Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: davidlederman on June 08, 2018, 07:16:30 pm
-
I have a Canon 5D MK 3 and and MK 4 with lots of L zoom lenses and Zeiss primes. I am tired of lugging 10KG of photo equipment, along with a computer and luggage on what are supposed to be holidays. Plus my wife said "no more." So I am looking for either a single wonderful zoom to go with the 5D MK 4 or a smaller camera such as a mirrorless. In the past I had a Sony NEX7, which I hated. The menu was impossible, the EVF mediocre, and it was hard not to keep hitting the wrong buttons. When everything worked correctly the photos were really good. Years ago I also tried a Canon G series, which I sent back. My preference is for a full frame model that is stills oriented, as I don't shoot video. I would, however, consider an APS at 1.5-1.6x.
With respect to the MK4 lens choice, I am afraid that the Canon 28-300L lens is too heavy to be carrying around 8 hrs/day, and I've been warned off the Tamron equivalent.
I'd appreciate any advice for a camera with a simple to use menu, excellent lens, really good EVF, and great processor.
Thanks
David
-
Few weeks with my new Sony RX-10 IV, I don’t miss my Canon 5DMII and the weight with its 100-400 zoom!
Yes lots of menus but I did not find any difficulty with it.
-
Fujifilm X-T2 is a slam dunk DSLR replacement. And there are used and bargains that would get you some (a) good lens in your budget. X-T3 is on the horizon if you have some time, won't be any sales for a while on it though.
A Mike Johnston blog that waxes poetic on the virtues of the X-T2 http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/06/the-fuji-x-t2-is-the-best-camera-ever.html
If you are hooked on FF the Sony a7III is getting a lot of attention. No budget for a lens here though...
-
yes, those sony menus are a PTA, but honestly that sensor 42MP sensor is so good that for me it's worth the deprivation of working with all those buttons and menus.
i know it's not your question but an a7r2 or 3 with a couple of small primes is really liberating. i have an a7r2, the 55mm lens and a small 90mm leica macro elmar and the rX1rII with its zeiss sonnar fixed 35mm lens as a backup, the whole lot fits into 2 coat pockets!
sorry if that's ot.
-
What do you do with the pictures from your travels?
I also am traveling light. I'm using the Sony RX100 M4 1" sensor with 4K and make slide shows with video clips for 4K 75" UHDTV from my travels. Here're some pictures from my last trip with my wife to national parks in the Southwest US. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421)
The camera range for the RX100M4 is equiv 24mm to 70mm. It's shirt pocketable or stuff it in your pants pocket. It's pricey but the best pocketable P&S available, I believe. The newly released RX100 M6 has a 24-200mm equivalent.
-
If you aren't willing to go the pocketable route than Alan suggests but are willing to carry the weight of two or more lenses all day, then I suggest looking at the Sony RX10iii or RX10iv. I have the iii, and the 24-600 Zeiss zoom lens is superb, and I have all the focal lengths I need in hand at all times. And it is truly hand-holdable even at 600.
I gave up all my Canon full-frame bodies and L lenses for this once I tried it, and I won't go back.
Yes, the Sony menu is a bear, but so are most other digital camera menus. If you take a little time to learn what settings are important to you, it becomes quite manageable.
-
Each to his own but I just don't understand menu angst. Once a camera is set up I only tend to go into the menu to format the card and set the clock, everything else is covered by a dial or a button, just as it should be. Other people are obviously more menu orientated as I've seen complains about camera menus on several forums.
If the OP wants FF then the choices are limited and if a single wonderful zoom is included I'd suggest they're very limited indeed.
Personally when going on holiday I take a small form body fitted with a compact wide aperture prime ( Sony A7 and 35mm f2.8 ) and a 1" compact (Panasonic TZ100) with something like a 25-250mm zoom to cover the wider and longer requirements and for even more discrete shooting in situations when a larger camera could be too intrusive.
I suppose a lot hangs on what the OP wants to do with pictures. If screen viewing whole images or producing relatively large prints to be viewed normally maybe just about anything from a 1" camera and up will do.
