Mirrorless camera

2»

Comments

  • andiamoandiamo Big grins Registered Users Posts: 64 Big grins
    edited June 1, 2016
    Eldon Shea wrote: »
    YES. Without a mirror, the sensor is hanging out there ready to collect dust every time you change lenses. A bulb blower is essential equipment for any mirrorless kit.
    Don't mirrorless cameras have a protective shutter that would protect the sensor when a lens is changed?
  • sarasphotossarasphotos Major grins Augsburg, GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 3,110 Major grins
    edited June 1, 2016
    andiamo wrote: »
    Don't mirrorless cameras have a protective shutter that would protect the sensor when a lens is changed?

    Noooooo, it's just the naked sensor. (If you google "mirrorless camera picture without lens" you can see lots of examples) In six years of using mirrorless cameras and a fair amount of switching lenses in all kinds of conditions I've never had a problem. I try to switch lenses as quickly as I can with the camera body pointing down (not sure if that makes a difference...) and I run the sensor cleaner every once in a while.

    I was just as cautious with my old Pentax ME Super - didn't want to land any dust on the mirror there, either.
  • Eldon SheaEldon Shea Major grins Registered Users Posts: 145 Major grins
    edited June 1, 2016
    I'm lobbying Sony to include a firmware update with an option for a sensor shake each time the camera is shut off like my Canon cameras have. Right now the sensor clean requires a manual trip through the tools menu. I expect it was excluded because the Sony A7 series has notoriously poor battery life, and adding a regular sensor shake would use even more juice. It's a price I'm willing to pay. The batteries are small and cheap, so it is no big deal to carry a couple of extras. I never head out to shoot without a fresh battery in the camera and 2 extras in my bag.
    Bryan
  • andiamoandiamo Big grins Registered Users Posts: 64 Big grins
    edited June 5, 2016
    I had a thought I would like some opinions on. I borrowed a Sony 6300 and used it for a day. It's low light capability and landscape quality was not in the same league as my Nikon D810. I expected a difference, but not as great as I discovered. Much more noise in ISO above 1,000 and not as wide a dynamic range in underexposed areas of the image. Very noticeable in landscapes with bright sunshine.

    So, my idea is this: my only complaint with the D810 is weight and I could lighten it significantly by buying a 35mm prime and not carrying my 24 - 70 zoom. That would give me enough wide angle for many shots and I could crop when I needed the 70mm field of view. With a good 35mm and the incredible resolution of the 810 I could lighten my equipment by 1lb and get reasonable coverage.

    Thoughts?
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,304 moderator
    edited June 5, 2016
    andiamo wrote: »
    ... my only complaint with the D810 is weight and I could lighten it significantly by buying a 35mm prime and not carrying my 24 - 70 zoom. That would give me enough wide angle for many shots and I could crop when I needed the 70mm field of view. With a good 35mm and the incredible resolution of the 810 I could lighten my equipment by 1lb and get reasonable coverage.

    Thoughts?

    The first thing I suggest doing is to audit your keeper images' EXIF to see what focal lengths you wound up using. A prime lens is a great idea, but choosing the wrong prime could be limiting if you have developed a style of shooting centered around particular focal lengths that are not 35mm.

    If 35mm does seem to be a more used focal length and FOV, then the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.4 G (FX) is a wonderful choice. Actually all of the current Nikkor 35mm FX lenses are pretty good even wide open, but the f1.4 G has the extra build quality and widest aperture, features which lend value and versatility to this relatively expensive lens investment.

    The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art also deserves attention, and may be an even better choice. This Sigma lens beats most anything out there, from anyone and at any cost. If it had environment seals I think that many other manufacturers would have to just hang their heads in shame. (Not that they are unusable, but the comparison in cost vs performance doesn't really match up for their premium 35mm lenses.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • andiamoandiamo Big grins Registered Users Posts: 64 Big grins
    edited June 6, 2016
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    The first thing I suggest doing is to audit your keeper images' EXIF to see what focal lengths you wound up using. A prime lens is a great idea, but choosing the wrong prime could be limiting if you have developed a style of shooting centered around particular focal lengths that are not 35mm.

    Great advice. I did exactly that and found that I mostly shoot at 35 - 50mm, so the 35 should work. The 810 has such incredible resolution that I think I can easily crop to a 50 - 70mm field of view and still have the ability to make significant enlargements.
    If this works, I might sell the 24 - 70 and get a longer prime lens. Perhaps 85mm?
  • Eldon SheaEldon Shea Major grins Registered Users Posts: 145 Major grins
    edited June 6, 2016
    andiamo wrote: »
    I had a thought I would like some opinions on. I borrowed a Sony 6300 and used it for a day. It's low light capability and landscape quality was not in the same league as my Nikon D810. I expected a difference, but not as great as I discovered. Much more noise in ISO above 1,000 and not as wide a dynamic range in underexposed areas of the image. Very noticeable in landscapes with bright sunshine.

