Adding a Mirrorless, Maybe a switch.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18143184
Maybe not, but the color fidelity and look of the grain has improved significantly for numerous bodies/sensors.

Yup because of improvements in the sensor design, but improvements to APS-C designs are not unique to APS-C cameras and bring the same advantages to FF cameras along with better noise control inherent to the larger surface area. i.e. both the a6300 and a7rII employ the new copper wire structure that improves high ISO color fidelity and DR....but the SNR disparity between the two sensors still exists.

mystik610 wrote in post #18143192
Yup because of improvements in the sensor design, but improvements to APS-C designs are not unique to APS-C cameras and bring the same advantages to FF cameras along with better noise control inherent to the larger surface area. i.e. both the a6300 and a7rII employ the new copper wire structure that improves high ISO color fidelity and DR....but the SNR disparity between the two sensors still exists.

I don't know that anyone was suggesting that it wasn't (I certainly never intended to), however the differences between different brands are often larger than within their own lineup. My X-E2 has significantly more (for my eyes) useable images above ISO1600 than my a7R did for example.

It's honestly getting to the point now where ISO really isn't even something I think needs to be fussed over for pretty much any brand unless you have very high needs/demands for extreme ISO capability. I kept telling myself I needed the awesome high ISO ability of my a7S for a long time, but the reality is that just about any modern ILC will get me the results I need for most of what I shoot (ISO100-12800), obviously other's mileage will vary, but it's seriously like splitting hairs most of the time at this point.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18143203
I don't know that anyone was suggesting that it wasn't (I certainly never intended to), however the differences between different brands are often larger than within their own lineup. My X-E2 has significantly more (for my eyes) useable images above ISO1600 than my a7R did for example.

It's honestly getting to the point now where ISO really isn't even something I think needs to be fussed over for pretty much any brand unless you have very high needs/demands for extreme ISO capability. I kept telling myself I needed the awesome high ISO ability of my a7S for a long time, but the reality is that just about any modern ILC will get me the results I need for most of what I shoot (ISO100-12800), obviously other's mileage will vary, but it's seriously like splitting hairs most of the time at this point.

Hehe we always go in circles with this discussion, but again SNR is relevant at even at BASE ISO as well, as its possible to start to all sorts of chroma and luminance noise if you start pushing files hard in post.

And the a7r sensor vs the x-e2 isn't really an appropriate comparison...the a7r sensor is a five year old sensor that favored resolution over high ISO performance....it has twice the resolution as the XE-2. All things being equal other than sensor size, then the SNR disparity is what it is.

mystik610 wrote in post #18143265
Hehe we always go in circles with this discussion, but again SNR is relevant at even at BASE ISO as well, as its possible to start to all sorts of chroma and luminance noise if you start pushing files hard in post.

And the a7r sensor vs the x-e2 isn't really an appropriate comparison...the a7r sensor is a five year old sensor that favored resolution over high ISO performance....it has twice the resolution as the XE-2. All things being equal other than sensor size, then the SNR disparity is what it is.

I'm sure to some people that matters, but to me (and I'd argue most people as well) the difference is insignificant. I don't push my shots particularly far in post, but even when I've had to the Fuji files have done nothing but impress me, I didn't find them far off from my a7S files at all except for in terms of super high ISO ability (above 12800).

I made the X-E2 comparison because those are two cameras I've had, and both have sensors of a similar age, perhaps a better comparison would have been with my EOS M, but the story was the same there (though that sensor is even older).

I make comparisons based on things I've actually used and tested, those happen to be two systems I have experience with and the a7R ISO handling surprised me enough (in a bad way) to make it noteworthy, my a7S however, was fantastic, but again, not enough that it made a significant difference in real world use most of the time.

My argument is simply that the difference between FF and APS-C is no longer significant at least in terms of SNR (or noise in general at practical ISO values) for the majority of users. Does that mean I think FF is pointless? No. I just think it's an insignificant difference for me from APS-C.