-
I went through this a couple of years ago, and looked into the mirrorless options. I began adding up the weight and looking at the physical size and realized they just weren't all that small. I also was very hesitant to start buying a camera that needed a whole new lens system. So, what I did was buy a Nikon D5300. It is small, has 24mp sensor, better AF than the mirrorless, and is inexpensive. The main reason I bought is it takes the same lenses and flash as my other two Nikons (D800E & D500). That means it becomes part of my system--I can use any of my Nikon lenses on it. Normally it has a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 parked on it. I'm betting that Canon has a similar small camera. That would make the most sense, no? Canon & Nikon both are coming out with new small cameras sometime this year anyway, so I'd hold off buying anything at the moment. The D5300 + Sigma 17-50mm + Nikon 300mm f4 PF are what I carry on high altitude hikes. For walking around in a city my favorite camera is my Leica IIIc with tiny Leica lenses 28/35/50/90mm. Leica got it right! :D
Kent in SD
-
My Sony RX100 has three memory modes. You can set up simple selection modes like let's say portraits, landscapes, and sports with all the preselected settings for each mode type. Funny thing, I don't use it in my camera. I fiddle a lot which takes away from real shooting.
One suggestion for whatever camera you buy. Read the manual and practice with it before you travel. You don't want to set something wrong and ruin a bunch of shots once you're on the trip.
-
It is small, has 24mp sensor, better AF than the mirrorless, and is inexpensive.
My Sony's AF is massively superior to the older (and admittedly different than your Nikon) 5DMII. The difference is night and day.
-
I recently bought the Fuji X-E3 and their 18-55 OIS zoom. Not pocketable, but SMALL! 24 MP APS-C sensor. Same sensor/processor as the top of the line Fuji X cameras. Plus Fuji jpegs are amazing w/ the film simulations and shadow/highlight and DR controls. I've you've not ever seen one, take a look. Might suit your purposes very well.
(https://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images2500x2500/fujifilm_16558798_x_e3_mirrorless_digital_camera_1358085.jpg)
Rand
-
My Sony's AF is massively superior to the older (and admittedly different than your Nikon) 5DMII. The difference is night and day.
It is $1,700 though. For <$500 I got a small camera that takes all the lenses I already own and works great for travel. And, if it accidentally falls out of my kayak or gets stolen on the subway I won't cry all that much. :)
Kent in SD
-
I think all your requirements (except for price) would be met with a flagship micro-4/3 camera. I'm traditionally a FF guy, but have been carrying a micro-4/3 camera as a backup for several years. There are occasions that I've used micro-4/3 as my only travel camera and the results are very satisfactory.
I own an Olympus OMD EM-1 Mk2 and typically use the Olympus 12-100 f/4. It is a small, light, and fantastic combination, but the price is high. I've shot tack-sharp 4 second handheld exposures with that combination. For most photography, one can eliminate a tripod. It is a very weather resistant combination. I don't own a Panasonic G9, but do own several Panasonic micro-4/3 cameras and can attest to their quality and simpler menu vs Olympus. The G9 with Panasonic's 12-60 would give the user the same dual IS functionality as the Olympus mentioned above, for long exposures, handheld. It also has good weather resistance, etc.
Some may balk at spending so much on a camera with a small sensor, but the quality is really there. With sensor shift, on a tripod, the image quality surpasses the best FF cameras, except for perhaps the Pentax K1 series. Also, with micro-4/3, the lenses are smaller than the equivalent lens on a FF mirrorless camera. Highly recommended.
-
It is $1,700 though. For <$500 I got a small camera that takes all the lenses I already own and works great for travel.
OK, but my Canon 100-400mm alone cost more than both to put price into some perspective. The Sony has a 24-600mm equivalent and for a bit less than you quote, I've got one lens for all needs, none to carry around, no worries about sensor dust, it's very light in comparison to what I was using and can focus far faster and more accurately.
To each his own.
-
Well, I guess it's obsolete now—although the body is easy to find in good used condition in the <$400 (U.S.) range—but if I really want to defy gravity I carry my Fuji X-E2 with the ultralight, image-stablished 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. No weather-sealing, but the image quality is decent (https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/42622737201/in/datetaken-public/). I've not yet persuaded myself that I need to upgrade to the X-E3.
Somewhat heavier, but more capable: the Fuji X-T2 with the 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0, a much better optic than the average kit lens (https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/40568189145/in/datetaken-public/), which is also image-stablized but also not weather-sealed—although I've used it frequently in light to medium rain with no ill-effects. Both still available new, but a better value used.
