP the Sony A7xxxx cameras are probably not going to lead to a 'budget' approach. But then, no 35mm format digital system has ever been a good budget approach. 35mm format pretty much always means expensive lenses and expensive bodies.

I've recently looked at Sony based on a lot of the chatter here at POTN. I currently use a 5D Mark III with some fast telephotos for sports, and then I use the same body with some fast primes and some zooms for everything else.

The question I had in my head was, could I add an A7RII or A7SII and change up the lens system to make the Sony my main 'everything else' body and just use the 5D3 for sports / action. The goal of this would be to have the better Sony sensor performance and the excellent Sony AF performance (non-tracking) for all of my non-sports shooting.

A rough cut would have me getting the A7RII for $3200
Rokinon 24/1.4 - $500 and stuck with manual focus or I just keep my EF 24/1.4 II and adapt it
55/1.8 - $1000
Adaptation to my 24-XX Canon zooms, and probably my 70-200 Canon zoom as well. - $400

So that's $5100. I'd sell my EF 50/1.2 and EF 85/1.2 which would not net half that and I'd be using the Sony primarily with adapted glass. So I'm looking at probably $3000 or so.....and I'm not totally clear on just what one gains / loses with the AF system when using the adapter and EF lenses. If someone wants to sell me on this idea overall I would be interested though. For now I'm just mulling it over kind of like the OP (with a different set of requirements).


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by KenjiS.
Jan 09, 2016 17:11 |  #69

JeffreyG wrote in post #17850883 (external link)
Yes, and no. The favorable comparison is of course Leica. The Leica superfast stuff (Noctilux, Summilux) costs both arms, and both legs. They also offer slower lenses (The Crummicrons  :p) that are pretty much just as good optically but that are slower. These only cost one arm and one leg. You could say the 55/1.8 is a Sony Crummicron. :p

So yeah......optically excellent primes that are not super fast and that cost a ton of money have a basis in history. But is that what Sony is looking to do with the A7 approach.....to be Leica?

Two thoughts then:
Are these Batis and FE lenses really all that if I were to compare them to most other (cheaper) primes at the same aperture?
What are the options for people like Kenji who is not working with a Leica budget? I think this leads to adapted or MF lenses, yes?

I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate here. I realize that the FE 55 is a bit expensive, but also not quite so much as Leica. But I guess you could say that the filling out the FE mount with primes of that cost level suggests a native-lens kit is going to be pricy.

I think its simple, Sony's only real competition is Leica with the SL-series and M-series when it comes to compact digital mirrorless with a full frame sensor, the SL body is $7450, the Vario-Elmarit 24-90 f/2.8-4 is $4950.. And thats the only full frame native lens i see for the SL right now. So Sony with the A7II (Not comparing the R, as the SL is "only" 24mp..) at $1700 and the 24-70 f/4 OSS Zeiss lens at $1198 are relative bargains. Now, i have no doubt the Leica has better build and i love the touches on it (like the top screen) But you could easily get a complete SYSTEM from Sony for the price of just the body on Leica... Sony frankly doesnt NEED to compete with anyone else because they're the only game in town. Want Sony to compete we need Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Fuji to drop a FF Mirrorless on us.

Also possible that Sony is going with the Gilette model of business, the bodies can be made cheap for Sony due to vertical integration so they're making profit on the glass... if we go with the Vanilla A7 vs the 6D or D610 this actually seems to be the case ($1100 for the A7 vs $1400 for the 6D and 1500 for the D610) If you make a package of it however, say an A7 + 24-70 f/4 OSS vs the 6D and 24-70 f/4L IS you end up roughly the same ($2200 and some change either way) The Canon lens is just only about $850 vs $1100..

As you stated in a later post im roughly in the same circumstance with you, Just with my 7D instead of a 5DIII.. One of my little issues adapting say, my Canon glass over to Sony is that you lose the weight and size savings of going to a mirrorless in many instances, may also lead to some hilariously unbalanced and hard to work combinations though. Thats why im thinking keep the 7D and a telephoto (And my Sigmalux..) for birds..

What we really need for Sony is for Sigma to adapt down the 35-50-85 prime set, Or release a set of f/2 primes for Sony, I DROOL over this, I LOVE my Sigma glass (the Sigma 50 I own has a very Leica-like look... That bokeh. The contrast.. About the only thing i dont like is the AF can be a little touchy sometimes with some subjects) and i think releasing AF f/2 primes that were around the $500 mark in the 35 50 and 85mm focal lengths would get a lot of attention...