    I've been thinking of upgrading to a a6300 to wear on my hip belt while hiking to grab quick shots, while my big camera is stowed in my backpack. Your experience is insightful. Were you shooting the 6300 with the kit lens (16-50 electric zoom)?

    I know you were testing out options, not running a true comparison, but it's not really a fair fight to pit the a6300 against your mighty D810. If you run a test with the A7Rii, I think you will find the mirrorless will meet the image quality and dynamic range of the D810. The A7Rii body, with in body stabilization, weighs 20.5 oz. vs. 31 oz. for the D810 body. To get the best quality with lightest weight, you might consider the original A7R, which is 36.4mp with no optical low pass filter. The camera is very small compared to either the D810 or the A7Rii, and the body weighs only 14.4 oz., less than 1/2 of the Nikon. They are available new for $1900 and used ones can be had for as little as $1,000. That camera, combined with a couple of Sony or Zeiss primes, would be very light weight.
  • andiamoandiamo Big grins Registered Users Posts: 64 Big grins
    edited June 6, 2016
    Eldon Shea wrote: »
    I've been thinking of upgrading to a a6300 to wear on my hip belt while hiking to grab quick shots, while my big camera is stowed in my backpack. Your experience is insightful. Were you shooting the 6300 with the kit lens (16-50 electric zoom)?

    I know you were testing out options, not running a true comparison, but it's not really a fair fight to pit the a6300 against your mighty D810. If you run a test with the A7Rii, I think you will find the mirrorless will meet the image quality and dynamic range of the D810. The A7Rii body, with in body stabilization, weighs 20.5 oz. vs. 31 oz. for the D810 body. To get the best quality with lightest weight, you might consider the original A7R, which is 36.4mp with no optical low pass filter. The camera is very small compared to either the D810 or the A7Rii, and the body weighs only 14.4 oz., less than 1/2 of the Nikon. They are available new for $1900 and used ones can be had for as little as $1,000. That camera, combined with a couple of Sony or Zeiss primes, would be very light weight.

    You are correct, but I don't want to move away from the 810. I love it, but find it too heavy for long trips. I was looking for a lighter solution and now think that a 35mm prime would lighten it by more than a pound and that allows me to stick with Nikon. I have been shooting with Nikon for 50 years and I am very used to them. The picture quality with the 810 at 64 ISO is breathtaking and reviewers think it's as good as larger format cameras.
  • schmellyschmelly Beginner grinner Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
    edited July 28, 2016
    I've used Nikon D1x through to Nikon D4 professionally. Fantastic camera system and lens range, especially the more recent incarnations. But when out of work, I'm happy with my humble little Fujifilm X-E1 with 18-55mm kit lens. The results are just as good.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,304 moderator
    edited July 28, 2016
    schmelly wrote: »
    I've used Nikon D1x through to Nikon D4 professionally. Fantastic camera system and lens range, especially the more recent incarnations. But when out of work, I'm happy with my humble little Fujifilm X-E1 with 18-55mm kit lens. The results are just as good.

    Respectfully, I believe that it is always important to qualify statements such as, "The results are just as good."

    For instance, if you don't need the rather spectacular qualities that make the Nikon 'single-digit' professional series bodies stand out from the FujiFilm 'X' series, inclusive of their respective systems of lenses and lighting accessories, then the results in qualified hands may certainly be awesome.

    However, if the photographic situation calls for the AF speed and accuracy of the Nikon D4, or the low-light capabilities or expansive system options, then a FujiFilm 'X' series system might lag and even suffer consequences.

    My choice for mirrorless system is the Sony 'E' mount system, namely the NEX 5N and a6000 ILCE bodies. While the "kit" lenses don't quite match the quality of other systems' kit lenses, they are still capable of casual social photography and small prints. The a6000 body itself is remarkably capable, and given good lenses and light I am extremely pleased.

    Still, I feel more "enabled" with features using either my Canon or Nikon dSLR systems, and the overall experience and results generally deliver more predictable high quality images, especially when conditions require the capabilities of those systems.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Cygnus StudiosCygnus Studios Commercial Photographer San Francisco's North BayRegistered Users Posts: 2,294 Major grins
    edited July 28, 2016
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Respectfully, I believe that it is always important to qualify statements such as, "The results are just as good."

    15524779-Ti.gif

    Any camera has strengths and weaknesses. Sadly there isn't a one size fits all. At least not yet.

    We are going to be testing the new Hasselblad mirrorless system sometime in mid to late Sept depending on the shipping schedule of these new cameras.

    In studio it is my belief that mirrorless will be a game changer, but until real world examples are coming in it's just a wait and see.

    Outside the studio, mirrorless has some limitations still. As the technology advances I suspect that they'll catch up with standard DSLR systems.