I dont push files much.. I dont even really get the DR thing the way some people do I guess.. I think its because I came from shooting slide films so im just hard wired to a very narrow DR to start with

Ive been toying with HDR shooting lately FWIW. Cant say I entirely get how to do it right though.. Most of my subjects move and make such things... difficult, I think the ones it might look good on are a set of shots i did of a car with a sunset behind it ive yet to get to processing

Also i think studio shots only show so much, FWIW, in my own shooting, Shooting the GX8 and the 7D I find the GX8's noise profile better at higher ISO and i find its output sharper than the 7D, I attribute this to the 7D's extremely aggressive AA filter

Everythings a tradeoff in the end. I've played with the A7 series and I just still am not sure how I feel about them..

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18143327
I'm sure to some people that matters, but to me (and I'd argue most people as well) the difference is insignificant. I don't push my shots particularly far in post, but even when I've had to the Fuji files have done nothing but impress me, I didn't find them far off from my a7S files at all except for in terms of super high ISO ability (above 12800).

I made the X-E2 comparison because those are two cameras I've had, and both have sensors of a similar age, perhaps a better comparison would have been with my EOS M, but the story was the same there (though that sensor is even older).

I make comparisons based on things I've actually used and tested, those happen to be two systems I have experience with and the a7R ISO handling surprised me enough (in a bad way) to make it noteworthy, my a7S however, was fantastic, but again, not enough that it made a significant difference in real world use most of the time.

My argument is simply that the difference between FF and APS-C is no longer significant at least in terms of SNR (or noise in general at practical ISO values) for the majority of users. Does that mean I think FF is pointless? No. I just think it's an insignificant difference for me from APS-C.

The thing about photography is that everyone has different shooting styles and personal preferences.

I do find that as the noise control gets better at high iso I will change my shooting style. This is regarding keeping high image quality in terrible light before the RAW file falls apart. This is where I would love to have a 5dmk4, Nikon D810 or lower res A7s(mk2)to have clean images before they fall apart. As you can see this has nothing to do with full frame. This totally has to do with maintaining clean images at high iso. It just so happens that the full frame sensor excels in this criteria.

OK.......on the other hand the image quality of the fuji is great! the newer 24mpx sensors just improves noise control even higher in ISO. However I do feel that if your a zoom shooter the full frame f/2.8 zooms can produce excellent IQ as well as more shallow dof (almost like your shooting a prime dof ) heck of alot easier than a crop sensor with f/2.8 zooms. This is where I find some nikon/canon crop shooters just loving the 18-35 sigma f/1.8 for that zoom running and gunning photography.

If your a crop sensor guy be it mirrorless or traditional dslr I think if your a prime shooter you can love shallow dof. With a zoom your going to have less "pop" in your images than a larger sensor format. This is physics and nothing to do with emotional debate.

I recently looked at a wedding album online. The team of photographers used 5dmk3's and 24-70Lmk2 for a large portion of the wedding documentation. I was thinking "wow" considering it was a simple camera/lens combo but the images turned out stellar with "almost" prime like qualities with very good shallow dof.

NOW we are benefiting with the recent technology in crop sensor mirrorless bodies. I fine that a mirrorless system can effortlessly achieve ridiculous sharpness with the simple path of light hitting the sensor without sharing light with the viewfinder/penta-prism in a dslr.

I know when I shot crop sensor only with f/2.8 zooms I though it was an INCREDIBLE treat to use a full frame with f/2.8 zoom in achieving effortless 3d "pop" with zero effort.

Now that I'm using a fuji crop and 80D crop I can see a difference in my casual photos with f/2.8 limitations. This is where I prefer primes with my crop sensor formats.

Since camera's are tools I look at them for specific reasons with no emotional attachments. I grab what I need in the toolbox.........

For paid events photography I'd feel more comfortable with camera capable with extremely high ISO performance to give you the utmost quality in all situations. Yes the 5dmk4 is on my shortlist at the moment but I'll also be buying a X-T2 as well. Comfort zone for me I'd probably still grab the 5dmk4 for those photos where I need to shoot available light and still get incredible high IQ. At this moment my 5d3 is my current tool for high iso.

