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 30 Dec 2015 (Wednesday) 22:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Adding a Mirrorless, Maybe a switch.

 
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,395 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 524
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jan 07, 2016 23:48 |  #46

Congrats on your new edition. The platform will be fun for you to explore shooting with a smaller camera package.

When you eventually look into different lenses you'll really shock yourself in how decent the IQ is compared to a crop sensor canon. I'm probably going to say my current olympus OMD em5 and panny gh3 with higher end glass is easily on par with my old Canon 50d with good glass. I wont complain much about that.....

I thought the PL25mm f/1.4 was excellent. The 12-35mm f/2.8 has really changed my thoughts on M43 and I have a new respect for the small sensor camera. Even though I'm still a full frame user I do find great uses for the M43.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | 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 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,028 posts
Gallery: 366 photos
Likes: 1540
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Post edited over 2 years ago by KenjiS.
     
Jan 08, 2016 00:49 |  #47

AlanU wrote in post #17849402 (external link)
Congrats on your new edition. The platform will be fun for you to explore shooting with a smaller camera package.

When you eventually look into different lenses you'll really shock yourself in how decent the IQ is compared to a crop sensor canon. I'm probably going to say my current olympus OMD em5 and panny gh3 with higher end glass is easily on par with my old Canon 50d with good glass. I wont complain much about that.....

I thought the PL25mm f/1.4 was excellent. The 12-35mm f/2.8 has really changed my thoughts on M43 and I have a new respect for the small sensor camera. Even though I'm still a full frame user I do find great uses for the M43.

Thanks, im looking foreward to it, im still nervous mind you RE IQ and that, But really, i did all the research i can, i have a solid return policy if i dont like it too. I need to go and actually shoot it, ill learn quickly what i do/do not like about the camera that way in my usage

Im probubly going to grab a used Macro-Elmarit to go with, I think the GX7, 20mm f/1.7 II and the 45mm f/2.8 will be a solid little carry package, and probubly weighs less than just my 7D... I have the 14-42 for.. Well i guess when i want to go wide, if i end up keeping it id probubly get the Oly 12mm f/2 or something.. im big on sort of "even" multiples in lenses lol


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
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,577 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4862
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 08, 2016 01:00 |  #48

I've gathered that you really like fiddling with lenses, but working on a smaller budget. You dont shoot anything fast that requires super AF. Scrap the 7D yesterday, you dont want it. Get a A7 mk 1 for $700, and use whatever change you have left to get some vintage primes. Get some nice FD glass, you should be able to grab something like the 28mm f2.8 for like 30 bucks, 35mm f2 ~100, 50mm f1.8 ~30, and adapt away. Guaranteed to give you better IQ than what you're dealing with on the 7D. After you shoot a FF normal prime, it's hard to go back to crop and the weak selection.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - 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
AlphaPhotography
Member
106 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Nov 2015
     
Jan 08, 2016 01:01 |  #49

Very happy with my A6000. Will likely be getting an A7II (which I've used extensively and love) or A7RII soon. Don't think you can go wrong with any of the Alpha line unless you need fast zooms or extensive reach. They are not great for wildlife yet but the 70-200mm is very capable at close range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,028 posts
Gallery: 366 photos
Likes: 1540
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Post edited over 2 years ago by KenjiS.
     
Jan 08, 2016 01:14 |  #50

Charlie wrote in post #17849479 (external link)
I've gathered that you really like fiddling with lenses, but working on a smaller budget. You dont shoot anything fast that requires super AF. Scrap the 7D yesterday, you dont want it. Get a A7 mk 1 for $700, and use whatever change you have left to get some vintage primes. Get some nice FD glass, you should be able to grab something like the 28mm f2.8 for like 30 bucks, 35mm f2 ~100, 50mm f1.8 ~30, and adapt away. Guaranteed to give you better IQ than what you're dealing with on the 7D. After you shoot a FF normal prime, it's hard to go back to crop and the weak selection.

I do shoot birds, insects and other objects where I've found the superb tracking AF on the 7D to be extremely useful. I do not like MF unless i HAVE to. I've "dealt" with my 7D since 2009, I was a very early adopter. I do find crop to have advantages in regards to pixel density.