Also as someone else mentioned, Zeiss' "3d" look and appeal and draw gets me salivating, I love the psuedo 3D effect.. Im a very big glass guy after all (I remember getting laughs over my set of expensive nice L glass on my "lowly" 30D.. lol but thats how i got results people didnt expect from a 8mp APS-C body)


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
mystik610's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Houston, TX
Jan 10, 2016 14:58 |  #70

JeffreyG wrote in post #17850953 (external link)
Yeah, I guess basically relative to the OP the Sony A7xxxx cameras are probably not going to lead to a 'budget' approach. But then, no 35mm format digital system has ever been a good budget approach. 35mm format pretty much always means expensive lenses and expensive bodies.

I've recently looked at Sony based on a lot of the chatter here at POTN. I currently use a 5D Mark III with some fast telephotos for sports, and then I use the same body with some fast primes and some zooms for everything else.

The question I had in my head was, could I add an A7RII or A7SII and change up the lens system to make the Sony my main 'everything else' body and just use the 5D3 for sports / action. The goal of this would be to have the better Sony sensor performance and the excellent Sony AF performance (non-tracking) for all of my non-sports shooting.

A rough cut would have me getting the A7RII for $3200
Rokinon 24/1.4 - $500 and stuck with manual focus or I just keep my EF 24/1.4 II and adapt it
55/1.8 - $1000
Adaptation to my 24-XX Canon zooms, and probably my 70-200 Canon zoom as well. - $400

So that's $5100. I'd sell my EF 50/1.2 and EF 85/1.2 which would not net half that and I'd be using the Sony primarily with adapted glass. So I'm looking at probably $3000 or so.....and I'm not totally clear on just what one gains / loses with the AF system when using the adapter and EF lenses. If someone wants to sell me on this idea overall I would be interested though. For now I'm just mulling it over kind of like the OP (with a different set of requirements).

AF tracking takes a bit hit with adapted lenses. Also hunts occasionally in low light. Useable for most photography outside of sports, but not 5DIII caliber at all. I'd say its more 5DII caliber.

If you're unsure about making the jump, I'd snag an a7II from the used market ($1,100 or so), as the latest firmware update allows it to AF with Canon lenses. If you happen to be using newer Canon lenses (2006 or later), then cheap-o adapters for $100 or less will work fine.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART - Sony 70-200GM

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by AlanU. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 10, 2016 19:26 |  #71

Jeff,

Have some patience and Canon will eventually improve the Cmos sensor.

I've debated in selling all of my canon gear and to jump into a Nikon D810 + D750 and my basic staple of fast primes and zooms. This would satisfy my obsession for low noise and pushing shadows.

Even with my relatively average sized hands I'd imagine getting cramps using the small A7 body for events photography or even long casual shoots. Nikon's larger body has more appeal to me over small form factor Sony to meet my needs for dynamic range and noise. My bottom line is performance and then ergonomics. But for casual non "action" photography I'd think the A7 series would be fantastic as long as I do not need to shoot for long durations of time. This is where you'd need a sony grip or a pocket full of spare batteries. Again this is subjective and personal preference.

I'm somewhat of a full frame snob/snot LOL!! but as of recent my aging panasonic GH3 and Olympus em-5mk1 has completely shocked me in casual good light shooting. The Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 and fast M43 primes retain great skin texture unlike the Canon 7d which renditions plastic skin with aggressive noise reduction in Lightroom. The 12-35mm was a breathe of fresh air in incredible versatility with incredible image quality if you start comparing it to run of the mill consumer grade rebel bodies. This is where small form factor is the emphasis and image quality delivery is very good too. If I bought a T6i it would be smaller than our 5d3 but it's not meeting the small form factor criteria. Worst of all the spendy $$$$ T6i body does not have Micro adjust.

I was considering on buying the A7s when it was introduced to the market. I wold keep the platform totally simplistic with fast primes only for casual use. I found limitation to this because for the $$$ I would want more versatility.

Like a dog chasing it's tail I just dropped the idea and bought more L lenses, flash equipment and more glass for my M43.

I do not see any appeal adapting canon glass to a Sony. That defeats the purpose of small form factor but it makes your current status happy since you own canon glass. This is where nikon is looking pretty good right now if your wanting pure performance in a larger body but more glass selection than sony. Tough, tough decision!!

