Struggling on a mirrorless camera.. Which one?

Strick wrote in post #18176715
A couple things in these threads that always makes me ask questions to myself.

In the early days of digital did no one print "big"? I would say that is not the case and no one ever seemed seemed to notice the lack of pixels, high ISO issues, and other things that always get mentioned now.

the Second is IQ and this is the harder one. First of all it is subjective, secondly you can't say that IQ means everything to you with out saying what criteria you use. Is it DOF (that always seems to be the biggest), sharpness, resolution, noise, DR, ...etc...?

Third, and I mean no offense by this, it is always the owner of a bigger sensor camera comparing it to a smaller sensor camera that says this but then says something like..."it is close enough to "FF" for me". And those that say they want the ultimate in image quality so that is why they use a FF camera......why don't you have a medium format model and will you be investing in the new Fuji?

Personally I love my Oly gear and find the IQ to be excellent. I also have Canon gear that I also like. To me the deciding factor, epecially for personal and/or travel use is ease of use. I find my e-m1 to be much easier to use and operate and gives me functions that the Canon can't. This makes getting shots easier, and also makes it easier to be more creative. Sure size is a huge benefit but for everyday use, if a DSLR would offer the same feature set that I get in my E-M1 I would probably use it more.

I dont know if you've ever seen a peter lik print in person..... it's amazing.

I've seen his prints 6' wide that look perfect when you thumb your nose at it, the sheer amount of detail is stunning.

the buy MF is just plain silly. If someone asks to get a faster car then their econobox, do you recommend a Lamborghini?

Strick wrote in post #18176749
No need to get defensive. I am not sure where you read that I criticized people that print big. I asked what did they do before 36mp sensors? Did they have people view those prints and make comments that indicated the lack of pixels, DR, increased ISO? I bet I know the answer.

There have been work arounds for years to enhance ones work where the equipment was lacking. Here's some examples that I have used:

1. Lack of pixels...I used to stitch images quite often to create more pixels in order to print large. With the increase in the number of pixels available...I don't require stitching as much...which is a good thing.

2. I already mentioned two approaches people used to tackle DR...that is GND filters and merging multiple exposures...both have limitations under certain conditions. Again with the improvements in sensor technology I am relying less on these techniques for my photography...which is a good thing.

3. I don't do much high ISO shooting, but I remember I relied on flash whenever indoors...now I just boost the ISO up and shoot away with having to use any other light source that would ruin the mood...which is a good thing.

So yeh...back in the good old days we still made prints...its just a lot easier today with the improved technologies. My rate of success has gone up quite spectacularly over the years as work arounds are slowly eliminated.

This is very much like cars...we used to get around just fine in the 70's...but strictly speaking things like the rear view camera, tire pressure monitoring systems, lane warning systems etc... have made driving more safe and much more pleasurable. Very much analogous to photography and improved technology.

Wilt wrote in post #18176759
It is a misfortune that it is so very easy to view 100% on your monitor, and fail to understand that is equivalent to viewing the original FF or APS-C image at 70X, which is an absurd thing to be doing! One can pixel peep until your eyes blur, and compare this year's camera vs. last year's camera critically, at an absurd magnification. That ability is what drives folks. That (absurd magnification), or underexposing a shot by -5EV and trying to rescue the exposure in post processing WITHOUT NOISE, and complaining about it when any appears! In the days of film, one was pleased with a +2EV push; digital ingrates.

Wilt, I view my work in prints...large most of the time. It these large prints that bring out the inadequacies in the equipment...whether that is in the number of pixels resulting in smearing if you don't have enough pixels to the DR or lack of resulting in blown highlights or black shadows. With more pixels and more DR...it just unties my hands from behind my back and allows me more freedom to create the print.

Don't know what you shoot...but you are coming across as an old fart that basically if it worked back in the good old days...it should be good enough today. Unfortunately...back in the good old days, my largest prints I made in the darkroom was 16x20...which is about the size I use as proofs today.

