Topic: Mirrorless comparison - Does anything announced recently help you? (Read 15428 times)

Dan Wells · « **on:** September 10, 2018, 03:25:05 pm »

We have threads on each of the new announcements, but nothing to say which (if any) make a difference to our individual styles of photography. No one system is right for everybody, but each of these systems makes sense for somebody. Posting this poll on dpreview would create a flame war, but I'm thinking we might get a discussion going here that is more like "what images (if any) do I want to make that one of these systems or additions can help me create better than what I have now, and why"?

My own bias is that I shoot landscape, often miles from the trailhead (my distance record is that the attached image was captured on a 450-mile hike), and I presently shoot (and like a lot) Fuji APS-C. If I want anything from a new system, it is primarily more DR and low-ISO capability (Fuji is pretty good at those things, but I have long wished I could carry a D850 with a great zoom or two as far as I'd need to), and pixels are always welcome, too. I can't give up weather sealing to get the image performance I want, which has caused me not to seriously consider Sony. I have a preorder in (without deposit) on a Z7 with the 24-70 after seeing it at a launch event, and the other camera I'm interested in seeing before making a final decision on the Nikon is the Fuji GFX 50R - lens size may be the issue there (the body is supposed to be quite compact, but the current GFX lenses are too big). I'll go to a Canon launch event if there's one nearby, but I'm not expecting it'll make a big difference for my shooting style, and it's behind Nikon and Fuji MF on my interest list.

What are you shooting? Feel free to attach images! Does anything released recently or scheduled for Photokina/PhotoPlus make a big difference for you? Maybe that Canon 28-70 gets you some images you've been dreaming of for years? Maybe it's Panasonic FF for a great still/video combination project? Perhaps you print so big you're waiting for the 100 mp Hasselblad X2?

Rado · « **Reply #1 on:** September 10, 2018, 04:03:07 pm »

I plan to get the new Canon R (just the body) and replace my Sony A7II with it. I'll be using it in the same situations as the Sony, where mirrorless offers an advantage over DSLRs - manual focus lenses and accurate autofocus with fast lenses wide open (e.g. natural light portraits). I'll still be using DSLRs for other things but the big difference this makes to me is getting rid of Sony's godawful "color science".

PeterAit · « **Reply #2 on:** September 10, 2018, 04:09:40 pm »

Your landscape shot is really great.

I am not convinced that there is any meaningful difference between the 3 FF mirrorless systems we have now. Sure, personal preferences may lead you to choose one over the others, but they are very similar in specs: 40-some megapixels, a new line of great lenses, lighter and smaller than DSLRs, and so on. So buy what you want and go take photos!

Telecaster · « **Reply #3 on:** September 10, 2018, 04:21:19 pm »

I may get a second Panasonic GX8 as a backup.

No interest in any of the new products announced so far.

-Dave-

Ray · « **Reply #4 on:** September 10, 2018, 09:55:45 pm »

For me, the major issues I consider when buying new equipment are the weight, cost, and flexibility in relation to potential image quality.

For example, if I'm considering the purchase of the latest camera body of a particular brand and format for which I already own lenses, such as Nikon, then, as I understand, any increase in pixel count will tend to increase the 'effective' resolution of all my lenses, in the sense that the higher pixel-count image, when down-sampled to the smaller size of my previous, lower pixel-count camera, will be sharper. All my lenses will have effectively been upgraded, at least to some slight degree, depending on the percentage increase in the pixel-count of the new camera.

That's just one aspect to consider, which on its own, would not be enough to justify the purchase, unless the individual pixel quality had also improved to a noticeable degree.

Justifying an upgrade to the Nikon Z7 will depend on one's current equipment status. Those who already own a D850 will have less reason to upgrade than I have, because I'd be upgrading from a D810, and the additional features of the Z7 seem to incorporate all the benefits of the D850, such as a BSI 45mp sensor.

Checking DXOMark's results, I see that the D850 already has close to a one stop DR advantage over the D810 at ISO 1600, and a 1/2 stop advantage at ISO 200. I don't know if the Z7 will improve on that, but it's unlikely to be worse.