-
My conclusion is that if you need/want to shoot zooms and focal lengths over 100mm equiv - as i do for a wide variety of travel, only micro 43 saves enough weight and bulk compared to FF to be worth the investment - although you'll be hard pressed to meet $2,000 with lenses capable of making quality 13x19 prints.
I have a pany gx85 with 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 travel kit (and a couple other lenses depending on the situation) - a small, light, relatively inconspicuous kit.
BUT - if there are expectations of serious landscapes, wildlife, or low light then the 5D4 and appropriate lenses go
-
I've gone through this multiple times and it's still not over, depends on what you do with the photos, what focal lengths you need, etc.
I have a full frame Nikon but for travel I alternate between a Fuji APS-C and Olympus E-M5ii.
The Fuji has superior ergonomics and I like the images a touch more with less work. Very good primes and good zooms under 100mm, after you start gaining weight. The X-T2 is very good.
The Oly is a very convenient combination with the 12-100F4, particularly for backpacking. Still debating if it's worth going for the E-M1ii, mostly for superior ergonomics. The E-M5ii loves smaller hands with no gloves. I still have the 12-35 2.8 and 35-100 2.8 but rarely use them. With small primes it can get really small.
The Sony RX10 gets thrown a lot lately, sounds convenient but I'm still not fully convinced. For travel the new RX100 might be better if the lens is sharp (big if) even if you lose almost a stop.
-
Why not consider the Canon M5?
I hear pretty good things about it, the native lenses seem good too and mounting your existing Canon lenses should be easier.
You could carry it with one native mirrorless zoom lens and bring a 70-200f4 or 70-300 for the cases when you need to go long?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony Rx10 IV hands down the best on the market.
My wife stopped using her dslr when I purchased this camera for her.
Not the lightest but if you need a camera with wide as well as telephoto it just cannot be beat.
No changing lenses, no sensor dust issues and no need to buy multiple lenses.
The 24 frames per second is to die for.
-
Sony Rx10 IV hands down the best on the market.
My wife stopped using her dslr when I purchased this camera for her.
Not the lightest but if you need a camera with wide as well as telephoto it just cannot be beat.
No changing lenses, no sensor dust issues and no need to buy multiple lenses.
The 24 frames per second is to die for.
+1.
-
Sony Rx10 IV hands down the best on the market.
My wife stopped using her dslr when I purchased this camera for her.
Not the lightest but if you need a camera with wide as well as telephoto it just cannot be beat.
No changing lenses, no sensor dust issues and no need to buy multiple lenses.
The 24 frames per second is to die for.
Sounds impressive! However, I'm still trying to find some comparison images from the RX10 IV at '600mm equivalence' and the Nikkor 80-400 at '600mm equivalence' using a D7200, or similar Nikon DSLR.
When one sacrifices image quality for convenience (or more features), one needs to know (or at least I need to know) the significance and magnitude of that loss of image quality, in order to make an informed decision as to whether or not the extra convenience is of greater benefit than the loss of the image quality that one is used to.
For example, if the 24mp D7200 image at 400mm were cropped to 12mp, and had a similar image quality in terms of noise and resolution to the 20mp RX10 IV at its maximum focal length, one would be comparing 900mm equivalence with 600 mm equivalence. Which would you prefer?
-
Well, you need to prioritise, because nowadays there is really no "bad" system, especially for travel; starting at 1 inch sensor cameras, some already referred to here.
A few ideas:
1. FF - do you really need a zoom? Do you really need a single zoom up to 300mm? I reckon your existing camera with a 24-70 f4 or 24-105 f4 lens is really not that cumbersome?
2. FF - well, if the above is not suitable to you, I am afraid that a FF MILC with a big zoom will not make a big difference in terms of weight and size.
3. APSC - plenty of choices from Fuji, Sony, and Canon. If you are used to Canon menus, then the M series is the obvious choice, with a 18.135 zoom or similar.
Personally, these days I travel with a Pen F and 25 Pro lens, wonderful combination. I know it does not fit your criteria, but m43 sensors have come a long way.
-
I second the Fuji X-E3 with 18-55... got that for my daughter traveling abroad and her results were great... full auto when you don't want to think, and full control when you do.
-
Sounds impressive! However, I'm still trying to find some comparison images from the RX10 IV at '600mm equivalence' and the Nikkor 80-400 at '600mm equivalence' using a D7200, or similar Nikon DSLR.