Hogloff wrote in post #18176740
Yes the 5d4 is quite impressive, but that's hardly a nice compact mirrorless camera now is it? As far ad DR goes, I shoot a lot of landscapes and DR is always an issue that I traditionally tackled with either GND filters or merging multiple exposures, both of which are troublesome under certain conditions. With the new cameras, especially with Sony sensors, I have more leeway with DR and have reduced the need for GND filters by at least 50%, maybe more. That to me is progress as it allows me more time to focus on the light and composition and less on filters or multiple exposures.

Its very analogous to the need for flash becoming obsolete with the improvements of high ISO. Now instead of screwing around with flash setting, you just bump the ISO and focus in the viewfinder rather than the flash. It's liberating...just like the reduction of needing GND filters is liberating.

Interesting. I wasn't trying to make the point that the 5D4 was compact BTW. Just saying that high DR is ubiquitous now and often overused for the wrong purpose. I find your comment about GND filters amazing though. I got rid of my GND filters when software GND became plausible for use in PP. That was when I was using my 5D3 and I found it captured enough DR for this purpose most of the time. DR has never been an issue for my use. To be frank I've never really understood the whole DR thing. I guess it just works toward the point that it is all subjective.

nqjudo wrote in post #18176776
Interesting. I wasn't trying to make the point that the 5D4 was compact BTW. Just saying that high DR is ubiquitous now and often overused for the wrong purpose. I find your comment about GND filters amazing though. I got rid of my GND filters when software GND became plausible for use in PP. That was when I was using my 5D3 and I found it captured enough DR for this purpose most of the time. DR has never been an issue for my use. To be frank I've never really understood the whole DR thing. I guess it just works toward the point that it is all subjective.

It is not subjective...if you shoot scenes that contain a range that exceeds your sensor...then you either need to let the highlights blow out or the shadows go black...there is nothing subjective about that. Now, you can tame the highlights using GND filters...but you CANNOT use software to recover data that the sensor failed to capture. You throwing out your filters and using software to recover DR just tells me you don't shoot scenes that have a lot of dynamic range in them...so I understand why you are confused about it.

This scene has a lot of dynamic range...I know from experience my 5D2...which has basically the same sensor as the 5D3 would not capture all that range. I would have to use GND filters or blow out the sun or leave the shadows totally black. No software would be able to regain the data that is not there...not possible.

Hogloff wrote in post #18176814
It is not subjective...if you shoot scenes that contain a range that exceeds your sensor...then you either need to let the highlights blow out or the shadows go black...there is nothing subjective about that. Now, you can tame the highlights using GND filters...but you CANNOT use software to recover data that the sensor failed to capture. You throwing out your filters and using software to recover DR just tells me you don't shoot scenes that have a lot of dynamic range in them...so I understand why you are confused about it.

This scene has a lot of dynamic range...I know from experience my 5D2...which has basically the same sensor as the 5D3 would not capture all that range. I would have to use GND filters or blow out the sun or leave the shadows totally black. No software would be able to regain the data that is not there...not possible.

Hosted photo: posted by Hogloff in
./showthread.php?p=181​76814&i=i250950088
forum: Changing Camera Brands

Of course it is subjective because you have the option to choose which scene you want to capture and how to capture it. I'd probably approach that scene by bracketing just to be safe - even with the Sony. But really though, this whole conversation leads back to the point that the photographer counts. Not the camera. I'm not a friend of this individual but one of my old photography teachers is a good friend of Alex Webb and I have been fortunate enough to meet him several times and even chat over dinner once. He stated quite plainly that he would have shot Kodachrome till he died and had serious questions about continuing his photography when it was discontinued. He finally went digital but by his own admission he knows very little about digital post processing (and no, he does not allow anyone else to do it) nor does he understand a lot about the higher functions of his cameras. He has various cameras and usually just grabs the one he feels like using and they are not all high end cameras either. Some are decidedly very low end, particularly when he travels. He doesn't care about DR or noise and doesn't really like talking about gear. In his own words he much prefers looking at the results and he's not alone among Magnum photographers in this attitude. If this approach can serve someone like him so well it has got to be good enough for us folks here on the forum. As for your photo I think it is nice. About average as far as landscapes go on the forum. You'll never convince me you absolutely require a Sony to capture it though. Once again, your camera doesn't matter. What you can't do with creativity you won't do with technology.