Another obvious benefit of an upgrade to the Z7, from my perspective, is the addition of state-of-the-art image stabilization to all my current Nikon lenses (using the Nikon adapter). Those lenses that don't have any stabilization, such as my Nikkor 14-24/F2.8, would have up to 5 stops IS. That's remarkable. It means I would be able to get a sharp image at 14mm, hand-held, using a shutter speed as low as 1 sec.

As I understand, those Nikkor lenses that already have built-in VR will get improved VR when the lenses are used in conjunction with the IBIS of the Z7.

The above mentioned features alone would be sufficient justification for me to upgrade to the Z7. However, there are also other features which I might find useful, not least of which is the improved Video and 4K capability, and the availability of future lenses which should be both lighter and sharper, especially towards the edges.

Two23 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 10, 2018, 10:32:19 pm »

For now, I'm standing pat with the D800E and my mix of Sigma ART & Nikon lenses. Also using a Nikon D500 for rodeos and other fast action. I really can't justify spending $3,000+ on a digital camera--I'll get no more sales, have no more fun, and value drops so fast on them. The main reason to buy into the new Nikon (and probably Canon) is the new lens mounts and the theoretical benefits those can bring. The selection of lenses is not great now and will probably take ~5 years to really get to where it can replace what I have. In the meantime I'm hoping these new cameras will push the the value of the D850 on the used market to ~$2,000 within a year. I should be able to sell the D800E & D500 for close to that. Further out, ~5 years maybe?, I'm thinking there will be more lenses for Nikon Z that are better than what I now have. (If it's not better, why would I switch?) The one thing mirrorless could do that I would see as a benefit would be to reduce the weight of a first class camera system, but I'm not sure that's happening yet. So, I suppose I'm in a holding pattern, and an opportunist to take advantage of anyone selling off photo gear for >$1,000 less than what they paid for it. Meanwhile, during my wait, I'll continue putting together a portable dark room that fits into the back of my Subaru Forester so I can process wet plates on location.

I don't need the latest gear to have fun. The 1850s technology can do that for me too.

Kent in SD

Ray · « **Reply #6 on:** September 11, 2018, 03:29:40 am »

Quote from: Two23 on September 10, 2018, 10:32:19 pm

For now, I'm standing pat with the D800E and my mix of Sigma ART & Nikon lenses. Also using a Nikon D500 for rodeos and other fast action. I really can't justify spending $3,000+ on a digital camera--I'll get no more sales, have no more fun, and value drops so fast on them. The main reason to buy into the new Nikon (and probably Canon) is the new lens mounts and the theoretical benefits those can bring. The selection of lenses is not great now and will probably take ~5 years to really get to where it can replace what I have.

So, as a professional, image stabilization, or the lack of, is not a concern because you always use a tripod. Right?

Quote

Meanwhile, during my wait, I'll continue putting together a portable dark room that fits into the back of my Subaru Forester so I can process wet plates on location. I don't need the latest gear to have fun. The 1850s technology can do that for me too.

Sounds like you enjoy the process more than the results.

Paulo Bizarro · « **Reply #7 on:** September 11, 2018, 05:04:22 am »

I am quite comfortable with my Sony Alpha 7 system. I would like to have Live Bulb like Olympus implements, to facilitate astrolandsacpe shots.

I see the recent introductions from Canikon as an attempt to (also) make profit in this market segment. For photographers, MILC has been around for many years already (FF MILC less so), so those who needed the extras provided by such systems have probably migrated already, or supplemented their DSLR system.

IMO, often we see these discussions geared towards mutually exclusive options (you can either have DLSR or MILC, not both). The practice shows that many use both to cater for their requirements.

Sure, it's great to have f2 zooms, but I would never have use for such beasts. I much prefer the designs of lenses like the Loxia 21, that (even with what is now an apparently too small diameter E mount...) that MILC facilitates: small and high performing lenses, instead of the Milvus Distagon 21, for example.

shadowblade · « **Reply #8 on:** September 11, 2018, 05:13:04 am »