Everyone has specific reasons to use certain tools. This is where people use tools to achieve exactly what they need to do.

KenjiS wrote in post #18143329
I dont push files much.. I dont even really get the DR thing the way some people do I guess.. I think its because I came from shooting slide films so im just hard wired to a very narrow DR to start with

Ive been toying with HDR shooting lately FWIW. Cant say I entirely get how to do it right though.. Most of my subjects move and make such things... difficult, I think the ones it might look good on are a set of shots i did of a car with a sunset behind it ive yet to get to processing

Also i think studio shots only show so much, FWIW, in my own shooting, Shooting the GX8 and the 7D I find the GX8's noise profile better at higher ISO and i find its output sharper than the 7D, I attribute this to the 7D's extremely aggressive AA filter

Everythings a tradeoff in the end. I've played with the A7 series and I just still am not sure how I feel about them..

I recently picked up a GX8 and I really like it. I'm currently just using 2 lenses - 20mm f/1.7 and 42.5mm f/1.7, to sort of replicate the 35mm-equivalent 35mm/85mm prime duo I really like. Covers most of my shooting.

I've gone from Canon 6D to Fuji, and now I'm almost contemplating another step "down" in sensor size to Micro 4/3, as I'm just really liking how compact these lenses are.

As I've shot with smaller sensor cameras, I did realize to a certain extent I was using the 6D's high iso performance as a crutch. I've been able to get acceptable results in low light from APS-C or Micro 4/3 by using faster primes, IBIS, better technique, etc.

AlanU wrote in post #18143386
The thing about photography is that everyone has different shooting styles and personal preferences.

I do find that as the noise control gets better at high iso I will change my shooting style. This is regarding keeping high image quality in terrible light before the RAW file falls apart. This is where I would love to have a 5dmk4, Nikon D810 or lower res A7s(mk2)to have clean images before they fall apart. As you can see this has nothing to do with full frame. This totally has to do with maintaining clean images at high iso. It just so happens that the full frame sensor excels in this criteria.

OK.......on the other hand the image quality of the fuji is great! the newer 24mpx sensors just improves noise control even higher in ISO. However I do feel that if your a zoom shooter the full frame f/2.8 zooms can produce excellent IQ as well as more shallow dof (almost like your shooting a prime dof ) heck of alot easier than a crop sensor with f/2.8 zooms. This is where I find some nikon/canon crop shooters just loving the 18-35 sigma f/1.8 for that zoom running and gunning photography.

If your a crop sensor guy be it mirrorless or traditional dslr I think if your a prime shooter you can love shallow dof. With a zoom your going to have less "pop" in your images than a larger sensor format. This is physics and nothing to do with emotional debate.

I recently looked at a wedding album online. The team of photographers used 5dmk3's and 24-70Lmk2 for a large portion of the wedding documentation. I was thinking "wow" considering it was a simple camera/lens combo but the images turned out stellar with "almost" prime like qualities with very good shallow dof.

NOW we are benefiting with the recent technology in crop sensor mirrorless bodies. I fine that a mirrorless system can effortlessly achieve ridiculous sharpness with the simple path of light hitting the sensor without sharing light with the viewfinder/penta-prism in a dslr.

I know when I shot crop sensor only with f/2.8 zooms I though it was an INCREDIBLE treat to use a full frame with f/2.8 zoom in achieving effortless 3d "pop" with zero effort.

Now that I'm using a fuji crop and 80D crop I can see a difference in my casual photos with f/2.8 limitations. This is where I prefer primes with my crop sensor formats.

Since camera's are tools I look at them for specific reasons with no emotional attachments. I grab what I need in the toolbox.........

For paid events photography I'd feel more comfortable with camera capable with extremely high ISO performance to give you the utmost quality in all situations. Yes the 5dmk4 is on my shortlist at the moment but I'll also be buying a X-T2 as well. Comfort zone for me I'd probably still grab the 5dmk4 for those photos where I need to shoot available light and still get incredible high IQ. At this moment my 5d3 is my current tool for high iso.

