Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Is Sony taking over our corner of the world?  (Read 58851 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Basing criticisms on extreme edge cases usually does not help
« Reply #100 on: October 31, 2015, 05:46:14 pm »

Hi,

Just to say my A7rII came with two batteries and an external charger and this is AFIK the normal delivery package.

I would not argue on the battery issue in general. EVF cameras are battery hungry and the A7RII has small batteries. DSLRs use less batteries. I would have preferred a larger battery with the A7rII.

In recent shooting, I did carry four batteries, but never used more than two in a day. I had two chargers with me, but I only used one of them.

On the other hand I am not a rapid shooter. Don't make that many exposures, perhaps around 100 each day, but a lot of deliberation goes into those images, so I am a bit power hungry.

I won't argue on the economy of keeping your 7D, or for that matter any camera. I would think it is reasonable for Canon shooters to stay with Canon. The only major benefit Canon users get from the A7rII is the cleaner shadow reproduction of the Sony sensor.

Now, I feel that the A7rII is a great camera at least if you can live with it's foibles. For me the camera is just an imaging device, so I can put up with some issues in the user interface if the images are great. But, I don't think that Sony beats Canon on image quality.

Canon has a lot of nice lenses. Sony's lenses are often more expensive and may offer less image quality. You can uses Canon lenses on Sony, with adapters. But I would bet that almost all Canon lenses work better on a Canon than on a Sony.

Best regards
Erik

Sure.

Battery life of A7Rii (according to cipa): 290
Cost of a Sony A7rII: 32.995,00 KR ($3888)
Cost of NP-FW50 battery: 795,00 KR ($94)
Cost of AC-PW20 charger: 1.395,00 KR ($164)

Battery life of 7D (according to cipa): 800 (I believe every 1/2 images using flash?)
Cost for keeping my 7D: 0

I don't know how many batteries are needed to get my personal "lasts for 2 weeks without charging", and how many chargers would be needed in order to make that setup viable, but it would add significant cost to an allready expensive upgrade.

I'd say that my original statement still holds well: I'd suggest that it is mainly the "mirrorlessness" that makes these cameras have low battery capacity.

My 7D have a "mirrorless" mode (Liveview). It has horrible battery life (using the same battery).
Canon offers smaller DSLRs (the 6D and the 100D) with what I believe to be decent battery life (small DSLRs can have decent battery life).

I believe that running a sensor continously "on" (feeding the low-latency AF and viewfinder), doing continous image processing (feeding the viewfinder) and powering an EVF/LCD, in sum, makes for significant power draw. Perhaps in time, this draw will be small enough so as to be insignificant. Certainly the current development in cellphone cameras and mirrorless system cameras got to help.

-h
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Is Sony taking over our corner of the world?
« Reply #101 on: October 31, 2015, 06:33:06 pm »

With regard to using Canon lenses on the A7R II, apart from the known limitations regarding AF, I can say that the IQ is fantastic.
I have mounted Canon TS lenses as well as super telephoto zooms (100-400mm II) with excellent results.
Even the AF on the 100-400mm works fine at 400mm with the new firmware upgrades on the Metabones IV adaptor.
The only Canon lens in my current line-up that will not work on the A7R II (as far as AF is concerned) is my first generation 500mm f4.0.

As for the comparison between Sony FE lenses and Canon EF lenses as far as IQ goes, in a non-technical comparison, they are impossible to separate.
I have not come across a technical expose of Canon lenses mounted on the A7R II as yet.

My whole rationale for moving to the A7R  and the mark II was to lever the advantages of the IQ possible with these Sony sensors yet still being able to use (almost) any Canon lens I want (including some of the newer Canon mount Sigma lenses that far outperform their Canon OEM counterparts).

I am shortly to leave for a trip to Southern Africa (RSA, Namibia, and Botswana) with my motley combination of Canon and Sony equipment so we will see how things turn out in rather tough field conditions.

Tony Jay
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Basing criticisms on extreme edge cases usually does not help
« Reply #102 on: October 31, 2015, 06:41:15 pm »

Sure.