Quote from: Dan Wells on September 10, 2018, 03:25:05 pm

My own bias is that I shoot landscape, often miles from the trailhead (my distance record is that the attached image was captured on a 450-mile hike), and I presently shoot (and like a lot) Fuji APS-C. If I want anything from a new system, it is primarily more DR and low-ISO capability (Fuji is pretty good at those things, but I have long wished I could carry a D850 with a great zoom or two as far as I'd need to), and pixels are always welcome, too. I can't give up weather sealing to get the image performance I want, which has caused me not to seriously consider Sony. I have a preorder in (without deposit) on a Z7 with the 24-70 after seeing it at a launch event, and the other camera I'm interested in seeing before making a final decision on the Nikon is the Fuji GFX 50R - lens size may be the issue there (the body is supposed to be quite compact, but the current GFX lenses are too big). I'll go to a Canon launch event if there's one nearby, but I'm not expecting it'll make a big difference for my shooting style, and it's behind Nikon and Fuji MF on my interest list.

And that is exactly why I would no longer consider the Z6, Z7, EOS R or any other camera system with only one card slot, regardless of the other specs, and also why I hike with two bodies. I'm not repeating a three-week-long hike to re-shoot just because a memory card or camera body died at the wrong time. Doubling up important shots on different memory cards with the A7r/A7r2 was a pain - good thing I don't have to do it any more with the A7r3.

Does it happen often? No, but it does happen. Case in point - the recent Canon EOS R demo. And, when travelling, other thing can happen to memory cards that makes storing two copies in different places a very good idea. Obviously, if you're a wedding photographer, not having backups can be financially devastating. But losing photos on a long hike or long/expensive trip can be just as annoying, if less career-threatening, if getting them in the first place took a large amount of effort and money. And many photos can't be repeated even by going again, due to being dependent on weather or astronomical conditions or due to being impromptu/unplanned shots of non-static subjects (e.g. people).

What exactly are you shooting landscape-wise that makes weather sealing so critical? And how did you manage in the pre-digital days, when there was basically no decent medium-format film option with weather sealing? I've shot the A7r/A7r2/A7r3 in everything from seaspray, to sandstorms, to tropical downpours, in temperatures ranging from Siberian winter to the Sahara Desert on the edge of a volcano, and not run into any problems with water/dust/sand, nor any temperature-related failures (apart from reduced battery life in the cold). Shooting landscapes, you camera lives in the pack most of the time anyway, and you have plenty of latitude to use a rain hood. Heavy rain often means raindrops on the front element anyway, which makes for bad photos. It's not like you're shooting outdoor sports in the rain, standing there for two hours (or however long the match is) with no alternative to getting drenched. Weather sealing is nice to have, but, given a choice between that and things like dual cards, AF capability, battery life, lens selection, IBIS, etc., it comes dead last.

HywelPhillips · « **Reply #9 on:** September 11, 2018, 05:48:23 am »

I'm sticking with my Sony A7RII and A7RIII as work-horse cameras.

The Canon, Nikon and Fuji systems all have appealing points, but none of them seem to offer any really compelling advantages over the Sony system right now for me.

I shoot people for a living, with a (very modest) sideline in mountain landscapes. I like that the Sony can be stripped back to a really light option for the mountains, I can even live with the superzoom 24-240mm in bad weather conditions if I stop down to f/8. I find the results with that relatively poor lens are comparable in detail to what I got on my GH4 with really good primes, but not having to swap lenses is important in snow and wind. And if weight and conditions permit, the Sony 28mm, 55mm primes plus 70-200mm f/4 and a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for astro landscape are all I need. (I've kept the A7Rii on the old firmware to avoid the star eater issue).

For people in the studio, I really like the Sony 35mm 1/f.4, 55mm and 85mm GM lenses. They give me broadly comparable results to using my Hasselblad H3D31ii.

But the really killer thing about the Sony is that they have a MUCH wider "shooting envelope" - the range of lighting conditions under which they deliver really good results. The low noise high ISO plus IBIS make a big difference to available light shooting in studio or location conditions.

This is the reason I originally bought the Sony. I had Canon dSLR's as my backup system to the Hasselblad, but neither the Canons nor the Hasselblad were capable of shooting in the sort of gorgeous northern low winter sunset light we often get here for 30 minutes or so a day in winter. That light falling on a model is just about the most gorgeous thing I've ever seen, to my eyes, and it was so frustrating trying to shoot good sets of photos with cameras with poor to shockingly poor high ISO (the Hasselblad NEVER goes above ISO100), limited dynamic range to get clean shadows which I can pull up later, and no IBIS.

