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

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 22 Oct 2018 (Monday) 14:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I would like to understand

 
Mathmans
Senior Member
274 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Apr 2014
     
Nov 07, 2018 04:13 as a reply to  @ post 18745135 |  #31

Yes indeed; Sony is not for me.
I'll just wait next generation of Z6.


My photos:
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/149610703@N05/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
535 posts
Likes: 198
Joined Nov 2017
     
Nov 07, 2018 09:43 |  #32

Why wait when you can try out a Z7? Its the same body.


If history has proven anything. it's that evolution always wins!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mathmans
Senior Member
274 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Apr 2014
Post edited 4 months ago by Mathmans. (4 edits in all)
     
Nov 08, 2018 06:02 as a reply to  @ soeren's post |  #33

>> Why wait when you can try out a Z7? It’s the same body. <<

I suppose I could go to the store and try Z7 but I have no intention to buy Z6 yet. I think I'll wait at least one generation.
First reason is I would newer buy a camera immediately when released. As a Nikon user I have some reasons to be careful (D7000 focus problems, D600 oil on sensor, D800 left focus issue, D750 flare and shutter issue).
The second reason is that Z7 and Z6 are prototypes at the moment. At least Z7 is lacking in some areas and it still needs to evolve (mostly focusing system and frames per sec) to be able to fully compete with for example Sony a7III or a9.
I would like to have eye focus in Sony style. I also hope they will add 3D focusing mode and dynamic area focusing modes (d9, d21, ….) like we have on our DSLRs.
They also need to resolve this banding issue.
One more thing; acording to Matt Granger some existing Nikon lenses don't work equaly good on Z7 through the adapter as they work on DSLRs.


My photos:
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/149610703@N05/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,116 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 291
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Nov 08, 2018 13:44 |  #34

"Are those lenses for Sony a7III smaller and lighter then the same lenses for let's say Canon 6D?"

The lenses are designed to support the resolutions of the A7rIII and its decendents - and the higher resolutions the cameras that are yet to be released.. Those lenses just so happen to work with the a7III as well. And the a6500/6300/6000... and older cameras. Most of the current group of lenses out there were designed to resolve for 50, 75, and 100 mpx sensors. There are built to a 30 year old spec. You will also notice that the next gen lenses from both Nikon and Canon are substantially larger as well.

Also to the point that your hand was cramping..... if you are supporting the full weight of the camera and lens with your shooting hand, you are doing it wrong. You should have one hand under the camera and lens to support the weight of the lens and camera body. That could be part of your problem. Instead of supporting the weight from the center of gravity of your kit, you are tying to support your kit via the camera grip... which is not centered. The grip is there for stability, not to be where you cary the weight of a professional camera.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ericbowles
Junior Member
Avatar
21 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 15
Joined Jan 2017
     
Nov 10, 2018 07:41 |  #35

Initially the push to mirrorless was driven by smaller and lighter cameras. That was really brilliant marketing by Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus, etc. who needed a point of differentiation. What made it even more interesting is it was partly a perception of light weight rather than an actual difference - the marketing spin. For example, the Nikon 3500 is just 21 grams heavier than the Sony Alpha A6000 - less difference than the change in my pocket. And few people were choosing the lighter weight of APS-C cameras over full frame, or lighter polycarbonate lenses even though they provide lighter weight.

Now Nikon and Canon are putting the emphasis on optical performance with their mirrorless cameras and mount. The larger mount will provide better optical performance and faster apertures - especially toward the corners.

Yes - mirrorless is still lighter. But that is through tradeoffs. The Nikon Z7 is much lighter than the D850 because it gives up a card slot, flash, and other features. But the lenses vary - some are lighter like the 24-70 S f/4 - but that's because of aperture choice. Fast lenses are usually inherently heavy, and the highest quality fast lenses are all heavier than the nearest alternatives in the Nikon F-mount.


Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Workshops and Private Instruction
www.bowlesimages.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aladyforty
Goldmember
Avatar
4,065 posts
Gallery: 204 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5933
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Albany: Western Australia
     
Nov 10, 2018 08:24 |  #36

I went mirror-less in 2011 when Fuji released the X100. The sensor was big enough and the images amazing and compared with my 5DII at the time. I still own and use it. But I have yet to venture into an interchangeable lens camera set up that is mirror-less. Id like to. The main pros for me are the electronic viewfinder and the fact that you can shoot silently. I used to do weddings with two DSLRs but a couple of churches I did weddings in were strict on camera noise so I took the Fuji inside for stuff up close. Completely silent. same at events where they expect silence. I cant see myself giving up my DSLRs for a while though


5D3 7D2 Canon G1X Fuji X100 Fuji X10 canon glass & the odd other brands https://500px.com/alad​yforty (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Joaaso
Senior Member
Avatar
555 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
     
Nov 26, 2018 08:59 |  #37

AZGeorge wrote in post #18734482 (external link)
Good question, Tim.

For me, the DSLR has become an honored and still entirely useful relic of the recent past. For years they gave us an image of the light coming through the lens. That was and is ideal for film. With mirrorless we have an image of what the sensor is making of the light coming through the lens. To me, that seems ideal for digital.

In my eyes it has nothing to do with analog or digital, but the different types of photography we do and what they require. EVF will suit some types, OVF others.. The type of photography I do is all about seeing and experiencing the subject, while the camera is just an extension of my body, more or less. When I work best, I go into a bubble of creative concentration and anything that disrupts that concentration is no good. EVF's do that, OVF's don't and I think the reason is exactly the fact that the EVF shows what the sensor sees; This differs too much from what I see with my own eyes, making me more conscious of the operation of the camera than I prefer. The fact that the sensor sees the world differently than I do, is something I can deal with later.

That being said, I was interested in mirrorless as a second camera for a while because of size/weight, but found that within the current FF MILC-market, there’s not enough difference in size/weight from dslr’s to justify the poor ergonomics which tends to follow size-reduction.


aaso-photography (external link) | Flickr (external link)
5D Mk IV | 5D Mk II
EF 24-70/4L | EF 24-105/4L | Samyang 14/2.8 | TS-E 24/3.5L II | EF 35/1.4L II | EF 85/1.8 | EF 135/2L | EF 200/2.8L II | 1,4x TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
535 posts
Likes: 198
Joined Nov 2017
Post edited 3 months ago by soeren.
     
Nov 26, 2018 10:41 |  #38

Well mirrorless can be costumized to show the image the way you want to see it or to give a good representation of how it looks in an ovf


If history has proven anything. it's that evolution always wins!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,915 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3357
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Nov 26, 2018 11:28 |  #39

Joaaso wrote in post #18758784 (external link)
. . . I go into a bubble of creative concentration . . .

Are you fishing for a new title? . Title Fairy alert! :lol:

.

Joaaso wrote in post #18758784 (external link)
. . . the EVF shows what the sensor sees; This differs too much from what I see with my own eyes, making me more conscious of the operation of the camera than I prefer. The fact that the sensor sees the world differently than I do . . .

This is an insight that I agree with. . When I am looking looking through the viewfinder and composing the image the way I want to and waiting for the subject to present me with the right moment, I don't want to see what the picture is going to look like - I want to see what the scene actually looks like in real life.

I certainly don't want or need a viewfinder that is going to help me get the exposure right - I get that right without any help. . Plus, if the exposure is going to be wrong, and I see that in the viewfinder, I would still need a fraction of a second to make the proper adjustment .... and when I'm looking through the viewfinder at a subject I don't have an extra split second to make any adjustments.

.

Joaaso wrote in post #18758784 (external link)
. . . there’s not enough difference in size/weight from DSLR’s to justify the poor ergonomics which tends to follow size-reduction.

Here you make another point that I agree with. . LARGER cameras are much easier to use from an ergonomic standpoint.

Small cameras are very difficult to use and to hold and to change settings with because there is not enough space between things. . It's like trying to use a cell phone to type things instead of using a nice big full-sized keypad. . Any reasonable human would agree that it is easier, faster, and more accurate to type things out on a full sized keypad than it is to type them out on a small cell phone ...... and the analogy applies directly to small cameras vs. large cameras.

I couldn't care less about how easy or difficult it is to carry something around - what matters isn't the carrying around; what matters is how ergonomically easy it is to use something when the moment is at hand.


.