Battery life of A7Rii (according to cipa): 290
Cost of a Sony A7rII: 32.995,00 KR ($3888)
Cost of NP-FW50 battery: 795,00 KR ($94)
Cost of AC-PW20 charger: 1.395,00 KR ($164)

Battery life of 7D (according to cipa): 800 (I believe every 1/2 images using flash?)
Cost for keeping my 7D: 0

You can't compare the cost of the cameras. For one, one is a modern full-frame camera, whereas the other is a six-year-old crop model.

Quote
I don't know how many batteries are needed to get my personal "lasts for 2 weeks without charging", and how many chargers would be needed in order to make that setup viable, but it would add significant cost to an allready expensive upgrade.

I'd say that my original statement still holds well: I'd suggest that it is mainly the "mirrorlessness" that makes these cameras have low battery capacity.

A few years ago, when shooting my 5D2, I took six fully-charged LP-E6 batteries on a three-and-a-half week hike in Nepal (remote area, so no opportunities for charging), and used every one of them. I didn't even take that many frames.

Last year, I did a trip of similar length with the A7r and took twelve fully-charged batteries. I only went through ten.

The ten Sony batteries still weigh less than the six LP-E6s

That said, the Sony does have horrible battery life - each battery is just too small. But, weight-for-weight, they last just as long as Canon batteries.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
So, at most one or two spare batteries is the extra EVF burden
« Reply #103 on: November 01, 2015, 06:51:20 am »

Hjulenissen,

    by your example with CIPA testing data, the battery life ratio is a factor of between two and three; by my experience with a comparison with the same brand and sensor size between several Olympus Four Thirds SLR's and then an EM5 (and very little flash usage) the ratio is far less than two.  So for one thing, it seems likely that the A7R2 has other disadvantages like aiming for small size through a smaller battery (or rather two smaller baterries, it seems) and its larger sensor.  But anyway, the compensation needed is clear: at most one or two spare batteries in the bag to double or triple the shot count.  And probably no extra batteries need be carried most of the time, because in the more common case of coming home to the charger at the end of each day, with that CIPA 800 shots is enough for a week or more, even a low 200-300 looks more than enough for a day.

Note that the needs of running the big rear LCD rather than the EVF are irrelevant, since whe one opts for LCD over EVF, one would presumably also opt for LCD over OVF in the SLR.  It is only OVF vs EVF where the power consumption is different. So how much is the power drain of the far smaller EVF panel? Note that the EVF and the whole live view system is going to "sleep" when the camera is idle, so not running all the time that the camera is turned on.

(And of course cost comparisons will always favor the gear one already owns over what one does not; that is irrelevant to the comparisons that we have been discussing.)

Update: I just read more on the CIPA standard DC-002, and indeed as applied to non-SLRs including EVF cameras, power consumption is heavily effected by the requirement to have the rear screen on almost all the time, with 30s of screen activity per shot (it dates back to 2003 and is oriented to the typical usage of the "point and shoot" cameras of that era).  As an indication of the effect, with the EM5ii, using instead its quick sleep mode to reduce viewfinder activity while keeping everything else to CIPA specs changes the measured battery life from 310 to 750 shots.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 07:38:32 am by BJL »
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Basing criticisms on extreme edge cases usually does not help
« Reply #104 on: November 01, 2015, 07:29:11 am »

You can't compare the cost of the cameras. For one, one is a modern full-frame camera, whereas the other is a six-year-old crop model.
Sure I can. If I am a rational person (I try to be), I try to weigh the cost and benefits of my choices.

A new camera would bring (potential) image quality benefits. That is a pro. This particular model would also have less battery life and/or more cost and cumbersome battery usage. That is a con. By weighing pros and cons, one decide to go for it or not.

-h
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: So, at most one or two spare batteries is the extra EVF burden
« Reply #105 on: November 01, 2015, 07:33:09 am »

...
(And of course cost comparisons will always favor the gear one already owns over what one does not; that is irrelevant to the comparisons that we have been discussing.)
Sorry, I don't follow your argument.