nqjudo wrote in post #18176826
Of course it is subjective because you have the option to choose which scene you want to capture and how to capture it. I'd probably approach that scene by bracketing just to be safe - even with the Sony. But really though, this whole conversation leads back to the point that the photographer counts. Not the camera. I'm not a friend of this individual but one of my old photography teachers is a good friend of Alex Webb and I have been fortunate enough to meet him several times and even chat over dinner once. He stated quite plainly that he would have shot Kodachrome till he died and had serious questions about continuing his photography when it was discontinued. He finally went digital but by his own admission he knows very little about digital post processing (and no, he does not allow anyone else to do it) nor does he understand a lot about the higher functions of his cameras. He has various cameras and usually just grabs the one he feels like using and they are not all high end cameras either. Some are decidedly very low end, particularly when he travels. He doesn't care about DR or noise and doesn't really like talking about gear. In his own words he much prefers looking at the results and he's not alone among Magnum photographers in this attitude. If this approach can serve someone like him so well it has got to be good enough for us folks here on the forum. As for your photo I think it is nice. About average as far as landscapes go on the forum. You'll never convince me you absolutely require a Sony to capture it though. Once again, your camera doesn't matter. What you can't do with creativity you won't do with technology.

That's a load of crap. Better gear removes barriers which improves your creativity. You seem to imply that new technology will hinder your creative process...that's just bunk. I approach my landscape photos the same way if I'm shooting my totally manual 4x5 film camera as my tech advanced Sony A7R. Advances in technology allows me to focus on the light and compositions rather than dealing with things like filters or needing to take multiple images and merging.

You seem to think the more advanced the camera is...the less brain you use when out shooting. Maybe that's you...and if it is, then go back to film and relearn how to think...but some of us don't put our advanced cameras onto the green mode and shoot away at 11 fps.

Hogloff wrote in post #18176836
That's a load of crap. Better gear removes barriers which improves your creativity. You seem to imply that new technology will hinder your creative process...that's just bunk. I approach my landscape photos the same way if I'm shooting my totally manual 4x5 film camera as my tech advanced Sony A7R. Advances in technology allows me to focus on the light and compositions rather than dealing with things like filters or needing to take multiple images and merging.

You seem to think the more advanced the camera is...the less brain you use when out shooting. Maybe that's you...and if it is, then go back to film and relearn how to think...but some of us don't put our advanced cameras onto the green mode and shoot away at 11 fps.

I guess coming out on the short end of a civil debate ruffles your feathers a little too much to be polite and so I'm out. You would do well to consult the section 4 of the forum rules. It seems to apply to you quite nicely. See you around the ignore list.

nqjudo wrote in post #18176841
I guess coming out on the short end of a civil debate ruffles your feathers a little too much to be polite and so I'm out. You would do well to consult the section 4 of the forum rules. It seems to apply to you quite nicely. See you around the ignore list.

I just stated the facts and if you don't like them...then feel free to ignore them...but I'll call you out every time when you state that new technology implies creative thinking goes out the window.

This thread got really hard to read so I skipped a few posts even though I'm interested in mirrorless options.
Certainly their are a few posters who keep arguing about the size of 2.8 zoom lenses as if you only have that choice to work with. Whatever camera, mirrorless or dslr, you are going to choose the lens that will work for the situation you are in.
My 70-200 2.8ii isn't going to be my walk around travel lens, that would be my 40mm pancake. What didn't change was the size of the 6d. Obviously whatever mirrorless you buy will also have this truth about it.