I am a former film shooter. I started off shooting manual focus/full manual, Might be fun on occasion to adapt lenses, but overall, id much rather have AF on my "core" set of lenses. Especially large telephoto primes, Something the Sony lacks.

Not opposed to the a7, and i definitely debated that idea a few times, But im still not 100% convinced replacing my 7D with any mirrorless is a good idea which is why i leaned on the idea of simply adding a second camera to it.

Even if i bought the a7 id be quite likely to hold onto the 7D to get a 150-600 to put on it.


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
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,577 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4862
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 08, 2016 01:36 |  #51

KenjiS wrote in post #17849498 (external link)
I do shoot birds, insects and other objects where I've found the superb tracking AF on the 7D to be extremely useful. I do not like MF unless i HAVE to. I've "dealt" with my 7D since 2009, I was a very early adopter. I do find crop to have advantages in regards to pixel density.

I am a former film shooter. I started off shooting manual focus/full manual, Might be fun on occasion to adapt lenses, but overall, id much rather have AF on my "core" set of lenses. Especially large telephoto primes, Something the Sony lacks.

Not opposed to the a7, and i definitely debated that idea a few times, But im still not 100% convinced replacing my 7D with any mirrorless is a good idea which is why i leaned on the idea of simply adding a second camera to it.

Even if i bought the a7 id be quite likely to hold onto the 7D to get a 150-600 to put on it.

you dont shoot enough wildlife to own a 7D. You are stuck with paralysis by analysis. I'm pretty sure I had the 7D the same time you had it, shot with a 5Dii and in the trash the 7D went. I was simply oversold the advantages of the 7D, and how I needed to be a pro sports photographer to capture photos of my kids.

You may not like MF, but that's what you're left with when budget is small, and AF on a sony is completely different from a DSLR or rangefinder. Focus peaking combined with zooming in, you can focus really fast and even track if needed. Notice how many guys with A7's and MF glass? It's not by coincidence, it works really well, so people start exploring vintage glass. I see the risk factor fairly low with the original A7 and combo I mention. In the worst case, your 7D becomes a paper weight, in the best case you sell off your 7D :twisted:

to spell it out more precise, A7 + FD 28mm ~$30 (if higher budget, spend $100 for an OM 24 and get L like performance) + FD 50 1.8 ~$30 + FD mount vivitar 135mm f2.8 ~$20.

these 3 lenses totalling under $100, in combination with the A7, will exceed anything you put on your 7D. Just reflect on that for a bit.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - 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!"
Avatar
21,028 posts
Gallery: 366 photos
Likes: 1540
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Post edited over 2 years ago by KenjiS. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 08, 2016 03:58 |  #52

Charlie wrote in post #17849527 (external link)
you dont shoot enough wildlife to own a 7D. You are stuck with paralysis by analysis. I'm pretty sure I had the 7D the same time you had it, shot with a 5Dii and in the trash the 7D went. I was simply oversold the advantages of the 7D, and how I needed to be a pro sports photographer to capture photos of my kids.

You may not like MF, but that's what you're left with when budget is small, and AF on a sony is completely different from a DSLR or rangefinder. Focus peaking combined with zooming in, you can focus really fast and even track if needed. Notice how many guys with A7's and MF glass? It's not by coincidence, it works really well, so people start exploring vintage glass. I see the risk factor fairly low with the original A7 and combo I mention. In the worst case, your 7D becomes a paper weight, in the best case you sell off your 7D :twisted:

to spell it out more precise, A7 + FD 28mm ~$30 (if higher budget, spend $100 for an OM 24 and get L like performance) + FD 50 1.8 ~$30 + FD mount vivitar 135mm f2.8 ~$20.

these 3 lenses totalling under $100, in combination with the A7, will exceed anything you put on your 7D. Just reflect on that for a bit.

First i think you're being unnecessarily abrasive about all of this

Second, I think you have absolutely zero clue about me so here, let me go over a few things

As I said, I've shot the 7D since 2009, Before it came out, I ran a 30D, Before that, I ran the EOS 3, and before that, I had a Nikon N70 and a selection of mostly manual focus Nikon-mount glass I could get at a good price. Been doing this for a bit over 10 years now, Im not new to this, Not one bit.