Me and most people on this forum owns a camera, but not the Sony A7Rii. Many of us would like to have the A7Rii. For that (presumably) significant amount of people, why should we not consider reality when considering an upgrade?

The sensible question (to me) is: "will the improved image quality/size/ergonomy/... outweigh the monetary cost of upgrading, loss of battery life and/or more cost for batteries and chargers".

-h
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 07:36:40 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: So, at most one or two spare batteries is the extra EVF burden
« Reply #106 on: November 01, 2015, 08:04:02 am »

Sorry, I don't follow your argument.

Me and most people on this forum owns a camera, but not the Sony A7Rii. ...

-h
I have no problem with you considering that question of "is it worth me adding an A7Rii to my collection?"
And I have not the slightest inclination to try to persuade you to add that very different camera in a different format requiring different lenses.  (For one thing, I see advantages both to the smaller format of the 7D, and to the OVF for some sorts of photography, and have no desire for a 35mm format EVF camera that requires big expensive lenses to get most of the advantages that many people falsely credit to the larger sensor alone.)

But surely you know that this was not the subject being discussed until you interjected it!

This sub-thread started with a claim by Bernard that to get adequate battery life, an EVF camera would need a battery so big that it would be as bulky as a DSLR in the same format with the same battery life, and related speculations about the cost of EVF vs OVF kits in the same format size.  All that those of us "on the EVF side" are arguing is that Bernard's size comparison is wrong.
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Is Sony taking over our corner of the world?
« Reply #107 on: November 01, 2015, 08:13:53 am »

I think completely different designs become possible. Only you cannot see/use the image directly, it needs to be electronically processed. Which of course is the case for an EVF non-film camera.

Sony and Olympus in particular have been known to pre-cook visual information rolling off the sensor before writing it into the raw file.

Notice to manufacturers: I will not by a camera that does that.  The raw file should contain unadulterated visual information period.  Feel free to do whatever you want with that data thereafter.

Jack

PS I do mean to differentiate between Information and data.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2299
Re: So, at most one or two spare batteries is the extra EVF burden
« Reply #108 on: November 01, 2015, 08:31:28 am »

This sub-thread started with a claim by Bernard that to get adequate battery life, an EVF camera would need a battery so big that it would be as bulky as a DSLR in the same format with the same battery life, and related speculations about the cost of EVF vs OVF kits in the same format size.  All that those of us "on the EVF side" are arguing is that Bernard's size comparison is wrong.

… and spurious, at best.


Sorry, I don't follow your argument.

Because you're incapable of rational thought or being obtuse ? I doubt the former so I can but presume the latter.

This whole thread and tiresome undercurrent of trying to nitpick deficiencies in EVF cams purely based on a dubious power requirement, is becoming tiring and turning this forum into a dpreview variant.

You want, need or prefer to use a DSLR, that's fine – go right ahead. But complaining about battery capacity, with no thought as to how to circumvent, what for many is a minor limitation, borders on cognitive impotence.

My original Eriksson mobile lasted days on a single charge, my iPhone doesn't get through a whole day without a top-up. So ?

A Nikon D3/D4 battery is about 2600mAh, the Nikon EN-EL314a: 1230mAh ( up from 1030mAh) and a Sony NP-FW50 Lithium-Ion: 1020mAh.  The last two are about 1/10th the capacity of a Mophie Powerstation XL (12,000 mAh) – which not only recharges in situ (even in your handbag) but can also  power the A7x series directly. It'll charge your IPhone and iPad as well - no extra chargers required.

Can you do that on a dslr ? - nope.
So which one now is the more disadvantaged ?

The attraction of this new breed of diminutive CSC's is, IMO, similar to the original appeal of the first Leica M's – they were small, discreet, quiet and, at the time, unobtrusive.

Pretty much the same today, except now, far more accomplished and versatile than one could ever have imagined then and now with vastly improved IQ, even over many current DSLR's. A certain aesthetic appeal, reminiscent of the early 70's slimline Nikon and Canons ( a particular nod to Olympus in this department) didn't do any harm either – particularly to those of us tired of the ubiquitous, modern 'polycarbonate blob' look. Tie that to vastly improved IQ and a winning breed was created.

