Struggling on a mirrorless camera.. Which one?

Hogloff wrote in post #18177168
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.

Not at all against the advances, for most of my life I was among the early adopters of technology in a wide variety of areas. Merely wondering why so much intensive demand/insistence that performance to the extreme be achieved, when the typical need is satisfield by far less. It is like demanding precision in an mechanical part to 0.00001" all the time when 0.001" does just fine for 99.999% of the situation. Obsessive Compusulve Disorder sometimes comes to mind as one explanation (although I am not calling anyone in this thread OCD), and if someone has OCD they should learn to temper their obsession; we have a daughter who only eats a sandwich with a knife and fork, that's her problem .

Seriously, are we still arguing about why more dynamic range can be useful?

Is this ever going to end?

One person presented the question of why folks so obsessive about high magnification inspection, in the days of film was printing big was so uncommon.
I remarking that digital ease of 100% crop inspection was responsible, in part because most folks had no idea that inspecting at 100% was like viewing a 70X enlargement (66" wide) from 18" away.

Inspecting at ultra high enlargement devolved into why the compulsion to test underexposing by -6EV to inspect the noise when you pushed in post processing back to 'proper exposure'

Wilt wrote in post #18177235
Not at all against the advances, for most of my life I was among the early adopters of technology in a wide variety of areas. Merely wondering why so much intensive demand/insistence that performance to the extreme be achieved, when the typical need is satisfield by far less. It is like demanding precision in an mechanical part to 0.00001" all the time when 0.001" does just fine for 99.999% of the situation. Obsessive Compusulve Disorder sometimes comes to mind as one explanation (although I am not calling anyone in this thread OCD), and if someone has OCD they should learn to temper their obsession; we have a daughter who only eats a sandwich with a knife and fork, that's her problem .

Where do you get this extreme performance from...have I mentioned anything about extreme? I am talking about today's cameras with expanded dynamic range and more pixels...both of which are far from extreme and both of which improve my efficiency in taking photos. Please don't start fabricating things to justify your views.

Mareshow wrote in post #18174955
So I shoot with Canon 1DXs, and while I really enjoy it, for family trips and vacations it is an absolute PIG to carry around.

So I'd like to get a mirrorless camera that i could also use as a back up in a pinch if I had to. I'm looking at either the Fujifilm XT-1 or XT-2, or the Sony A7II. Most likely this camera will be used for family stuff and on vacations so I dont want to spend more, and Ideally i want to keep it small with a single lens or two so I'm not packing around a ton of stuff. Any suggestions? Feel free to add another option if you'd like. As far as the full frame vs apsc, I'm not pulled either way or at least i think i'm not...

OK back to the thread's intended question!!

Mareshow if you do decide to go mirrorless the Sony can be adapted to use your Canon lenses. Not ideal but it will work. This can be your solution as a "back up in a pinch". Honestly I'm not a fan of adapting lenses and much prefer native lenses.

A mirrorless sounds like a secondary system. Almost the same reasons why I bought into a light weight system.

For 1899 USD you can buy a fuji X-t2 with 18-55 kit lens. This combo would surpass an 80D/7dmk2 with Canon 17-55IS IQ wise IMO. This is just a reference point on IQ vs $$$. Fuji files are incredibly rich like how a full frame presents itself.

If you want full frame dof simply get the Sony FF.

If you a prime shooter this is where you can really appreciate the fuji line as it has great fast glass.

Have fun choosing your secondary system. You will find either fuji or Sony will provide great ISO performance. It all comes down to your preference.

Hogloff wrote in post #18177311
Where do you get this extreme performance from...have I mentioned anything about extreme? I am talking about today's cameras with expanded dynamic range and more pixels...both of which are far from extreme and both of which improve my efficiency in taking photos. Please don't start fabricating things to justify your views.

By extreme,

• A poorly lit indoor scene might have <8EV of DR, and the Sony can record 9EV...1EV greater than the scene content
  
• A brightly lit typical outdoor scene might have 9EV or 10EV of dynamic range, and a Sony can record 13EV of DR ...but a Canon can deliver 12EV of DR...they both exceed the scene's DR
  
• the above two kinds of shots are typical of probably 95% of the photos people take, which satisfactorily has been handled by 'lesser cameras'.
  

Wilt wrote in post #18177472
By extreme,

• A poorly lit indoor scene might have <8EV of DR, and the Sony can record 9EV...1EV greater than the scene content
  
• A brightly lit typical outdoor scene might have 9EV or 10EV of dynamic range, and a Sony can record 13EV of DR ...but a Canon can deliver 12EV of DR...they both exceed the scene's DR
  
• the above two kinds of shots are typical of probably 95% of the photos people take, which satisfactorily has been handled by 'lesser cameras'.
  