Hogloff wrote in post #18176740
Yes the 5d4 is quite impressive, but that's hardly a nice compact mirrorless camera now is it? As far ad DR goes, I shoot a lot of landscapes and DR is always an issue that I traditionally tackled with either GND filters or merging multiple exposures, both of which are troublesome under certain conditions. With the new cameras, especially with Sony sensors, I have more leeway with DR and have reduced the need for GND filters by at least 50%, maybe more. That to me is progress as it allows me more time to focus on the light and composition and less on filters or multiple exposures.

Its very analogous to the need for flash becoming obsolete with the improvements of high ISO. Now instead of screwing around with flash setting, you just bump the ISO and focus in the viewfinder rather than the flash. It's liberating...just like the reduction of needing GND filters is liberating.

Pushing the ISO does nothing for the quality of the light though...chances are that if the light is poor in quantity, its also poor in quality. And the ability to push the ISO is still useful even when using flash, because I tend to expose for the ambient, and use a gelled speedlight to give a better quality directional light on my subject, without over-illuminating the background.

DR is useful for outdoor portraiture though and provided you have good quality sunlight, you have A LOT more leeway regarding the ability to use natural light without blowing out the sky.

My take on mirrorless systems is that although the size advantages become a moot point once you start attaching large aperture zooms, the size advantages are very obvious when using smaller primes. As such you have more flexibility to go from a very capable high performance camera to a very compact system...all with a single body.

I'm using a pretty hefty kit for paid work on the a7rII, but also enjoy how compact the camera is with the Loxia 21, and previously enjoyed the 35 2.8, the FE 55 1.8 and Batis 25. Also the thing to consider with the a7 systems is that the smaller lenses do not involve compromises in IQ as is seen with smaller DSLR lenses. i.e. the Loxia 21 is tiny, but is easily the best UWA lens I've ever used.....whereas something like the 40mm f2.8 pancake is small, but not too great optically. The FE55 is stupidly sharp and renders very nicely, whereas the EF 50 1.8 is what it is. Even when comparing something like the EF 85 1.8 vs the Batis 85....both are similar in size, but the Batis 85 is easily an "L caliber" lens in terms of sharpness wide open, CA control, color rendering etc etc, whereas the 85 1.8 is soft wide open and full of purple fringing and CA.

And that's always been the appeal of the a7 cameras for me. Smaller size when wanted, but no compromises in terms of IQ...in fact, lots of upsides regarding IQ and AF performance.

Hogloff wrote in post #18176770
Wilt, I view my work in prints...large most of the time. It these large prints that bring out the inadequacies in the equipment...whether that is in the number of pixels resulting in smearing if you don't have enough pixels to the DR or lack of resulting in blown highlights or black shadows. With more pixels and more DR...it just unties my hands from behind my back and allows me more freedom to create the print.

Don't know what you shoot...but you are coming across as an old fart that basically if it worked back in the good old days...it should be good enough today. Unfortunately...back in the good old days, my largest prints I made in the darkroom was 16x20...which is about the size I use as proofs today.

How many folks ever print a 66" wide print? Or even half of the frame to 33"? So why evaluate on your monitor to this level, and then complain about the image inadequacies of the image?! It has nothing to do with being an old fart, it has everything to do with impractical expectations that have no material contribution to the quality of your photographs. A 'good' photo has everything to do with good composition, freedom from shake or missed focus, and proper exposure, and an outstanding photo is outstanding even in spite of noticeable film grain or digital noise. Does the fact that Ansel Adams' shots have film grain render them poor in quality, or does the fact that some film shots of old only have 5EV of dynamic range render them poor? Yes, it is nice to have more DR, but 10EV of DR does not make the 10EV camera unsuitable for use; 14EV is simply nice to have. Everyone has been swallowing the 'not enough DR in digital' BS for all too long, as if what it allowed could not meet what film could do. Where does 'not enough DR' cross the threshhold of acceptabililty? At 16EV?