When one sacrifices image quality for convenience (or more features), one needs to know (or at least I need to know) the significance and magnitude of that loss of image quality, in order to make an informed decision as to whether or not the extra convenience is of greater benefit than the loss of the image quality that one is used to.
For example, if the 24mp D7200 image at 400mm were cropped to 12mp, and had a similar image quality in terms of noise and resolution to the 20mp RX10 IV at its maximum focal length, one would be comparing 900mm equivalence with 600 mm equivalence. Which would you prefer?
Ray not exactly what you're looking for, but there are some good comparisons with other bridge cameras and comments about the lens here.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv/8
-
The problem is that Sony has no significant competition so they can set their prices to the highest somebody would be willing to pay for it.
Right now with some sales both the Olympus E-M1ii and the Nikon D750 are significantly cheaper. If you already have some lenses the only advantage of Sony is at the long end, after 200mm. If you don't need that it becomes more difficult to justify it.
For example, I already have the 12-100 F4 from Olympus. Similar DOF at the wide end, slightly better at the long end. If I don't absolutely need the above 200mm range, should I get the E-M1ii or the Sony? The Oly has the potential for better IQ sensor wise and is more rugged, the Sony has the lens range. For travel the sharpness is probably good but for landscapes, in corners, I suspect the Oly is quite better.
PS. I would take the no dust with a grain of salt. I had at least couple of P&S zooms that were ruined because dust made its way into the sensor and as opposed to the interchangeable lenses systems you cannot get it out.
-
The problem is that Sony has no significant competition so they can set their prices to the highest somebody would be willing to pay for it.
We're willing to pay for it, so what?
PS. I would take the no dust with a grain of salt.
Well my new camera is sealed a bit, the lens can't come off etc. I had all kinds of dust issues with the Canon (ever shoot in White Sands?). Time will tell if the Sony does or doesn't produce dust on the sensor but that time will be a result of actual experience with a specific model, not an assumption about all such cameras in all conditions!
-
I used by RX100M4 on a cruise to the Caribbean and on a road trip through the southwest visiting all the national parks in the high desert. I don't see any dust on my pictures. I also carry it in my pocket which usually has tissues in there and no particles from those either. It could be that the senor compartment is pretty sealed even if the whole camera is not considered weather sealed. Maybe someone has information on this.
-
We're willing to pay for it, so what? Well my new camera is sealed a bit, the lens can't come off etc. I had all kinds of dust issues with the Canon (ever shoot in White Sands?). Time will tell if the Sony does or doesn't produce dust on the sensor but that time will be a result of actual experience with a specific model, not an assumption about all such cameras in all conditions!
Didn't sleep well last night?
This has nothing to with ability or willingness to pay but with the fact that Sony has no competition and can charge as much as they could get away with. It's not the best position for consumer.
I don't expect Sony to produce dust on the sensor but the lens cannot be fully sealed (you won't be able to zoom otherwise) and maybe I'm less lucky than you but I got 2 cameras ruined by it, a Canon S90 and a Sony HV100 or something looks that. IF that happens it's a much bigger problem than on a mirroless.
I might still buy one to see if it really is the best thing since sliced bread, after all I got decent pictures from their consumer superzoom but forgive me if I doubt it can be a replacement for a larger sensor system.
-
I used by RX100M4 on a cruise to the Caribbean and on a road trip through the southwest visiting all the national parks in the high desert. I don't see any dust on my pictures. I also carry it in my pocket which usually has tissues in there and no particles from those either. It could be that the senor compartment is pretty sealed even if the whole camera is not considered weather sealed. Maybe someone has information on this.
It's probably more resistant to dust than others who are not weather resistant.
I might be luckier with this one as I cannot keep it my pocket (without a case) which was probably the source of the dust for my deceased ones. The first generation Sony RX100 had the same treatment and is holding well though.
-
Didn't sleep well last night?
Slept fine, I consider your comment silly, that's all. Here's why:
The product has a price. It was well worth the price so I purchased it. I'm very happy with the purchase. Maybe you don't wish to do the same; fine. IF everyone felt as you did, no one would buy the product. Lots of people do buy that product including myself; we don't agree on the price to benefit ratio, something all of us have to consider for ALL purchases.