Is it necessary to insist upon ownership of a Ferrari, if we drive the crowded streets of NYC or downtown LC all the time?

Sure...most people don't even know when they blow out the sky to a white featureless mass...so what. Shooting landscapes at sunrise or sunset...I'd say at least 80% of the images needed a GND filter to tone down the sky in order so the foreground was not black. With the latest sensors, this has been reduced by at least 1/2...that's good progress. If you don't shoot conditions where the dynamic range exceeds your camera...then you are all set...but please respect others that don't shoot under your conditions.

As far as what other people take...I really don't give a damn...I worry about the photos I take. If others can get by with a simple P&S...all to them, but for others like me that do push conditions...we just might use these new enhancements to the cameras of late.

So please don't try pigeon hole me into the masses because I don't shoot like the masses.

Wilt wrote in post #18177472
By extreme,

• A poorly lit indoor scene might have <8EV of DR, and the Sony can record 9EV...1EV greater than the scene content
  
• A brightly lit typical outdoor scene might have 9EV or 10EV of dynamic range, and a Sony can record 13EV of DR ...but a Canon can deliver 12EV of DR...they both exceed the scene's DR
  
• the above two kinds of shots are typical of probably 95% of the photos people take, which satisfactorily has been handled by 'lesser cameras'.
  

Is it necessary to insist upon ownership of a Ferrari, if we drive the crowded streets of NYC or downtown LC all the time?

Sunsets/sunrises, can easily exceed DR, and happen to be the best times to shoot landscapes.

I will say this, I would rather be ahead of the curve rather than behind it.
I'm watching 1080p movies on a 4k. So what, it won't make the movie worse and when viewing pictures from my dslr it looked better then when I compared it to a 1080p tv.
Even if I can only print 8 stops of dr today that doesn't mean that in the future I won't be able to print 12 stops. And I would prefer to have a digital negative that had 13 stops rather than the 8

elitejp wrote in post #18177643
I will say this, I would rather be ahead of the curve rather than behind it.
I'm watching 1080p movies on a 4k. So what, it won't make the movie worse and when viewing pictures from my dslr it looked better then when I compared it to a 1080p tv.
Even if I can only print 8 stops of dr today that doesn't mean that in the future I won't be able to print 12 stops. And I would prefer to have a digital negative that had 13 stops rather than the 8

Yep...more is better than less. Don't understand the controversy here.....

The OP mentioned mirrorless and perhaps a lens or two..........

I guess I missed something here but the OP mentioned "family" and "vacation" application.

If I was a landscape shooter I'd no doubt purchase at minimum a Canon 5dsr, A7Rmk2 etc . Basically a high megapixel camera with a lot of resolution and dynamic range to play with. Weight factor wouldn't be an issue if we are talking about throwing a camera on a tripod and lugging a nice sling bag on a hike. This is of course if we are making IQ ultra high priority. We haven't even discussed how large we are printing?????

If we're talking about a secondary camera used as a family and vacation camera why are we having this DR debate? LOL!!! Nice to have a performer of a A7Rmk2 but I'd probably imagine a low megapixel A7Smk2 more suitable for documenting a vacation and family pics.

Some of my most favourite photos I've taken was with my 5d full frame. It's not a killer high iso performer with massive dynamic range. Beautiful organic files as I documented family life and even for professional documentation. Honestly as long as I can have decent iso performance and have TTL/HSS flash I'm good to go.

OP, try to borrow or rent gear. This way you can get a feel of how gear performs.

Hogloff wrote in post #18177645
Yep...more is better than less. Don't understand the controversy here.....

Not an issue of controversy. I don't bemoan the fact that I don't own/have a Ferrari to drive top speed across the Nevada desert, when I only have the opportunity to make use of the full capabilities only once in a year!
Would I like to have one, sure, is it 'necessary', not usually.
Should the OP use this DR factor as a consideration in choosing a mirrorless? Yes, but perhaps it is not a concern at all for him, or very rarely. Perhaps using a currently-owned set of Canon lenses on a Canon mirrorless is what is best for his needs and wallet.
Ask the average SF Bay area commuter if it truly matters he/she cannot do 100mph on the bumper-to-bumper roads at commute time 500 times a year.

Everyone has to evaluate the particular features and capabilities for themselves. It's that simple.

If we stop imposing our own needs and expectations on others, I think we could avoid a lot of these pointless debates on whether or not more DR or more megapickles or more ISO is good or bad. Instead, we could have much more interesting discussions about when they're the limiting factor or when they're useful.