And then we cram 12-13EV of DR into a print which cannot even handle 8 bits of DR...and we compress the data to try get it to fit. So the portrayal is not 13EV at all, but less. So why is wide DR that essential?

Wilt wrote in post #18177055
How many folks ever print a 66" wide print? Or even half of the frame to 33"? So why evaluate on your monitor to this level, and then complain about the image inadequacies of the image?! It has nothing to do with being an old fart, it has everything to do with impractical expectations that have no material contribution to the quality of your photographs. A 'good' photo has everything to do with good composition, freedom from shake or missed focus, and proper exposure, and an outstanding photo is outstanding even in spite of noticeable film grain or digital noise. Does the fact that Ansel Adams' shots have film grain render them poor in quality, or does the fact that some film shots of old only have 5EV of dynamic range render them poor? Yes, it is nice to have more DR, but 10EV of DR does not make the 10EV camera unsuitable for use; 14EV is simply nice to have. Everyone has been swallowing the 'not enough DR in digital' BS for all too long, as if what it allowed could not meet what film could do. Where does 'not enough DR' cross the threshhold of acceptabililty? At 16EV?

And then we cram 12-13EV of DR into a print which cannot even handle 8 bits of DR...and we compress the data to try get it to fit. So the portrayal is not 13EV at all, but less. So why is wide DR that essential?

I do have prints 4' wide, that are well composed, but lack the bite of sharpness on print, CV while smaller 3' prints look very detailed. You better believe I pixel peep very closely before spending hundreds on a print.

Wide DR is pulled into the photo, so the final print needs less range to display. I can work around DR issues with older canon, but mostly don't have to bother with Sony. To me, it never was a big deal since i do HDR often, and still bracket with Sony, hard braking old habits.

Aside from the print debate, going from full frame Canon, I didn't want to downgrade IQ going to mirrorless., Glad I didn't have to make that sacrifice, while enjoying the size savings.

Wilt wrote in post #18177055
How many folks ever print a 66" wide print? Or even half of the frame to 33"? So why evaluate on your monitor to this level, and then complain about the image inadequacies of the image?! It has nothing to do with being an old fart, it has everything to do with impractical expectations that have no material contribution to the quality of your photographs. A 'good' photo has everything to do with good composition, freedom from shake or missed focus, and proper exposure, and an outstanding photo is outstanding even in spite of noticeable film grain or digital noise. Does the fact that Ansel Adams' shots have film grain render them poor in quality, or does the fact that some film shots of old only have 5EV of dynamic range render them poor? Yes, it is nice to have more DR, but 10EV of DR does not make the 10EV camera unsuitable for use; 14EV is simply nice to have. Everyone has been swallowing the 'not enough DR in digital' BS for all too long, as if what it allowed could not meet what film could do. Where does 'not enough DR' cross the threshhold of acceptabililty? At 16EV?

And then we cram 12-13EV of DR into a print which cannot even handle 8 bits of DR...and we compress the data to try get it to fit. So the portrayal is not 13EV at all, but less. So why is wide DR that essential?

An outstanding photo is an outstanding photo...but if I capture an outstanding photo...I'd like the option of printing it large without pixelation or a bunch of noise in the photo. Given the same photo I can tell you one that prints sharp versus one that is soft and noisy...there is a huge difference.

As far as Adams...why do you think he used large format...8x10 quite often when he could of much easier use a 35mm system? Think about it...maybe so he has the ability to print large with reduced grain...huh?

As far as Adams and dynamic range...what do you think the zone system is all about which Adams perfected?

As far as the print medium not having much dynamic range...I'd rather manipulate that limited range in post processing rather than my sensor limiting me.

Seems to me you are against advances in photography...what was good 25 years ago is good enough today. They made great photos way back then, why do we need more pixels and more dynamic range.