As for your comment on dust, it's simply a generalization of yours, without any supported data. When you have some, do provide it. Otherwise:
All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain
I don't expect Sony to produce dust on the sensor but the lens cannot be fully sealed (you won't be able to zoom otherwise) and maybe I'm less lucky than you but I got 2 cameras ruined by it, a Canon S90 and a Sony HV100 or something looks that. IF that happens it's a much bigger problem than on a mirroless.
What you expect, and what's the reality are two entirely different items!
I doubt it can be a replacement for a larger sensor system.
Perhaps for you. For me, it easily was an excellent replacement; I came from a Canon 5DMII.
Unless you've experienced it, you've only imagined it. Your writings about this Sony camera appear to be largely imagined but again, if you have actual data to back up your ideas of the product, please provide them.
Until then, sleep well! :D
-
Ray not exactly what you're looking for, but there are some good comparisons with other bridge cameras and comments about the lens here.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv/8
Thanks for the link, Alan. There are a number of glowing reviews of the RX10 Mk4, and I would definitely buy this camera if I hadn't already had a 'less than satisfactory' experience with the Panasonic FZ200 a few years ago.
The FZ200 had a Leica super zoom, equivalent to 25-600mm, with a constant maximum aperture of F2.8 across the entire range. I had hoped that image quality would be close to that of my Canon 100-400 at maximum zoom, because I would be using F2.8 instead of F5.6 and therefore a lower ISO when photographing wildlife, which would tend to compensate for the higher noise of the smaller sensor.
However, I was disappointed with the resolution. Perhaps that's because I'm in the habit of pixel-peeping my images at 100% on a high-resolution monitor. I eventually sold the camera to a neighbour who was not so fussy about resolution. ;)
The Sony RX10 Mk4 appears to be a big step up from the Panasonic FZ200. The sensor is larger and the focusing more accurate, to mention just a couple of improvements. If I were still using my Canon 100-400 with the 15mp 50D APS-C, I might find the image quality of Sony RX10 satisfactory. However, I'm now using 24mp Nikon DX cameras with the full-frame Nikkor 80-400 zoom, and the lightweight Nikkor 18-140 zoom for wider angle shots, so I'm a bit concerned I might be once again disappointed if I buy the RX10 Mk4.
I'm really surprised I can't find any direct comparisons between the Sony RX10 at 600mm and the Canon and Nikon 600mm equivalents from their very popular 100-400 or 80-400 zooms.
-
Thank you one and all for your responses. I was, unfortunately, unable to get back online until now (computer in shop getting a 2TB SSD internal HD, which BTW cut file copying time by 75%).
To answer some of the questions as to use. All my photography is for me - a very serious amateur. I either post photos online for myself, family and friends (see https://www.davidledermanphotography.com/), print them at typically 16 x 20 to hang in my house or give to friends , or create Blurb books for myself or to give as gifts to people who have us stay with them. Typically I do landscapes and street photography. I have to confess to being a pixel peeper - everything I either print or post has been viewed at 100% and sharpened accordingly. So I am not going to compromise quality if I can help it. I was hoping that a $2,000 budget would allow for quality and flexibility at a reasonable weight in a small camera.
As I stated in my initial post, a few years ago I tried the Sony NEX7 with the more expensive lenses. I really liked the quality of the images and the camera's size and weight. I hated the ergonomics and the menu system. There were so many times that I moved buttons and dials by mistake that it became a real negative to use. No matter what anyone says, the menus are a real trial. Have they improved? I am willing to take a look at the newer Sonys for size and weight. If the dials and buttons are still like they used to be and the menus are the same level of density, then it's probably a nonstarter.
In any case the main trip I want the lightweight option for starts end of November, so we'll see if anything pops up before then. If not, I'll probably take the 5D MK 4 and two lenses - my 16-35 and an old 28-105. While I love the image quality on my 70-200 I just don't take that many medium telephoto shots.
I'd love to see a compact with a 20-200 high quality lens, full frame sensor,really light weight, excellent ergonomics and easy to use menu. I'd be willing to pay up for that.
Thanks again.
-
Looking at your requirements, the Canon EOS Rebel SL2 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm and 55-250mm Lenses Kit, retailing for about $750USD, weighs a tenth of your current kit, coming in at ~1kg, and will provide ample image quality for your trip, and has a fully articulating touch screen, which is perfect for street photography and odd angle shots. You can also substitute the kit 18-55 with the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens for a wider option without being penalized by weight if you absolutely can't do without focal lengths lower than 28.