The Leica M's were not a panacea for every photographic 'requirement' any more than this new breed is. But as the new kid on the block – they're here to stay.

Your choice. 


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/09/24/candid-camera

Edit:
For the record, some advantages of the A7x series compared to dslr's:

Free of lens calibration.
Quiet, discreet, unobtrusive (add weight to this one).
Canon lenses on a Nikon, let alone autofocus with them ?.
Ditto Leica M's.
Ditto any number of legacy and modern lenses.
Superior 'motion' capability.
IBIS with ALL lenses.
Focus Peaking.
Live View, EFCS ? - ( yes, I know Nikon has it, but you need to get used to pressing the shutter button , twice – great!)

All a bit more substantive than CIPA battery data, IMO.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 09:37:36 am by Manoli »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
7D vs A7Rii: 76% battery capacity difference
« Reply #109 on: November 01, 2015, 09:10:20 am »

There have been diverse speculatons about battery size differences:
Ever considered that you can carry an A7rII (or any other mirrorless camera), a memory card and a stack of spare batteries, and still end up carrying far less weight and volume than a 7D with one battery?

Or that the lack of battery capacity in mirrorless cameras isn't due to them being mirrorless, but rather them being designed to be small, thus necessitating weak, small, batteries?
and the reply
I'd suggest that it is mainly the "mirrorlessness" that makes these cameras have low battery capacity.
In the concrete case of "7D vs A7", we do not need to speculate:
The Canon 7D uses the Canon LP-E6N battery, 1800mAh, 80g.
The Sony A7Rii uses the Sony NP-FW40 battery, 1020mAh, 42.5g (though as Erik mentions, it comes with two of them, so 2040mWh in the bag – but only 1020mWh in the CIPA test.)

So the 7D gets 76% more CIPA-measured battery life just from its larger battery.  (By the way: for my tastes, Sony goes a bit too far in its emphasis on reducing the size of its mirrorless bodies: the last 40g or 2cc squeezed out of the battery only helps with "complete camera bulk" when pairing the body with short primes or small, slow zoom lenses.)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 09:19:23 am by BJL »
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Is Sony taking over our corner of the world?
« Reply #110 on: November 01, 2015, 09:56:48 am »

Sony has made a very nice camera in the Sony A7rII, however they still have to come up with a camera, lens, accessories and service system to compete with Nikon or Canon.

It seems like early days in this battle.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: 7D vs A7Rii: 76% battery capacity difference
« Reply #111 on: November 01, 2015, 10:07:09 am »

There have been diverse speculatons about battery size differences:and the replyIn the concrete case of "7D vs A7", we do not need to speculate:
The Canon 7D uses the Canon LP-E6N battery, 1800mAh, 80g.
The Sony A7Rii uses the Sony NP-FW40 battery, 1020mAh, 42.5g (though as Erik mentions, it comes with two of them, so 2040mWh in the bag – but only 1020mWh in the CIPA test.)

So the 7D gets 76% more CIPA-measured battery life just from its larger battery.

Pretty much what I found. Weight-for-weight, the Sony battery contains more power, which translates to a similar number of shots per 100g after taking into account the added power requirements of an EVF and full-frame sensor (vs the crop on the 7D). Probably more on the Sony if you mostly shoot using live view, more on the 7D if you mostly shoot through the viewfinder.


Quote
(By the way: for my tastes, Sony goes a bit too far in its emphasis on reducing the size of its mirrorless bodies: the last 40g or 2cc squeezed out of the battery only helps with "complete camera bulk" when pairing the body with short primes or small, slow zoom lenses.)

Definitely.

I'd have preferred an A7rII that was significantly larger (not that I like size, but performance comes at a price), with a battery four times the capacity in order to power dedicated processors to drive a lag-free viewfinder and super-fast AF.

But that may be getting a little close to the A9...
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Is Sony taking over our corner of the world?
« Reply #112 on: November 01, 2015, 12:11:13 pm »

Sony and Olympus in particular have been known to pre-cook visual information rolling off the sensor before writing it into the raw file.