Is think it's still a good idea to hold out. Just think your not shooting a 1dmk2 anymore LOL!!!

Times have changed!!


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,187 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Jan 10, 2016 19:56 |  #72

AlanU wrote in post #17853147 (external link)
Jeff,
Have some patience and Canon will eventually improve the Cmos sensor.

Yeah, I've basically decided to make no changes for the moment. For one thing, the 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II are all such incredible lenses and the 5D3 is such an all-rounder it's actually silly to think that I'm missing out on much. I'm not really into the genres of photography where the Exmor sensor is just such a breakthrough.

I guess I kind of had it in my mind to have something like the A7rII with a couple primes (the 25/2 and 55/1.8 would cover me) and my 24-70II adapted and I'd be set for most stuff and then I'd have the 5D3 for my action and telephoto work. But the more I think about it the less I like the idea.

1) I'd sell the Canon primes to use native FE (25 and 55), but then I'd have no fast primes for Canon which I do use for action sometimes. Basically.....two systems sucks even when you can adapt lenses in one direction.
2) The menu system of the A7rII isn't great, which would be manageable except I think it would be difficult to really go back and forth between a 5D3 and A7rII all the time.
3) It's a big added cost.....no way around it and not enough money in the Canon stuff I would sell to defray much of the cost.

4) I don't like Sony as a company in general. This is kind of a general thing but Sony seems to favor clever design over solid support, and I think their recent (5 year) history in cameras is clearly following their typical approach.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Jan 10, 2016 21:01 |  #73

AlanU wrote in post #17853147 (external link)
Jeff,

Have some patience and Canon will eventually improve the Cmos sensor.

I've debated in selling all of my canon gear and to jump into a Nikon D810 + D750 and my basic staple of fast primes and zooms. This would satisfy my obsession for low noise and pushing shadows.

Even with my relatively average sized hands I'd imagine getting cramps using the small A7 body for events photography or even long casual shoots. Nikon's larger body has more appeal to me over small form factor Sony to meet my needs for dynamic range and noise. My bottom line is performance and then ergonomics. But for casual non "action" photography I'd think the A7 series would be fantastic as long as I do not need to shoot for long durations of time. This is where you'd need a sony grip or a pocket full of spare batteries. Again this is subjective and personal preference.

I personally think Canon's sensors are just fine, that's not why I jumped ship.

As for the size though... seems to me you haven't actually tried shooting with one for a day. Even my original body a7 is plenty big for my large hands, the a7ii style bodies have much larger grips, they're very similar to a DSLR where grip is concerned. Now, a camera like my X-E2 I can understand the argument against the grip, but even that camera doesn't annoy me for a day of shooting, though I suppose it would if I were using heavy telephoto lenses on it, but that's not what I bought it for. The a7S however, I've used my Tokina 80-200/2.8 all day on it without any issues with my grip or hand pain (and I have arthritis in my wrists, I'd notice if it were a problem).


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Jan 11, 2016 02:02 |  #74

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17853247 (external link)
I personally think Canon's sensors are just fine, that's not why I jumped ship.

As for the size though... seems to me you haven't actually tried shooting with one for a day. Even my original body a7 is plenty big for my large hands, the a7ii style bodies have much larger grips, they're very similar to a DSLR where grip is concerned. Now, a camera like my X-E2 I can understand the argument against the grip, but even that camera doesn't annoy me for a day of shooting, though I suppose it would if I were using heavy telephoto lenses on it, but that's not what I bought it for. The a7S however, I've used my Tokina 80-200/2.8 all day on it without any issues with my grip or hand pain (and I have arthritis in my wrists, I'd notice if it were a problem).

Yes I'll admit I've played with the A7S for a short period of time but not an entire day.

For my "little" form factor body I have the Panasonic GH3 so this is an extremely ergonomic grip. My Olympus OMD E-M5 would torture me if I had to shoot with that for extended periods of time. Since I just recently bought a new Panasonic 12-35mm lens I in disbelief in how incredible this lens has transformed my M43 system into an documentation machine. The IQ is almost or on par with my PL 25mm f/1.5 prime so that is incredible!!!!

Since I use a spider holster I get ultimate freedom with taking weight off my shoulders. This system allowed me to shoot my old 1dmk3 body with 100-400L for 3 days (8hrs + each day) documenting car shows.