I have shot the 5DII, Its lovely, but the AF stinks, You know how i know it stinks? I rocked the 30D for a few years too. I got THAT right when it came out as well, and the AF system in the 30D is roughly equal to the 5DII's system. I missed plenty of shots because the 30D Herp-derped focus, did not track, something went between points, or there simply was not a point where I needed it. It was abysmal compared to the EOS 3. This is not "analysis by paralysis", this is me simply looking at what i did not like about what i owned, and seeking to rectify it in a new product. Sure, I can shoot around, work around the limitations, what have you, does not mean that i enjoy that nor does it mean i should "put up with it"

Before the EOS 7D was even announced I had a list of what I wanted from a new camera, and that list was simple, I wanted my EOS 3 back. I wanted the fast, reliable autofocus, that worked constantly, accurately, and left me free to concentrate on other aspects of crafting an image, That gave me 45 whopping points to precisely choose what i desired in focus. Canon was not offering this, along with several other items I wanted (Namely a 24-105 equivalent for crop sensor and a macro lens with image stabilization, Both things Nikon was offering at the time) which had me on the fence of switching brands over it.

In one day, Canon announced the 7D, 15-85 and 100L, I bought the 15-85 as soon as it was available (In fact i was one of the first people on this forum with it, I wrote a very long review on it) a month and a half or so later i grabbed the 7D and then finally the 100L a couple months later. I do not "wax hypothetical" or go "paralysis by analysis". I simply was seeking some insight and advice from those who had switched from the 7D to one of the mirrorless systems, i wanted to know how they compared AF, and i most of all was hoping to find shooters that work in similar subjects, Perhaps some who owned some of my glass to compare. I ended up quite a few pages back dismissing the idea of switching, instead deciding to focus on a smaller lighter supplement that can fit in my messenger bag and go everywhere with me, Keeping the 7D and my EF Glass as a dedicated shooting system.

I find it laughable you advocate switching my 7D and suggest a ton of lenses, not one of them a true macro lens (I did research the Vivitar, its a lovely lens, especially the close focus variant which admittedly does 1:2) but this does not change a simple fact: I do not want to manually focus all the time anymore. Given a huge percentage of what i shoot is macro, thats a big problem, Additionally as i shoot macros handheld, I find the IS on the 100L to be very helpful. Carrying a tripod around is a pain in the rear and very limiting in composition choice in my experience, Which is why I dont do it.

My joints cant do racking a MF Macro anymore and even with an electronic viewfinder, i find manually focusing a lens difficult, I prefer to focus on composition and what my subject is doing, Tweaking my camera position to get a light in just the right spot, or quickly snapping a photo of something before he moment is gone. I cannot MF that quickly, I prefer a good solid AF system that can nail focus. I also completely hate the 28mm focal length, as i've learned from numerous 28-xx zooms, 24 is far better to me but even still not something i think id invest in a dedicated prime for. Oh, and I wouldnt bother with a 50mm f/1.8 really, the difference between 50mm f/1.8 and say, a 30mm f/1.4 on my 7D is not terribly big in terms of depth of field. If I was going to full frame, id pretty much want to go for f/1.4 primes. Autofocus ones at that.

I do shoot wildlife, specifically birds, I used to shoot a heck of a lot more of it before selling the 100-400 off (Which I actually quite regret, I never felt the optics were up to snuff on the 7D but i regret not shipping it to Canon to see if they could realign it or something) I do so with my 70-200 f/4L and a 1.4x Kenko TC, the TC is nice, but it does noticably wreck sharpness, additionally it really borks tracking sometimes, Its not a bad solution, but its not the solution I want, I very much want to trade off my 70-200 f/4L IS for another 100-400 or perhaps a 300 f/4L IS.. Id probubly have done so last year had i not spent a large chunk of it ill.

Again, the 7D's AF is useful not just for sports/action, it tracks insects very well, can track a moving flower, or slight variations from my breathing or various other things, I've found it to be an immensely helpful tool in many situations. Same with the 8fps burst rate for insects or birds that are flying and moving around rapidly. It works in pretty much every lighting ive used it in, and done so with a high rate of accuracy.