I am all for mirrorless cameras - I just hope that someday they figure out how to make them with a truly optical viewfinder and that they also make them nice and big like my Canon 1D series bodies. . Until then I will stick with my DSLRs.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Joaaso
Senior Member
Avatar
555 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Post edited 3 months ago by Joaaso. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 26, 2018 15:03 |  #40

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18758872 (external link)
Are you fishing for a new title? . Title Fairy alert! :lol:

hehe, might have been a case of poor direct translation from my native language there ;)

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18758872 (external link)
waiting for the subject to present me with the right moment, I don't want to see what the picture is going to look like - I want to see what the scene actually looks like in real life.

Well said!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18758872 (external link)
LARGER cameras are much easier to use from an ergonomic standpoint. Small cameras are very difficult to use and to hold and to change settings with because there is not enough space between things.

Absolutely. For use as a main camera I also need them to be as large as the 1D/5D-series are today. But for use as a second/third camera, I could give up on ergonomics and even OVF, if there was enough size and weight-reduction on offer. Coupled with a pancake-ish prime lens, I could make use of that in everyday-situations where I today only have my phone with me.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18758872 (external link)
I am all for mirrorless cameras - I just hope that someday they figure out how to make them with a truly optical viewfinder and that they also make them nice and big like my Canon 1D series bodies. . Until then I will stick with my DSLRs.

.

Yeah, I agree, I don't really care if this or that technology is being used, I care about what it does for me. I'd be more than happy to go mirrorless if the EVF actually gave the exact same experience as an OVF - it just doesn't. And I do not expect them to do so anytime soon either to be honest (if it's even possible) - even when looking outside of the camera industry, I can't remember seeing any notable progress in this direction in the last decade or so. Better compromises of size and ergonomics is much more likely to appear soon though..


aaso-photography (external link) | Flickr (external link)
5D Mk IV | 5D Mk II
EF 24-70/4L | EF 24-105/4L | Samyang 14/2.8 | TS-E 24/3.5L II | EF 35/1.4L II | EF 85/1.8 | EF 135/2L | EF 200/2.8L II | 1,4x TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,116 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 291
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Nov 28, 2018 10:11 |  #41

I'm trying to understand a few of the comments here. One that just seems really odd is that as a photographer one doesn't want to see how the Sensor will see the scene, but how the photographer sees the scene, even if those are two different things. Why would one prefer to see something as it will recorded?

Sure experience helps compensate for those differences. But to me that is akin to wanting to drive a car that doesn't tell you how it will actually respond....

That said, there are many ways to shoot. No right nor wrong. I don't mind shooting through an OVF.... I use my 1Dx all the time. But I would never reject knowing how the image will be recorded before I press the shutter release.

Size is another issue mostly spoken by people who don't have much experience with Mirror-less cameras. It's like a ford versus gm things. Analytics say they can both do the same jobs for most people 99% of the time. It's a matter of what you are used to.... not that one has superior capabilities. Lets not confuse preference with capability.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,915 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3357
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Nov 28, 2018 10:49 |  #42

Croasdail wrote in post #18760206 (external link)
I'm trying to understand a few of the comments here. One that just seems really odd is that as a photographer one doesn't want to see how the Sensor will see the scene, but how the photographer sees the scene, even if those are two different things. Why would one prefer to see something as it will recorded?

.
It is the scene itself from which I draw all of my inspiration. . I shoot because when I see something in nature, I have something to say about it, and I express myself through my images. . Every time some little thing in the scene changes, I suddenly have something different to say than I had a moment before.

If I see a buck standing on the woodland edge, I may think, "Look at the way this scene showcases the environment that the buck lives in .... I'll shoot wide and capture an environmental portrait."

Now suppose that three or four seconds later, as I am composing the environmental portrait, a very subtle change in the light occurs, and then I suddenly have something different to say about the scene: "Wow - look how there is a very subtle rimlight reflecting weakly off of the buck's antlers - better zoom in and frame him tightly so that I can capture that ever-so-faint rimlight before it disappears."

I shoot in semi-automated exposure modes; primarily aperture priority. . When using a truly optical viewfinder, I see the the light for what it really is, and will notice extremely faint changes in the ambient light. . If I were to use an electronic viewfinder, and there is a small change in the light, I fear that my automated exposure mode will compensate for the increased or decreased light, and then my perception of the change will not be as acute as it would be otherwise, because the camera is working to maintain a consistent exposure value, and I see the 'adjusted' image in the viewfinder.

