Sony A7x lounge

rx1rII.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FbpQ​JR

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EdGG​uL

David Arbogast wrote in post #17932403
Speaking of adapted lenses vs native ones, for a long time I read people saying they want to shoot mirrorless to downsize their gear, but this photo caught my attention the other day: http://www.sonyalpharu​mors.com …st-it-changes-everything/

The a7R II with 24-70 GM is the same overall length as the 5DS R with 24-70L II. There is a slight weight savings, for sure, but on the whole mirrorless isn't typically proving to have much size advantage when there are equivalent lenses.

people that are talking about weight saving aspect of mirrorless are usually not talking about these crazy large f2.8 lenses.

Hello, micro Four Thirds

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17932421
people that are talking about weight saving aspect of mirrorless are usually not talking about these crazy large f2.8 lenses.

I said equivalent lenses, not just the f/2.8 lenses. Same applies to f/4 lenses as well. Tell me what lens is small on the a7 series, but impossible to be equally small on a DSLR? Adapted M-mount lenses maybe? There just isn't typically any size/weight advantage regarding the lenses - only the bodies.

Luckily I'm not a portraitist or a wedding photographer and thus have not even glanced at the FM series.
For what I do ---the rare landscape-- the F4 lenses sit just fine.
In fact I'm waiting on a 1DXii and have just begun shopping for it-- 24-70 F4 and 16-35 F4.
Only time I really really loved 2.8 was in Costa Rica with the 300mm and dealing with the shadow canopy.
I guess I bought into the belief that the newer bodies with huge ISO capability can save me weight and money
in not having 2.8.


Having said that 2.8 and faster are best for mFT with the little dinky sensor.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17932423
Hello, micro Four Thirds

You make the perfect point, imo: Want a smaller system, then go with a smaller sensor.


I know Lucas and Eddie have high regards for the Fuji system, and I note that Elia Locardi is using Fuji for much of his work (along with his Nikon gear), and there is a part of me that wonders if I shouldn't follow his setup (FF DSLR along with APS-C mirrorless) to have a big and a small setup. I would love a truly smaller camera/lens (for a more discreet form of photography).

It's been years since I have even shot an aps-c sensor camera and I have a stupid phobia about it. Anyway, I've been pretty consistent in this thread in wishing I had a smaller 2nd or third system (talked about RX 100 IV or RX1R II or X70, etc). Ah well - I probably can't afford it, so I can be happy with the awesomeness that I already have.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17932428
Luckily I'm not a portraitist or a wedding photographer and thus have not even glanced at the FM series.
For what I do ---the rare landscape-- the F4 lenses sit just fine.

I'm with you there. I have the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS, and the only reason for my 24-70L II is it's simply a superior lens to the f/4 model (not so with the 16-35/70-200 f/4 models).

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17932423
Hello, micro Four Thirds

100% true,
when i want small and portable i take the m43.
the sony with 35mm rok f1.4 is huge and heavy,the sony with ibis isn't small any more,i think the whole "mirror less is smaller and more portable than a dslr" is kinda mute now. miroorles has other advantages and yes some disadvantages

genesimmons wrote in post #17932437
100% true,
when i want small and portable i take the m43.
the sony with 35mm rok f1.4 is huge and heavy,the sony with ibis isn't small any more,i think the whole "mirror less is smaller and more portable than a dslr" is kinda mute now. miroorles has other advantages and yes some disadvantages

Yes, absolutely right. EVF is a fantastic mirrorless advantage imo, to name one.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17932442
Yes, absolutely right. EVF is a fantastic mirrorless advantage imo, to name one.

yup evf is the main reason i have a mirror less,in fact its prob the only reason,if my 70d had the view finder the sony has i never would have looked at the sony,i love everything about the 70d but now that i have been spoiled by evf of the sony and the ibis of the olympus i rarely use the 70d,i did take it to my daughters volley ball game the other day as i knew neither the sony or olympus could match the af speed of the 70d and 70-200.

Genesimmons which 70-200 do you have? I'm looking at the plain 70-200 no IS and F4.

On system choice for me it's a gradation of weight to be carrierd versus image quality I'm after.
Last week birding in Florida always close to the car or a short flat walk=EOS kit with the big whites, tripods, gimbals, etc.
True backpacking up and down serious hills in narly weather=Lumix GM5 + 1-2 extra lenses. The GM5's mFT sensor displaced the Sony RX100iii.
Moderate walks to killer scenery=that's when the A7Rii comes along. I've mentioned before that in Costa Rica we tallied up quite a few miles on some
seriously steep rooty rocky trails and carried the a7Rii + 70-400gii, heavy yes but not compared to the EOS leviathans.

EVF was like sliced bread.
Doesn't the new XPro-2 have a hydrid with advantages of both OVF and EVF ??
Nope not going down the Fuji road! As much as I'd want I need to nuture what I've go.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17932442
Yes, absolutely right. EVF is a fantastic mirrorless advantage imo, to name one.

I'm waiting on my new mirrorless to arrive and it doesn't have an evf, or an ovf . Need to see how that will pan out. Wonder how many times I will accidentaly hold it up to my eye

Who has cleaned their sensor on a stabilized A7x body?
If so tell us what you used please.

I just read that if you leave the camera on and turn off IBIS it locks down the sensor and makes it easier and safer to clean
with a gel stick--thoughts?

David Arbogast wrote in post #17932424
I said equivalent lenses, not just the f/2.8 lenses. Same applies to f/4 lenses as well. Tell me what lens is small on the a7 series, but impossible to be equally small on a DSLR? Adapted M-mount lenses maybe? There just isn't typically any size/weight advantage regarding the lenses - only the bodies.

I guess it's not only about lenses, but more about the size and weight of the total package (camera + lens). The best comparison I have found, is this one. And if you just need a 35mm lens on a fullframe camera regardless of the aperture, you can go significantly smaller (since Canon doesn't have an EF 35mm F/2.8 as far as I know).

A7RII and FE 28 / FE 55 combo is definately smaller than anything I ever had on Canon. A7RII and Sigma 35/85 combo is not smaller than dslr. However theres many, many more benefits to me for mirrorless over dslr and the beauty of it is that I can chose if I want the big combo or the small combo on any given day. DSLR is big or big

The Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8 ZA (9.91 oz) is a superior lens, but it is nearly twice the weight and length of the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (5.7 oz) Canon equivalent (aperture). No Canon equivalent to FE 28mm though.

Anyway, the only point I am highlighting is to say that mirrorless does not appear to offer any inherent size advantages over DSLR with regards to the lenses. There is about a 10 oz difference between bodies though (a7R vs 5DS R), which is significant.