Is the 7D perfect? No. Would I buy a 7D2 Now? Probubly not, as there are other, less expensive cameras with a similar feature set (Nikon's superb D7200 comes immediately to mind) at the time, the 7D was what was available that ticked the boxes. I bought it in 2009, I've shot thousands of images on it, its been through rain, snow, sleet, hail, ice, mud and all sort of other things and still fires and works 100% perfectly. Its done superbly well, and I think something you miss is that I am not terribly keen on selling it, because I still feel it does a great job.

The a7 is not a replacement for the 7D to me, Simple as that, in terms of image quality i have zero question it would nail the 7D to the curb, and it should. But we're talking a system, E-mount has no long wildlife lenses. I see zero point in buying a "compact" a7 and slapping a gigantic 150-600 zoom + Converter on it on top of it, that defeats the point of the a7 and will lead to a massively unbalanced combination. Not to say the a7 has no potential place in my system, but best case id be looking at the a7 + 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar, Used probubly about $1200. Not too shabby I suppose, Except the only macro for the a7 is the 90mm OSS, Which is completely missing my criteria of "pocketable" and now i've added another $800+ to the cost, Im over $2000 now for a bunch of used kit i have to be concerned with being covered in perfume/cleaners or something else im allergic to. I'm not terribly fond of the a7's grip either (I prefer the a7 II's better controur)

Sony also does not have a 24-105 equivalent walkaround for the a7. Basically every lens i genuinely use constantly? The a7 lacks a equivalent to. I do not want to carry 2 lenses (The 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4) Nor do i want a superzoom. If I'm paying $1000 for a 50mm lens, I'd love it to be an f/1.2, not an f/1.8. Convert Canon/Nikon lenses over? You're defeating the point of the small body to me.

So if i go full frame, it will be a used 5D Mark III, or maybe a D610/D750, Not an a7, But thats not for a while now. I ruled the a7 out a long time ago for that reason. The E-mount glass does not cover my needs, and there is zero point to me converting glass to it that would work better on a different camera. the a7, at best to me, would be the a7 and the 35mm Sonnar, and that is it.

As for back and forth on the a6000 vs the m4/3 system? Simply put, it was the sensor and knowing how APS-C renders stuff with various apertures vs a better selection of lenses and lower cost. I went with the glass because one of the lenses i really wanted for my tiny walkaround setup was a very compact macro, m4/3 has that in the Macro-Elmarit 45mm, Sony does not really have one of those that doesnt duplicate another focal length (the 35mm f/3.5, coupled with the 35mm f/1.8 id likely get as the primary prime for it)


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
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,349 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 459
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited over 2 years ago by JeffreyG.
     
Jan 08, 2016 05:30 |  #53

Charlie wrote in post #17849527 (external link)
you dont shoot enough wildlife to own a 7D. You are stuck with paralysis by analysis. I'm pretty sure I had the 7D the same time you had it, shot with a 5Dii and in the trash the 7D went. I was simply oversold the advantages of the 7D, and how I needed to be a pro sports photographer to capture photos of my kids.

I understand that you love your Sony, but telling people that they don't like to shoot what they like to shoot as a way to gloss over its shortcomings doesn't make for a convincing argument. I wouldn't call this out so much, except this is hardly the first thread where you have done it. You decided that sports isn't important to you, but I've encountered a lot of parents over the last decade who have gotten a dSLR specifically because being able to shoot their kids sports was important to them. You're not going to make them want to buy your recommendation by telling them "Naw, you don't really care about shooting your kids soccer game."

My oldest daughter is a three sport varsity athlete and the shots I take of her are important to both her and me. I do shoot a ton of other things, but no matter what fraction of my overall shots wind up being from sports, those sports shots are important and no camera that is a significant compromise for it (Sony A7) is going to make me happy, when there are other cameras that can do the sports really well (5D3) and still be totally competent at everything else. Another way to think about it is, how the camera I'm thinking of owning does on the hardest thing I want to do is going to be more important than how it does at everything else.