Notice to manufacturers: I will not by a camera that does that.  The raw file should contain unadulterated visual information period.  Feel free to do whatever you want with that data thereafter.

Jack

PS I do mean to differentiate between Information and data.

They all precook, CMOS has a lot of fixed patterns AFAIK. But anyway, EVF cameras should be "codesigned", with lenses minimizing defects you cannot correct, and leaving anything correctable to software. There is no reason anymore to waste expensive lens designs on stuff like distorsion that can be fixed by code.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Is Sony taking over our corner of the world?
« Reply #113 on: November 01, 2015, 01:08:11 pm »

Sony and Olympus in particular have been known to pre-cook visual information rolling off the sensor before writing it into the raw file.
What is this Olympus pre-cooking? Your link is only about Sony, along with a side reference to the way that some Olympus lenses handle focusing.  Not that I am much worried; I prefer to assess the results of the process as a whole, rather than insisting on the purity of any one component in the chain. For example, it seems likely that in some situations it is best to handle a problem (like noise) as early as possible, maybe with on-sensor signal processing, while in others it is better to be able to throw the greater processing power of a computer at it.
Logged

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: Basing criticisms on extreme edge cases usually does not help
« Reply #114 on: November 01, 2015, 04:41:24 pm »


 I am not a rapid shooter. Don't make that many exposures, perhaps around 100 each day, but a lot of deliberation goes into those images, so I am a bit power hungry.



This might be a positive ?

Spray and pray photography is a lot of work in editing.
Frame numbers on my shoots have gone through the roof over the years, and I can't help but think when editing that a slower, more considered approach might be in order.


Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: 7D vs A7Rii: 76% battery capacity difference
« Reply #115 on: November 02, 2015, 02:18:25 am »

There have been diverse speculatons about battery size differences:and the replyIn the concrete case of "7D vs A7", we do not need to speculate:
The Canon 7D uses the Canon LP-E6N battery, 1800mAh, 80g.
The Sony A7Rii uses the Sony NP-FW40 battery, 1020mAh, 42.5g (though as Erik mentions, it comes with two of them, so 2040mWh in the bag – but only 1020mWh in the CIPA test.)

So the 7D gets 76% more CIPA-measured battery life just from its larger battery.
If we assume that battery numbers can be idealized to estimate energy, I think the number is close to 78%:
(7.2*1865)/(7.4*1020)

Keep in mind that the CIPA rating use flash for every 1/2 images, like I mentioned in my post. The 7D has a flash, the A7 series does not.
http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-002_e.pdf

The 7D has the ability to operate in LiveView. Using the same battery, battery life is quite bad. This is a kind of mirrorless implementation (granted, an old one and probably not something that the components are optimized for).

If we compare the A7RII to (mostly flashless) FF DSLRs (a comparision that may make sense to more people than my personal situation), the differences are even more visible (see attachement) where I have scaled CIPA numbers to 2000 shots (simply picking some round number larger than the best-in-class).

I'd suggest that _if_ the impressive battery life (on paper at least) of the Nikon D750 is a big attraction to you, then having to purchase 2.2 extra batteries (in addition to the 2 included with the camera) and charge 4.2 batteries to reach similar (on paper) battery life is probably going to be an annoyance. As to if this tips the weight one way or the other I guess is highly personal. I guess most of us value image quality very highly, and are willing to live with ergonomic/economic flaws in order to get that image quality.

My understanding of the CIPA ratings is that it is essentially a simple model for "tourist with compact camera" usage. While that is a lot better than manufacturer specified ratings, it may or may not be a good model for Bernards or mine or your usage. Ideally the camera should auto power off the minute I have stopped using it (drawing minimal sleep power), while instantly powering up the minute I want to take another image. At the same time, battery consumption during continous usage (either recording a long exposure or continually focusing/firing images at e.g. a sports event) should also be kept in check. I think that there is great room for individual usage patterns where CIPA numbers are off (of course, this could favour either mirrorless or DSLR). There is also the possibility that creative engineers optimize their product for the CIPA rating (rather than what they know about typical users).