Just recently I purchased a 16-35L f/4IS. Now that I've been shooting with my new lens I'll have to admit I cannot go Sony now for a long time. The image quality is like my "L" prime lenses! For my style the f/4 will not really effect me much and the IQ surpasses my 16-35L f/2.8 mk2!! The 16-35 f/4IS, f/2.8 mk2, 24-70Lmk2 and 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 is too special to jump ship.

I've really enjoyed this thread. This thread has kinda made me think long an hard about mirrorless. I'm totally convinced my Canon will be a primary platform and I'll be updating all of my M43 bodies now for my casual non crucial "pleasure" platform. I personally cannot leave my Canon gear for the M43 platform.

I'd really like to see more Sony Alpha native lenses before I consider a sony. The Sony will without a doubt spank my M43 but now that I've been using top tier M43 lenses the IQ is as good as any Canon crop body.

It's so interesting how personal preference and application is the determining factor in camera platform decisions.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by KenjiS.
Jan 11, 2016 14:51 |  #75

The GX7 came today and i had a small oppertunity to take it out and walk around with it.. Heres a crappy smartphone pic

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1542/24025456860_44f2f9683b_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CB3K​hQ] (external link)New Toy... (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

The good and the bad so far...

+Its small, lightweight and has some nice ergonomics to it, even for my poor joints...
+IQ seems very good, at low ISO it has very nice "crisp" sharpness to it, No need for lots of extra sharpening like on the 7D and at high ISO the noise seems well controlled with good detail retention
+I can actually recover highlights from overexposed images (See below)
+I admit, Peaking MF is pretty neat with the picture in picture, Could see this being a useful thing to have, But i would not replace a solid AF system with it
+the IS actually seems to work flawlessly
+Rear screen is useful as heck!
+Its built very nice, it FEELS good in my hand

-...That said after using it a bit my hand hurt something awful, Would NOT want to go do a full days shooting with this thing. This is a "me" problem tho.
-AF can be a tidge... leisurely.. and sometimes it totally misses the mark and gets confused by stuff, I was in good light with contrasty subjects, types of things ive never had any AF system have an issue with... There were more misses than hits it felt, And this was on static subjects. Forget tracking anything with it. Not that that was a thing i bought it for.
-Flippy bendy viewfinder is very difficult to see, and if your body shadows the sensor, it will turn the viewfinder off, say if you're using the rear screen
-Its very hard to check focus at times, i had numerous images i shot where the focus was WAY different than what i saw in the viewfinder
-I basically have to enter the Konami code to change AF points..
-Same with exposure compensation

The biggest problem i ran into is that in good light, you can forget maintaining shallow depth of field.. This didnt even enter into my thought process actually, but if you're outdoors f/1.7 is way too bright, I was lucky if i could use f/2.8 half the time. Granted, its a brighter day out today, but i do see this being a frequent issue. I accidentally overexposed a few images not realizing, Even f/2.8 was too much at times.. I felt i had way less control over things with the camera, Could get ND filters yes, but thats something else to carry...

Do I like it? Yes, its in no way a bad camera. Am I keeping it? I dont think so, its a good camera, but not the right one for me unfortunately, Big shame as the idea of the tiny short macro had be really excited, but at the end of the day if using the camera is a chore.. then yeah, its not fulfilling its purpose.

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1572/23954066589_cd6f424591_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CuJR​s6] (external link)P1000058 (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1691/24295712686_4dd3986ab0_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/D1VS​W3] (external link)P1000031 (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1651/24295712256_51f9d22f28_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/D1VS​NC] (external link)P1000039 (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1527/24213674122_cfb9eec20e_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CTFp​J3] (external link)P1000053 (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1492/23954066569_8f3d347bc2_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CuJR​rK] (external link)P1000062 (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

*edit* I tossed the 14-42 on there to make sure it worked right before i return it and the AF on the 14-42 is FAR better than the 20.. But forget isolating anything with an f/5.6 aperture on m4/3... Not happening. I suppose the Summilux might work better but then again, the 14-42 might just work "better" because the DoF is so deep it doesnt NEED to be that precise...

So I've ruled out m4/3 unfortunately. Shame. Really wanted that Macro-Elmarit..

Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

23,138 views & 12 likes for this thread
Adding a Mirrorless, Maybe a switch.
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00176 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is Andrey79
907 guests, 453 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017