Suppose 5% of Kenji's shots are birds and wildlife. If those 5% are important to him, then a camera that isn't a good choice for birds isn't going to be what he wants.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,577 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4862
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 08, 2016 08:41 |  #54

KenjiS wrote in post #17849568 (external link)
First i think you're being unnecessarily abrasive about all of this

Second, I think you have absolutely zero clue about me so here, let me go over a few things

As I said, I've shot the 7D since 2009, Before it came out, I ran a 30D, Before that, I ran the EOS 3, and before that, I had a Nikon N70 and a selection of mostly manual focus Nikon-mount glass I could get at a good price. Been doing this for a bit over 10 years now, Im not new to this, Not one bit.

I have shot the 5DII, Its lovely, but the AF stinks, You know how i know it stinks? I rocked the 30D for a few years too. I got THAT right when it came out as well, and the AF system in the 30D is roughly equal to the 5DII's system. I missed plenty of shots because the 30D Herp-derped focus, did not track, something went between points, or there simply was not a point where I needed it. It was abysmal compared to the EOS 3. This is not "analysis by paralysis", this is me simply looking at what i did not like about what i owned, and seeking to rectify it in a new product. Sure, I can shoot around, work around the limitations, what have you, does not mean that i enjoy that nor does it mean i should "put up with it"

Before the EOS 7D was even announced I had a list of what I wanted from a new camera, and that list was simple, I wanted my EOS 3 back. I wanted the fast, reliable autofocus, that worked constantly, accurately, and left me free to concentrate on other aspects of crafting an image, That gave me 45 whopping points to precisely choose what i desired in focus. Canon was not offering this, along with several other items I wanted (Namely a 24-105 equivalent for crop sensor and a macro lens with image stabilization, Both things Nikon was offering at the time) which had me on the fence of switching brands over it.

In one day, Canon announced the 7D, 15-85 and 100L, I bought the 15-85 as soon as it was available (In fact i was one of the first people on this forum with it, I wrote a very long review on it) a month and a half or so later i grabbed the 7D and then finally the 100L a couple months later. I do not "wax hypothetical" or go "paralysis by analysis". I simply was seeking some insight and advice from those who had switched from the 7D to one of the mirrorless systems, i wanted to know how they compared AF, and i most of all was hoping to find shooters that work in similar subjects, Perhaps some who owned some of my glass to compare. I ended up quite a few pages back dismissing the idea of switching, instead deciding to focus on a smaller lighter supplement that can fit in my messenger bag and go everywhere with me, Keeping the 7D and my EF Glass as a dedicated shooting system.

I find it laughable you advocate switching my 7D and suggest a ton of lenses, not one of them a true macro lens (I did research the Vivitar, its a lovely lens, especially the close focus variant which admittedly does 1:2) but this does not change a simple fact: I do not want to manually focus all the time anymore. Given a huge percentage of what i shoot is macro, thats a big problem, Additionally as i shoot macros handheld, I find the IS on the 100L to be very helpful. Carrying a tripod around is a pain in the rear and very limiting in composition choice in my experience, Which is why I dont do it.

My joints cant do racking a MF Macro anymore and even with an electronic viewfinder, i find manually focusing a lens difficult, I prefer to focus on composition and what my subject is doing, Tweaking my camera position to get a light in just the right spot, or quickly snapping a photo of something before he moment is gone. I cannot MF that quickly, I prefer a good solid AF system that can nail focus. I also completely hate the 28mm focal length, as i've learned from numerous 28-xx zooms, 24 is far better to me but even still not something i think id invest in a dedicated prime for. Oh, and I wouldnt bother with a 50mm f/1.8 really, the difference between 50mm f/1.8 and say, a 30mm f/1.4 on my 7D is not terribly big in terms of depth of field. If I was going to full frame, id pretty much want to go for f/1.4 primes. Autofocus ones at that.

I do shoot wildlife, specifically birds, I used to shoot a heck of a lot more of it before selling the 100-400 off (Which I actually quite regret, I never felt the optics were up to snuff on the 7D but i regret not shipping it to Canon to see if they could realign it or something) I do so with my 70-200 f/4L and a 1.4x Kenko TC, the TC is nice, but it does noticably wreck sharpness, additionally it really borks tracking sometimes, Its not a bad solution, but its not the solution I want, I very much want to trade off my 70-200 f/4L IS for another 100-400 or perhaps a 300 f/4L IS.. Id probubly have done so last year had i not spent a large chunk of it ill.