I am not a Canon apologist nor a DSLR apologist. I have been vocally dissatisfied with Canons offerings for several years and I have been welcoming better EVF tools (such as focus peaking). I own a Sony RX100-series and I think it is likely that my next camera will be a Sony FF mirrorless. But I do believe that it makes sense to talk about pros and cons, even if that means being a party-pooper.

-h
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 02:27:45 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Basing criticisms on extreme edge cases usually does not help
« Reply #116 on: November 02, 2015, 04:04:36 am »


On the other hand I am not a rapid shooter. Don't make that many exposures, perhaps around 100 each day, but a lot of deliberation goes into those images, so I am a bit power hungry.

Erik

I find that amazing.

When I was shooting fashion and/or calendars, I felt delighted if I got what I imagined to be one or even two good images in a day. I had from maybe a week to two weeks to shoot calendars - usually - and getting thirteen good images was quite difficult. Those came out of perhaps fifty or sixty 36 exp. cassettes. Getting one 'possible', not a 'definite!', out of each cassette felt quite gratifying. And I thought I knew my job.

On the other hand, I also shot three one-day calendars of seven images, but they were more or less all made in single, tiny locations.

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Basing criticisms on extreme edge cases usually does not help
« Reply #117 on: November 02, 2015, 04:08:48 am »

This might be a positive ?

Spray and pray photography is a lot of work in editing.
Frame numbers on my shoots have gone through the roof over the years, and I can't help but think when editing that a slower, more considered approach might be in order.

Yes, but spray 'n' pray has the secondary/primary? function of keeping models awake and enthusiasm flowing. Doing nothing makes for awkward silences and inactivity that breeds no good.  Better to keep shooting and maybe get something, than let the job die on the vine...

Rob C

adrian tyler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
    • http://www.adriantyler.net/
Re: Is Sony taking over our corner of the world?
« Reply #118 on: November 02, 2015, 11:32:14 am »

i like manoli's leica analogy above as this is precisely what i feel. in fact i picked up a collapsible 90mm f4 macro elmar for the a7r ii and the results are beyond any expectation i would have had up to now. i can use it handheld at 1600asa 90-125 sec and get a 9/10 hit rate, the nearest thing i have in my archive to files that resemble this are from drum scanned kodak 400NC in 4x5 format.

the only thing is i don't have to carry a tripod, 20 dark slides, batman hood, etc... etc...
i do, however, take a spare battery.

these are as above about f.5.6. minimum ACR.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 12:25:46 pm by adrian tyler »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: 7D vs A7Rii: 76% battery capacity difference
« Reply #119 on: November 02, 2015, 12:56:56 pm »


The 7D has the ability to operate in LiveView. Using the same battery, battery life is quite bad. This is a kind of mirrorless implementation (granted, an old one and probably not something that the components are optimized for).

I'd suggest that _if_ the impressive battery life (on paper at least) of the Nikon D750 is a big attraction to you, then having to purchase 2.2 extra batteries (in addition to the 2 included with the camera) and charge 4.2 batteries to reach similar (on paper) battery life is probably going to be an annoyance. As to if this tips the weight one way or the other I guess is highly personal.

My understanding of the CIPA ratings is that it is essentially a simple model for "tourist with compact camera" usage.

But I do believe that it makes sense to talk about pros and cons, even if that means being a party-pooper.
All good points, so it's probably best to focus mostly on where we agree:

1) Having live view on all the time (or at least for 30 seconds per shot as in the CIPA test) will substantially reduce "shots per mWh of battery capacity", and this might well dominates the CIPA measurements.  For example, Olympus reports a better than doubling of shots per charge in the EM5 ii by use of a more efficient power management strategy (quick sleep between shots) than the CIPA testing protocol requires.

2) If one favors fewer battery changes, or prefers to carry an OVF camera and fewer spare batteries over an EVF camera with more, even if the latter is still a lighter kit overall, an OVF camera has some advantage.  (The data suggests that the weight of a couple of those 42.5g Sony batteries will be less than the extra weight of an OVF prism and mirror system.)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Up