A camera purchase is typically not a purely rational decision and is highly personal, so I don't expect anyone will be able provide the answer to your question.
Thank you one and all for your responses. I was, unfortunately, unable to get back online until now (computer in shop getting a 2TB SSD internal HD, which BTW cut file copying time by 75%).
To answer some of the questions as to use. All my photography is for me - a very serious amateur. I either post photos online for myself, family and friends (see https://www.davidledermanphotography.com/), print them at typically 16 x 20 to hang in my house or give to friends , or create Blurb books for myself or to give as gifts to people who have us stay with them. Typically I do landscapes and street photography. I have to confess to being a pixel peeper - everything I either print or post has been viewed at 100% and sharpened accordingly. So I am not going to compromise quality if I can help it. I was hoping that a $2,000 budget would allow for quality and flexibility at a reasonable weight in a small camera.
As I stated in my initial post, a few years ago I tried the Sony NEX7 with the more expensive lenses. I really liked the quality of the images and the camera's size and weight. I hated the ergonomics and the menu system. There were so many times that I moved buttons and dials by mistake that it became a real negative to use. No matter what anyone says, the menus are a real trial. Have they improved? I am willing to take a look at the newer Sonys for size and weight. If the dials and buttons are still like they used to be and the menus are the same level of density, then it's probably a nonstarter.
In any case the main trip I want the lightweight option for starts end of November, so we'll see if anything pops up before then. If not, I'll probably take the 5D MK 4 and two lenses - my 16-35 and an old 28-105. While I love the image quality on my 70-200 I just don't take that many medium telephoto shots.
I'd love to see a compact with a 20-200 high quality lens, full frame sensor,really light weight, excellent ergonomics and easy to use menu. I'd be willing to pay up for that.
Thanks again.
-
Slept fine, I consider your comment silly, that's all. Here's why:
....
I'm not sure why I got you riled up so much, don't worry I will not contradict you again and your opinion based on data of 1. I wasn't aware that I have to buy a camera to be allowed to have an opinion about it (keeping in mind I do have several Sony products, including an RX100, and a somehow similar product, the Pana FZ1000). FYI, I wasn't stating that you are wrong but that based on the design it is possible and I would like to give a little more time before I say that it so much better.
Btw, if you really want to make some derogatory comments double check what you are writing.
When you quote this: "I don't expect Sony to produce dust on the sensor"
to say this "What you expect, and what's the reality are two entirely different items!"
one might foolishly assume that you say the Sony sensor produces dust and we don't want that.
Peace to you, as I stated above I might get it and who knows, I'll become a believer.
-
I'm not sure why I got you riled up so much, don't worry I will not contradict you again and your opinion based on data of 1.
I'm not sure why you think I'm riled up. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts
I wasn't aware that I have to buy a camera to be allowed to have an opinion about it
You don't have to BUY it. You have to have used it and have experience and/or data to back up your statements about it. Have you done so with respect to dust inside a Sony RX10 IV?
I do have several Sony products, including an RX100, and a somehow similar product, the Pana FZ1000).
So you're telling us no, you don't have experience or data about the camera I was talking about with respect to dust on the sensor.
I do have several Sony products, including an RX100, and a somehow similar product, the Pana FZ1000).
Again: unless you've experienced it, you've only imagined it. When you have actual experience, tell us. I have experience albeit limited (a month of use) with the camera I was happy to purchase and didn't feel was a ripoff (too expensive due to no competition as you suggest), no dust on images as yet. That's an ongoing opinion based on the facts of usage of a RX10 IV. Time will tell if THIS Sony does or doesn't end up with dust on the sensor but that time will be a result of actual experience with a specific model, not an assumption about all such cameras in all conditions!
-
David,
Sony's A7xx series of bodies may be what you are looking for if you don't mind still changing lenses (not that you have to). I migrated from a 5DII with heavy L's and, after familiarizing myself with the menu items, don't miss the old Canon at all. I shoot the A7M2 with several primes but there are now plenty of zoom lens choices as well as you likely know. The point is the image quality is very good, and the range of lenses from the FE to the G series will satisfy your weight requirements along with all the third party options available.
Dave
-
Doesn't meet your criteria, however I'd opt for an antiquated Leica M8 with a battered Leica or Zeiss 50mm lens on the front.
-
I currently on the road in Newfoundland. With me is my Sony 10MK IV. This trip was the reason I bought the Sony. Light and
a Lens to die for...