Again, the 7D's AF is useful not just for sports/action, it tracks insects very well, can track a moving flower, or slight variations from my breathing or various other things, I've found it to be an immensely helpful tool in many situations. Same with the 8fps burst rate for insects or birds that are flying and moving around rapidly. It works in pretty much every lighting ive used it in, and done so with a high rate of accuracy.

Is the 7D perfect? No. Would I buy a 7D2 Now? Probubly not, as there are other, less expensive cameras with a similar feature set (Nikon's superb D7200 comes immediately to mind) at the time, the 7D was what was available that ticked the boxes. I bought it in 2009, I've shot thousands of images on it, its been through rain, snow, sleet, hail, ice, mud and all sort of other things and still fires and works 100% perfectly. Its done superbly well, and I think something you miss is that I am not terribly keen on selling it, because I still feel it does a great job.

The a7 is not a replacement for the 7D to me, Simple as that, in terms of image quality i have zero question it would nail the 7D to the curb, and it should. But we're talking a system, E-mount has no long wildlife lenses. I see zero point in buying a "compact" a7 and slapping a gigantic 150-600 zoom + Converter on it on top of it, that defeats the point of the a7 and will lead to a massively unbalanced combination. Not to say the a7 has no potential place in my system, but best case id be looking at the a7 + 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar, Used probubly about $1200. Not too shabby I suppose, Except the only macro for the a7 is the 90mm OSS, Which is completely missing my criteria of "pocketable" and now i've added another $800+ to the cost, Im over $2000 now for a bunch of used kit i have to be concerned with being covered in perfume/cleaners or something else im allergic to. I'm not terribly fond of the a7's grip either (I prefer the a7 II's better controur)

Sony also does not have a 24-105 equivalent walkaround for the a7. Basically every lens i genuinely use constantly? The a7 lacks a equivalent to. I do not want to carry 2 lenses (The 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4) Nor do i want a superzoom. If I'm paying $1000 for a 50mm lens, I'd love it to be an f/1.2, not an f/1.8. Convert Canon/Nikon lenses over? You're defeating the point of the small body to me.

So if i go full frame, it will be a used 5D Mark III, or maybe a D610/D750, Not an a7, But thats not for a while now. I ruled the a7 out a long time ago for that reason. The E-mount glass does not cover my needs, and there is zero point to me converting glass to it that would work better on a different camera. the a7, at best to me, would be the a7 and the 35mm Sonnar, and that is it.

As for back and forth on the a6000 vs the m4/3 system? Simply put, it was the sensor and knowing how APS-C renders stuff with various apertures vs a better selection of lenses and lower cost. I went with the glass because one of the lenses i really wanted for my tiny walkaround setup was a very compact macro, m4/3 has that in the Macro-Elmarit 45mm, Sony does not really have one of those that doesnt duplicate another focal length (the 35mm f/3.5, coupled with the 35mm f/1.8 id likely get as the primary prime for it)

I evaluated your Flickr stream as you posted, I do not know you, but I can clearly see that you are a still life shooter.

You've talked about going small, and I've scoped out a legit small kit, then you bring up talk about a large 5d3, is that not the definition of paralysis by analysis?

Your reference on glass is a bit silly, and trying to pigeon hole the system. You want 1.4 primes, you want cheap, you want small, you want image quality... For the record FD primes are fairly small and cannot be adapted to canon EF for the most part. You can replicate anything you want on the Sony setup. You can shoot crop mode, for the times you need it, so the tiny 28-70 can come close to replicating your crop 15-85...... On top of that you are completely fine about changing focal lengths on your move to m43, but not FF? 45mm + m43 macro isn't the same as 100mm + aps-c. It's clear that you can change up lenses when it suits your argument. Moving to another system will require that.

Your request of similar aperture without give is unreasonable. Shooting ff in crop mode will be as good as the m43 your scoping out. You're making the same mistake thinking that the equivalent m43 solution will yield the same IQ as aps-c...