    It is the wave of the future, no doubting that. However, just as good is all dependent on what you're shooting and where.
    Steve

    Website
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Major grins https://www.flickr.com/photos/photoscw/Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited July 29, 2016
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Respectfully, I believe that it is always important to qualify statements such as, "The results are just as good."

    s.

    yes, sounds like the poster got carried away with his "humble little Fuji and kit lens"

    But I understand, my humble little pocket-size mirrorless can be just as good as those $5,000 DSLR cameras ....
    (sometimes)

    www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
  • andiamoandiamo Big grins Registered Users Posts: 64 Big grins
    edited October 2, 2016
    For the time being, I decided to buy a prime lens that would solve much of the weight problem caused by the 24 - 70 nikon zoom. I followed Ziggy's recommendation and looked at the bulk of my photos and they were in the 35 - 55 mm range. I bought a 35mm prime and can crop to 55mm and still make a wall size print with the pixel count of the 810.
    Here is an example taken on a recent trip to Venice
    Crystal%20Cruise2016-22-XL.jpg
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Major grins https://www.flickr.com/photos/photoscw/Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited October 3, 2016
    andiamo wrote: »
    For the time being, I decided to buy a prime lens that would solve much of the weight problem caused by the 24 - 70 nikon zoom. I followed Ziggy's recommendation and looked at the bulk of my photos and they were in the 35 - 55 mm range. I bought a 35mm prime and can crop to 55mm and still make a wall size print with the pixel count of the 810.
    Here is an example taken on a recent trip to Venice
    g[/IMG]

    OK, a prime lens is not really a substitute for a small lightweight mirrorless system (which is nice for traveling) but that's what you got

    www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



  • jerryrjerryr Smugmug Customization Registered Users Posts: 594 Major grins
    edited October 4, 2016
    Hi - does anyone have any experience with the Canon M3 ? i like the fact that i can use my Canon lenses with the adaptor.
    Any thoughts / experiences - appreciate it ! jerryr
  • andiamoandiamo Big grins Registered Users Posts: 64 Big grins
    edited October 8, 2016
    Brett1000 wrote: »
    OK, a prime lens is not really a substitute for a small lightweight mirrorless system (which is nice for traveling) but that's what you got

    www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



    I am not sure what you mean by that. Buying the prime solved much of my weight problem and allowed me to take long walks of more than 3 miles. I couldn't do that with my 24 - 70 zoom. Now I can travel with my D810 and get superb quality out of it.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,304 moderator
    edited October 8, 2016
    andiamo wrote: »
    For the time being, I decided to buy a prime lens that would solve much of the weight problem caused by the 24 - 70 nikon zoom. I followed Ziggy's recommendation and looked at the bulk of my photos and they were in the 35 - 55 mm range. I bought a 35mm prime and can crop to 55mm and still make a wall size print with the pixel count of the 810.

    Good on you for auditing your images for focal lengths!

    Yes, a single, lightweight prime can indeed do multiple FOV through cropping. Remember too that with a very light monopod you can also use multiple exposures of still-life for both superresolution and/or even wider FOV through overlapping stitched images.

    I do love living in the digital photography age. clap.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Major grins https://www.flickr.com/photos/photoscw/Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited October 8, 2016
    jerryr wrote: »
    Hi - does anyone have any experience with the Canon M3 ? i like the fact that i can use my Canon lenses with the adaptor.
    Any thoughts / experiences - appreciate it ! jerryr

    I use the original Canon M - nice and small (pocket-size) and cheap but suffers from poor ergonomics and AF, the successor models like the M2, M3, M10 all have added features such as a viewfinder, more dials and controls, MP's, etc. They all work well with the Canon lens adapter.

    The latest Canon M5 has the most features and a good AF but cost $$$ - I'll wait till the price drops

    www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/
  • nickatnitenickatnite Big grins Registered Users Posts: 51 Big grins

    @jerryr said:
    Hi - does anyone have any experience with the Canon M3 ? i like the fact that i can use my Canon lenses with the adaptor.
    Any thoughts / experiences - appreciate it ! jerryr

    Jerry-
    I have one and I'm really starting to like it; but... Yeah, there is always a but... I can see myself upgrading to the M5 when it comes out. One of the main reasons why, is for the viewfinder. I got one of the electronic viewfinders from my local camera shop when I bought the M3, but it's another piece of equipment I have to keep up with. I've got larger cameras, my first DSLR was a Nikon D40, then a D90 and then now a Canon 70D. My other camera that I use a good bit is the Fuji X100. For about the last year, the Fuji and Canon M3 is what I've used, main because the ability of how well they pack when travelling.

    Here is a picture that I took with the 18-55 kit lens when I was up near Washington, DC on vacation in June this year.
    EXIF
    Canon EOS M3
    ISO 100
    Shot 1/160 sec. f/8 53mm

  • jerryrjerryr Smugmug Customization Registered Users Posts: 594 Major grins

    hi - thanks for the information and feedback - appreciate it ! nickatnite - great image!

Sign In or Register to comment.