Peter
-
I currently on the road in Newfoundland. With me is my Sony 10MK IV. This trip was the reason I bought the Sony. Light and
a Lens to die for...
Peter
How are the corners on that lens, particularly in the lower range, up to 200mm equiv?
How long does the battery last?
-
How long does the battery last?
Not long at all! That's this products biggest issue for me thus far. But they are really small and inexpensive so be sure you haul a lot with you if you are shooting all day long. I suppose there are ways to set the camera to conserve power, like turning it off as often as not needed, but with it on all day long, shooting, a couple hours and it's dead. I use the LCD rarely too so I don't know what causes the power to go down so quickly.
-
How are the corners on that lens, particularly in the lower range, up to 200mm equiv?
How long does the battery last?
The weak link...I use a Mophie battery tethered to the camera and have power for thousands of images.
Peter
-
Doesn't meet your criteria, however I'd opt for an antiquated Leica M8 with a battered Leica or Zeiss 50mm lens on the front.
Make it a 35mm for me since the M8 uses an APS-H (1.3x "crop") sensor. :D
-Dave-
-
My travel camera is still a Pentax K-3 (1.5x crop) with 18-135 sealed zoom. I like having interchangeable lenses and like to set up stuff like timelapses or starscapes on my travels. I know some compacts can probably do that but I know how really well on the trusty K-3. That body with the 18-135 variable aperture lens is pretty darn good and not too expensive that I don't want to take it places it might not return from one day. I just find it heavy sometimes but I did carry it to the summit of Kilimanjaro ok. I've considered a m43 or other mirrorless system but have not taken the plunge yet. I probably will one day but I'd want weather seals, raw files, and interchangeable lenses. That all makes it expensive and I already have the K-3 I just mentioned so I just wind up taking that one again.
-
The weak link...I use a Mophie battery tethered to the camera and have power for thousands of images.
Does one need a special cable, how long is it?
I've seen 3rd party Sony NP-FW50 batteries for as little as $9 each and as much as $51 so I'm totally confused by the options here.
TIA
-
Does one need a special cable, how long is it?
I've seen 3rd party Sony NP-FW50 batteries for as little as $9 each and as much as $51 so I'm totally confused by the options here.
TIA
It comes with a tiny 5" or so cord. Mine is 14", which I already had. From where, I don't know at this point.
Peter
-
Make it a 35mm for me since the M8 uses an APS-H (1.3x "crop") sensor. :D
-Dave-
Yes, on reflection you're right of course.
;-)
-
The weak link...I use a Mophie battery tethered to the camera and have power for thousands of images.
Peter
I don't think I can cope with shooting while on that thing but it's a very good option to charge it on the field.
I know it's a better travel camera than what I have right now, a Panasonic FZ1000. Tha Pana I bought to be used mostly as a car camera, to be ready for anything the road throws at me but I never really liked it. The lens while not the sharpest it is serviceable (Sony seems sharper on the wide end, just a little more on the long end) and the focus is ok albeit a little slow at the long end; what I really dislike is the colors. Lots of work to get something ok. I got some nice shots with it but I processed them in B&W.
Now I have until tomorrow to decide if it's really worth this improvements (so it arrives in time for a Washington DC trip). The 300g extra it's significant but the volume seems to be close so I can accept that particularly as I enjoy shooting telephoto .
As a landscape camera I'm still not convinced, partially my question regarding corners.
In good conditions the sensor is ok (based on the experience with RX100 and FZ1000, which are close IQ wise) but it's not as easy to deal with it if light is not as nice. I know some are happy with ISO 3200 on it but I have problems with the same ISO on m43/APS-C. For the same weight I also would trust more an E-M1ii with the 12-100 F4 for rough conditions (backpacking).
PS. the Pana colors are probably a lot the Adobe fault as there is no camera profile for it.
-
It comes with a tiny 5" or so cord. Mine is 14", which I already had. From where, I don't know at this point.
Peter
Peter, I have a unit that may work already, RavPower:
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B075LBHQVZ/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B075LBHQVZ/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
It came with a cable that fits the Sony, I believe it's called a USB to Micro USB Cable.
I'm a bit worried about just plugging it into the camera ;D hence, is the device you recommend special in any way from the myriad of such external batteries, as far as use with our Sony?