Mareshow wrote in post #18174955
So I shoot with Canon 1DXs, and while I really enjoy it, for family trips and vacations it is an absolute PIG to carry around.

So I'd like to get a mirrorless camera that i could also use as a back up in a pinch if I had to. I'm looking at either the Fujifilm XT-1 or XT-2, or the Sony A7II. Most likely this camera will be used for family stuff and on vacations so I dont want to spend more, and Ideally i want to keep it small with a single lens or two so I'm not packing around a ton of stuff. Any suggestions? Feel free to add another option if you'd like. As far as the full frame vs apsc, I'm not pulled either way or at least i think i'm not...

I think we've gotten a bit off track. Next step is Medium Format for maximum sensor size and dynamic range.

Back to a compact travel camera...

Fujis are on sale in the USA at least. Here is B&H. Your local dealer should be able to offer the same deal:

http://link.bandh.com …4GjQXXzDsSos-9rUNVWi=5961

XT1 plus 18-55/2.8 lens for $1300. $400 less if you don't want the lens.

The used price on this lens tends to be over $400, so it's a great starter which might be the only travel/lightweight lens you need and if you decide you want something else, you can get your investment back on it.

If you like wider, the 16mm f1.4 is an absolute gem. 24mm in full frame terms, fast, focuses down to 6" for details and renders better than just about anything with a similar field of view--easily rivals the Leica, faster and able to match the Zeiss. $800 right now.

If you like a normal, the 35mm f1.4 is surprisingly light, handy, fast, renders beautifully and can be had for a steal used because several preferred the newer 35/2 (a bit smaller, weather resistant and faster focusing).

If you like the 35mm on full frame field of view, the 23/1.4 is a phenomenal lens. (There is also a newer, less expensive, smaller, lighter, weather sealed 23/2...too new to know how good it is).

Portraits: the 56/1.2 APD (note, there are two versions, one is "APD" the other is not) is marginally better at rendering than the Canon 85/1.2 and focuses much more easily than the Canon. Good portrait lens.

The 90/2 also renders well if you prefer a longer portrait lens.

As I said, the 18-55/2.8 is inexpensive and quite good. It may be all you need for a travel lens.

I would skip the 18-135/3.5. Some like it for the weather sealing and extra reach, but it is just enough heavier and not quite as good at rendering as the quite good 18-55/2.8. Not everyone would agree .

F2Bthere wrote in post #18177880
I think we've gotten a bit off track. Next step is Medium Format for maximum sensor size and dynamic range.

Back to a compact travel camera...

Fujis are on sale in the USA at least. Here is B&H. Your local dealer should be able to offer the same deal:

http://link.bandh.com …4GjQXXzDsSos-9rUNVWi=5961

XT1 plus 18-55/2.8 lens for $1300. $400 less if you don't want the lens.

The used price on this lens tends to be over $400, so it's a great starter which might be the only travel/lightweight lens you need and if you decide you want something else, you can get your investment back on it.

If you like wider, the 16mm f1.4 is an absolute gem. 24mm in full frame terms, fast, focuses down to 6" for details and renders better than just about anything with a similar field of view--easily rivals the Leica, faster and able to match the Zeiss. $800 right now.

If you like a normal, the 35mm f1.4 is surprisingly light, handy, fast, renders beautifully and can be had for a steal used because several preferred the newer 35/2 (a bit smaller, weather resistant and faster focusing).

If you like the 35mm on full frame field of view, the 23/1.4 is a phenomenal lens. (There is also a newer, less expensive, smaller, lighter, weather sealed 23/2...too new to know how good it is).

Portraits: the 56/1.2 APD (note, there are two versions, one is "APD" the other is not) is marginally better at rendering than the Canon 85/1.2 and focuses much more easily than the Canon. Good portrait lens.

The 90/2 also renders well if you prefer a longer portrait lens.

As I said, the 18-55/2.8 is inexpensive and quite good. It may be all you need for a travel lens.

I would skip the 18-135/3.5. Some like it for the weather sealing and extra reach, but it is just enough heavier and not quite as good at rendering as the quite good 18-55/2.8. Not everyone would agree .

Now that I'm also a fuji shooter I think even a fuji X-T10 would be more economical to buy over the X-T1. X-T10 isn't weather proof but it's basically a mini X-T1 with virtually identical performance minus a knob or two. OP's criteria is more for Vacation and family.

At this point in time if someone wants a serious fuji body I really suggest buying an X-T2.

If I had in my bag an 18-55, 16mm, 55-200 (economical stellar glass) and 56 f/1.2 I bet I can virtually cover anything during a vacation. Only thing is I seriously require a good flash which FUJI does NOT have this is one reason why I always mention wanting to buy an Ef-x500 flash.