It is not just the amount of light that is constantly changing - the nature and the quality of the light is also changing. . These small changes often last for only a few seconds. . I fear that I will not be as in-tune with these moment-to-moment changes if I am looking through an EVF.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yellowt2
Senior Member
259 posts
Likes: 63
Joined Sep 2009
     
Nov 28, 2018 12:17 |  #43

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18758872 (external link)
Here you make another point that I agree with. . LARGER cameras are much easier to use from an ergonomic standpoint.

Small cameras are very difficult to use and to hold and to change settings with because there is not enough space between things. . It's like trying to use a cell phone to type things instead of using a nice big full-sized keypad. . Any reasonable human would agree that it is easier, faster, and more accurate to type things out on a full sized keypad than it is to type them out on a small cell phone ...... and the analogy applies directly to small cameras vs. large cameras.

I couldn't care less about how easy or difficult it is to carry something around - what matters isn't the carrying around; what matters is how ergonomically easy it is to use something when the moment is at hand.

This is totally a personal thing though. For a lot of us (small) size is desirable and/or important. I agree that using a full-size keyboard is much nicer than using a cell phone, or those thin tablet keyboards, or even a laptop keyboard. But how many people take a full-size keyboard with them when they leave the house? My guess is not many (I sure don't). We put up with less than perfect ergonomics to make something smaller/lighter so it is easier to pack and carry around.

I'm the same with a camera. Most of my photography is done while travelling, and I sure don't want to lug a 1D sized camera around in my backpack. For some trips I don't even take my mirrorless (A6500) and instead just use an RX100 compact. Are the pictures as good? No. Are the ergonomics as good? No. But they're good enough that the size trade-off is worth it (to me).

If I was a full-time studio photographer, and didn't take my camera out of the studio, then size wouldn't matter. From what I understand of your photography, reducing your camera size wouldn't make much difference because you have a 600mm lens on it anyway...

So yeah, it's a personal thing




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ericbowles
Junior Member
Avatar
21 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 15
Joined Jan 2017
     
Nov 28, 2018 15:46 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #44

The EVF is a lot more useful than many people realize. You really should try it. It's really a combination of the OVF and the rear LCD.

There is much more information available in the EVF than a traditional optical viewfinder - and it can be customized. For example, on my Z6 I have very quick access to the histogram, the horizon level, and all the settings. I can zoom in for much more precise focus. And I can use focus peaking to verify the parts of the image that are in sharp focus.

In lower light conditions, the viewfinder is much brighter and allows me to see detail and compose with that detail in mind, focus on the detail, or exclude it if desired. While that view is not WYSIWYG, it sure makes it easier to see details like the eyes of the subject.

After pressing the shutter, I can also review images using the EVF. It's much faster than using the rear LCD. I can zoom in to check sharpness in different places. And I can do everything I could do with a rear LCD.

I can program in more than a dozen settings for quick access via the EVF. I think of it as My Menu through the viewfinder. 2-3 of these functions were previously accessible with external buttons, but I have a lot more access now and can change controls without taking my eye from the viewfinder.

There certainly is a learning curve. The EVF works best in combination with a few external buttons. But as a glasses wearer, I can tweak the diopter adjustment to taste, and see everything much sharper than I ever could with glasses, an OVF, and a rear LCD. The bottom line is my work is faster, more accurate, and I get better images with the EVF because my eye never leaves the viewfinder and I have more control over the camera and adjustments.


Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Workshops and Private Instruction
www.bowlesimages.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,116 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 291
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Nov 28, 2018 16:17 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #45

I shoot manual now 90% of the time because the EVF gives me the exact information you are describing. I rarely use any automatic modes because in manual via an evf I can exactly see the changes in light have directly, and I can adjust my exposure in real time to what I want... not relying on the camera to make any of those decisions. It just shows me in real time what the changes I am making will have on the final image.

Not saying one is better than the other.... but I am totally focused on how the camera will see what I am seeing, and making adjustments as needed.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

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

2,827 views & 28 likes for this thread
I would like to understand
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is djj
909 guests, 379 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.