Am I correct that you still need to have a battery in your cameras while you use that external battery, and what it basically does is charge it as it runs done (it doesn't power the camera directly)?
If you think it's OK, I guess all I need to do is buy a much longer USB to Micro USB cable. Again, TIA.
This looks like an interesting option for a cable IF compatible:
https://smile.amazon.com/Cable-Matters-Gold-Plated-Retractable-Micro-USB/dp/B00SVVY844/ref=sr_1_4?s=wireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1529094233&sr=1-4&keywords=USB+to+Micro+USB+Cables
-
Peter, I have a unit that may work already, RavPower:
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B075LBHQVZ/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B075LBHQVZ/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
It came with a cable that fits the Sony, I believe it's called a USB to Micro USB Cable.
I'm a bit worried about just plugging it into the camera ;D hence, is the device you recommend special in any way from the myriad of such external batteries, as far as use with our Sony?
Am I correct that you still need to have a battery in your cameras while you use that external battery, and what it basically does is charge it as it runs done (it doesn't power the camera directly)?
If you think it's OK, I guess all I need to do is buy a much longer USB to Micro USB cable. Again, TIA.
This looks like an interesting option for a cable IF compatible:
https://smile.amazon.com/Cable-Matters-Gold-Plated-Retractable-Micro-USB/dp/B00SVVY844/ref=sr_1_4?s=wireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1529094233&sr=1-4&keywords=USB+to+Micro+USB+Cables
Alexzander S. White wrote a guide to the Sony 10MK IV . His on online tutorial is where I saw this.
This is the video I learnrd about the Mophie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgjPqXyRLuU
Peter
-
Alexzander S. White wrote a guide to the Sony 10MK IV . He has an online tutorial is where I saw this.
This is the video I learnrd about the Mophie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgjPqXyRLuU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgjPqXyRLuU)
Peter
FWIW, seems more than Mophie will work at this task. I have a similar product by RavPower and it charges the battery when off, seems to power it when on. I had a battery that was down as indicated in on the LCD. When I plugged in the RavPower, the camera never went into it's normal auto-power off behavior. Camera off, battery changed. Very cool.
-
FWIW, seems more than Mophie will work at this task. I have a similar product by RavPower and it charges the battery when off, seems to power it when on. I had a battery that was down as indicated in on the LCD. When I plugged in the RavPower, the camera never went into it's normal auto-power off behavior. Camera off, battery changed. Very cool.
Andrew,
That's what I'm saying...pretty cool. With my Mophie battery I shot more than 200 GIG worth and kept going, never had to change the battery.
Peter
-
I’m going with the Sony RX10-4 - I had the mark 2 and it was good - light and compact. The autofocus was a bit problematic and a bit more zoom would have been nice. Just acquired the mark 4 and it is very good. autofocus is now a lot quicker and more certain, lens is great. The overall package is a bit heavier and a slightly larger but still compact and reasonably light. It’s going to Europe for a month with me and that will be a good test run. I recently liquidated 20 years worth of Nikon SLR and DSLR gear and I’m not missing it much except maybe for the viewfinder on the D2X. My two cents worth...
-
Just found this thread...
Canon 5D-IV is my main camera, but I travel with a Canon SL1 (similar to the SL2 mentioned earlier); Sigma 17-70 IS as primary lens; Canon 28 IS (45eq) for street shooting; and either the Canon 70-300 IS (a much under-rated lens) or 70-200 f4 IS. 80% of my travel images are with the 17-70, which has similar range to the FF Canon 24-105 f4 and is vastly superior in IQ, IS, and range to the kit lens. If I'm out carrying for the entire day, I only take the 17-70. See travel photos at www.markfarber.com (http://www.markfarber.com). Just came back from 3 weeks in Japan: 84% of shots were with 17-70.
The main benefits: It's a Canon SLR. Same (though much pared down) buttons and menus. So it's an easy transition back-and-forth with my 5D. And the 28mm and 70-200mm are superb on it. In fact, the 28 gets far more use on the APS-C camera than my FF.
That said, I had the chance to play with the Olympus OM-D this weekend. Pixel peeped and printed 17x22. Much better than an earlier version I tried a few years ago. In-body stabilization is better than FF lens IS so it's easier to avoid high ISOs with slow shutter. EVFs have vastly improved. Very tempting...
-
Ricoh GR II
-
Ricoh GR II
Decent IQ but no viewfinder...Or am I mistaken?
Peter