Everyone has specific reasons to use certain tools. This is where people use tools to achieve exactly what they need to do.

Your f/2.8 zoom point is a good one, imo. The thing I do miss most about using the 6D was having that 24-70 f/2.8ii. Gave me the convenience of not having to switch lenses. For equiv DOF, on APS-C you'd need something like a constant f/1.8 zoom, and for M4/3 you'd need a constant f/1.4 zoom. AFAIK, these do not exist for the mirrorless cameras, and if they did would probably be too big to use satisfactorily with the bodies.

Fuji has the 16-55 f/2.8, and Panasonic has the 12-35 f/2.8, but obviously you lose DOF control and would have to shoot at the same ISO as on the FF camera to get the same exposure, and thus the FF camera will always have the advantage there in terms of performance at the same high ISO.

However, one thing I've noticed in practice is there are diminishing returns as you go higher in ISO. So if I want FF f/2.8 DOF at say 50mm, I could use the Fuji 35mm f/2, or the Panasonic 25mm 1.4. So for same exposure, if I need ISO 6400 on the FF, I could go with 3200 on Fuji, or 1600 on Panasonic. Now I used to think the sensor size compensated for this, meaning I thought ISO 6400 on a FF would look just as good as 3200 on Fuji or 1600 on Micro43. I found though this is not the case. There is not a huge difference in my eyes, but I do find at the higher ISOs (say 1600 and up) images look cleaner using lower ISO even on smaller sensors.

It's all about being there, understanding light and getting images that suit your needs

When I had a photo business I had two systems. I never could afford the Hassy gear I wanted

I found it difficult to carry my 2 Nikon F3's with motor drives and fast glass. I carried a lens changer bag as well. My lightweight gear was a Leica M3 with a 50/2.0 summicron, and 90/2.8 tele-elmarit. I couldn't afford a wide angle lens. I used this for street photography

We've come a long way. However, i need equipment that works. focuses. and parts don't fall off. I prefer to have a back up body as well. Oly M5 gear failed those tests for me. So it's gone

I don't put food on the table selling my work anymore. Cost is a concern

My Sony a6000 gear works well,

Have you considered the Sigma sd Quattro?

Tony-S wrote in post #18151881
Have you considered the Sigma sd Quattro?

I find that system way to limiting, you can only use Sigma glass, future is uncertain.

You can't even adapt other lenses do it, since they made that long barrel extension build into the camera.

Tony-S wrote in post #18151881
Have you considered the Sigma sd Quattro?

Funny enough, i kinda did like it in theory but i am very thankful i didnt buy it after seeing DigitalRev's review on the thing..

its a product shot/landscape camera, id have been driven nuts instantly...

Nope, im happy with my GX8 and 7D Mark II

I switched in Canon over 10 years ago. I have flirted with m43 on and off for years until I got a Olympus e-m5ii last year. I used it almost exclusively since picking it up. It is great until you hit scenarios needing higher ISOs where sensor size become a problem. I recently ended up adding a Fuji X-T2 and seems to be a good supplement to my m43 kit.

dalto wrote in post #18153799
I switched in Canon over 10 years ago. I have flirted with m43 on and off for years until I got a Olympus e-m5ii last year. I used it almost exclusively since picking it up. It is great until you hit scenarios needing higher ISOs where sensor size become a problem. I recently ended up adding a Fuji X-T2 and seems to be a good supplement to my m43 kit.

Would love to hear more of your thoughts on Fuji vs M43.

I've built out a fairly minimal kit with both systems in the attempt to try to commit to one after trying them out for a while. Initially I thought Fuji was the one until I got into M43 recently and have been really impressed.

I am really trying to just commit to one system and sell off the other.

Just been reading through - most of this (not all) and I wanted to ask - could a 1inch Bridge camera be thrown into the mix? say the Lumix FZ1000 with its DFD focus ability(same as GH4).

How would it compare ?


P.