JeffreyG wrote in post #17849601 (external link)
I understand that you love your Sony, but telling people that they don't like to shoot what they like to shoot as a way to gloss over its shortcomings doesn't make for a convincing argument. I wouldn't call this out so much, except this is hardly the first thread where you have done it. You decided that sports isn't important to you, but I've encountered a lot of parents over the last decade who have gotten a dSLR specifically because being able to shoot their kids sports was important to them. You're not going to make them want to buy your recommendation by telling them "Naw, you don't really care about shooting your kids soccer game."

My oldest daughter is a three sport varsity athlete and the shots I take of her are important to both her and me. I do shoot a ton of other things, but no matter what fraction of my overall shots wind up being from sports, those sports shots are important and no camera that is a significant compromise for it (Sony A7) is going to make me happy, when there are other cameras that can do the sports really well (5D3) and still be totally competent at everything else. Another way to think about it is, how the camera I'm thinking of owning does on the hardest thing I want to do is going to be more important than how it does at everything else.

Suppose 5% of Kenji's shots are birds and wildlife. If those 5% are important to him, then a camera that isn't a good choice for birds isn't going to be what he wants.

He invited others to look at his stream to get an idea of what he shoots, and I do recall TS from the old days, we shoot similar gear, 30d to 7d, and I do recall recommendations of the 7d in the past...

You should evaluate his Flickr when you get a chance, it's very relevant.

He wanted a legit small system that would compliment his system. Ignore my comments on his eventual ditching of the 7d. Am I really off based on what he shoots? TS is afraid of the IQ hit going to m43, so I offer a better solution with no IQ hit.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - 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!"
Avatar
21,028 posts
Gallery: 366 photos
Likes: 1540
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 08, 2016 11:57 |  #55

Which is a legit concern of mine, I happily concede that, the bigger issue on either of the sony cameras is neither really does have a tiny light semi-tele macro, micro 4/3 is unsurprisingly the one system where that is a thing

I think you're missing its a second camera to go alongside my 7D at this point, and its not actually replacing it anymore, Ruled that out a while ago for the lens selection issues

So yes, I could get an a7 + 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss, used, for about $1200-1300, Which is the upper end of my budget, IQ wise, yes, its very good and it fits the size/discretion requirements. What you're missing is that the Sony 90mm Macro is exactly the same physical size of the 100mm f/2.8L, which makes it a bit less of a "it goes in my bag everywhere" thing

"Shoot crop when I have to" Yeah.. No.. that defeats the point, Why do that when I could stick to the a6000 and 16-70 hypothetically. and hey look, another $1000 lens

"You're attempting to pigeonhole the system" and again with the convert MF lenses argument, I have zero interest in that, None, Nada, Zilch, It wont work for me, I already gave a solid reason for that, and its simple, a 55mm f/1.8 that costs $1000 is not something I'd pay for. My point is that I'd rather the Canon f/1.2 at that price point, yes its a little larger/heavier, but its also f/1.2 and on FF that has a delicious rendition. The Zeiss 55 is nice, and I do like it, and yes I would possibly buy it, but oh right, its a grand.

As for "willingly changing focal lengths when it suits me" Or i actually dont mind different looks and perspectives and im happy to change? if Sony offered a compact 50mm f/2.8 macro for the a7, I'd be all over it. But they do not. Sony does not offer any lens that I actually want in several categories, taking a 35mm lens over a 50 is fine, because I actually like the perspective of a 35 as well as a 50 (I like 35 and 50, 85 is nice, and i really like 105) but having to "settle" on a 70-200 f/4 that doesnt have the same reproduction ratio (Important, I would use such lens for larger flowers) as the Canon or Nikon ones (And isnt really that much smaller or lighter) and having nothing in my more preferred range of a 150-600 (Not to mention that would balance terribly on a A7)

The second system is used for different things sure, so my bare minimum was a compact standard lens and a compact macro, So a 35mm f/2.8 and a hypothetical 50-60mm f/2.8 Macro OSS would work perfectly on the A7.. Except they only offer 50% of that at this moment.

The 24-70/4 is not a good replacement for the 15-85, Having to engage crop mode to compensate drops the pixel density, and i have to engage/disengage everytime i want to go from 70 to 105.. Its faster yes, but I know from experience I genuinely prefer a 24-105 type of lens to a 24-70

Essentially my issue on the A7, is through careful consideration of the current lens lineup, I'd probubly have a single lens for it (the 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar) unless Sony drops a bunch of new glass shortly and starts offering some entry level lower priced glass.

Its still entirely possible I WILL hate the GX7 and go back to the drawing board, at which point i will probubly just give up the idea of a portable macro lens and give more consideration to the Sony system.


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
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,395 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 524
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jan 08, 2016 12:32 |  #56

Mirrorless sure has come a long way in IQ. The image quality is remarkable when you use a Sony A6000 with the APS-C sensor. The noise control is nice. The Sony A7 series is also rolling in with models that is catering to all kinds of photographer's needs. So much to offer these days when it comes to Mirrorless format. What some must understand it the difference between supplemental platforms used with a primary camera. Some may use only 1 plaform only.

The M43 is still needing some high ISO improvements but otherwise it's IQ is hard to tell when I printed a "vacation" album using my Canon 5dmk2 with L primes and my Olympus OMD E-m5 using primes. With 300dpi print some photos was impossible to tell between M43 and full frame with pro lenses.

This is where I've put my ego aside :) When I picked M43 I know it's not the ultimate small camera. I will admit I trust my canon gear's auto focus vs my slightly older generation M43. Now if I had an EM1 or Panasonic equipped with DFD technology this would be a different story. The only drawback with M43 is that my Canon gear is still superior in dynamic range and overall IQ and low noise performance.

Kenji, your love affair with Macro you MUST purchase a $399 Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 lens. Please don't cut yourself when you look at the images it will produce :)

If you dont jive with the panny body maybe consider the OLY. If static or slow moving subjects is your main goal the E-M10 mk2, brand new E-M5 Mk1 is a consideration if your wanting great functionality with older tech M43 auto focus.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | 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 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,028 posts
Gallery: 366 photos
Likes: 1540
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 08, 2016 16:52 |  #57

AlanU wrote in post #17849989 (external link)
Kenji, your love affair with Macro you MUST purchase a $399 Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 lens. Please don't cut yourself when you look at the images it will produce :)

If you dont jive with the panny body maybe consider the OLY. If static or slow moving subjects is your main goal the E-M10 mk2, brand new E-M5 Mk1 is a consideration if your wanting great functionality with older tech M43 auto focus.


Im still torn on the Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 and the 60.. To me, the 45 makes more sense, as it also is a short telephoto (handy) whereas the 60 is a bit longer, Granted for SOME macro the 60 is definitely the better lens (its longer) but i kind of wanted a shorter macro than whats on my 7D (160mm equivalent) The 60 id need to consider another lens "between" the 20 and the 60, Probubly the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7. I can get a used Elmarit for the same as the 60 almost.. So thats why its hard


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
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,349 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 459
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 08, 2016 21:03 |  #58

Charlie wrote in post #17849708 (external link)
Am I really off based on what he shoots? TS is afraid of the IQ hit going to m43, so I offer a better solution with no IQ hit.

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.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,028 posts
Gallery: 366 photos
Likes: 1540
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 08, 2016 22:08 |  #59

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.

I actually think Canon and Nikon are working on it, they're probubly hesitating BECAUSE they're refining the AF problems in house.. Canon has a very long reputation as being THE autofocus camera system, Autofocus built their entire reputation. They were pressured into the M-system release, and it shows.. Nikon's 1 system was even more of a knee jerk reaction..

Sony has a lead right now, and i love that they're shaking things up, and i dont feel the A7 is bad.. it just really needs more lenses at the moment, Heck I even see how Charlie is approaching it, its just i already know, in my gut, that will not work for me

I think the Sony could use say a 50mm f/2 Macro OSS, Price that around $600-700 and you'd have had me on the Sony right there. It shouldnt be too hard to make such a lens


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
mickeyb105
Goldmember
Avatar
2,444 posts
Gallery: 346 photos
Likes: 1304
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Vero Beach, FL
     
Jan 08, 2016 22:24 |  #60

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.


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

25,951 views & 12 likes for this thread
Adding a Mirrorless, Maybe a switch.
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 gunz46
783 guests, 257 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.