When I went on a location shoot, I always used to take my RED digital cine camera, the Hasselblad, a Canon dSLR or two, plus two or three big cases of lenses.

Now I can get stellar results with just the Sony's and a single case of lenses, and acceptable results even in very challenging conditions that I couldn't even shoot in at all before.

When flying out on a trip that has made a big difference, especially allied to light-weight lighting solutions. I have a Godox ringflash and an Elinchrom 500 WS TTL unit which between them can largely replace two flight cases worth of Hensel battery generators and heads. Add a handheld gimbal for video and we're good to go for the whole trip.

The net result is that my wife and I can now go on a week's location shoot by air with just a single case of gear and a backpack. That saves hundreds of pounds in excess baggage fees and even means we can hire smaller cars when we get there.

The results are not QUITE as good as the full RED/Hasselblad/Hensel/the works setup. The dynamic range in video is not as good, and it isn't RAW-like. The colour rendition isn't as nice on the Sony as on the Hasselblad nor as smooth and as noise-free in base ISO. Two point lighting isn't a nice as three point lighting, and 500 WS from one generator isn't the same as 1200 WS from each of two, plus leaf shutters. But with a bit of ingenuity and help from the tech, it's totally workable.

We can shoot everything from full-lit studio to location stuff with fill-in overpowering the sun, to stabilised video to available light shallow depth of field out of a single backpack.

I'm keeping an eye on the other solutions because several years in to using the Sony's I still find the colour rendition a bit horrid by default, the ergonomics poor, the lack of articulating screen maddening, the lack of response to the star killer issue annoying, and the removal of the apps in the Mark 3 inexplicable. And I regularly have to search through dozens of pages of menus to do the thing I want to do.

But in terms of flexibility for the weight, and the 80:20 rule of giving me at least 80% of the results from 20% of the effort (and the kit), it's really transformed the way we shoot.

Cheers, Hywel

Dave Rosser · « **Reply #10 on:** September 11, 2018, 06:43:49 am »

I am going to look at the new Fuji tomorrow, I will decide no there and then or wait for more detailed reviews before deciding to order one.

KLaban · « **Reply #11 on:** September 11, 2018, 11:36:51 am »

All the new announcements mean that my wallet is safe in my pocket.

32BT · « **Reply #12 on:** September 11, 2018, 11:46:19 am »

Quote from: KLaban on September 11, 2018, 11:36:51 am

All the new announcements mean that my wallet is safe in my pocket.

? ? ? I thought you were married!

;-)

John Camp · « **Reply #13 on:** September 11, 2018, 12:48:22 pm »

I'm going to take a long look at the new Nikon Z7. I shoot an D800e now, and also have a couple of GX8s, which I really prefer to the 800, but the size and resolution of the Z7 is appealing. The lenses are apparently as large as the F lenses (of which I have a bunch) so that's a downside for me. I'm wondering if I can get along without zooms...I think all the systems are pretty good, I'd go with Nikon because that's the FF system I'm already in.

My biggest concerns are quality, of course, but the 20mp m4/3 is good enough for most of what I do; and size and weight and weather resistance. Stuff like dual slots is fundamentally meaningless to me -- if I'm going to waste time worrying about a memory breakdown, it'll be with my computer, not with my camera.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #14 on:** September 11, 2018, 02:38:11 pm »

Hi,

I am not interested in any of those features. But, it is a good thing that we are getting more competition in the full frame mirrorless arena. It is sort of obvious that mirrorless is the future. Canon and Nikon going EVF is just an indication of that.

Personally, I mostly use Canon lenses on my A7rII. So, I could switch to Canon any day I have found that Canon has the better system.

I don't care about high aperture lenses.

Best regards
Erik

gkroeger · « **Reply #15 on:** September 11, 2018, 03:13:01 pm »

I am (intentionally) cameraless right now (except for P&S Sony). I have been renting the Sony A7RIII when needed, and like many features. What I don't like is the 24-70 f/4 Zeiss lens nor the lack of lossless compression of raw files. Seriously, lossless compression algorithms are taught in second semester CS classes... are you telling me that Sony software engineers didn't get that far? I also don't like the loss of intervalometer functionality. So, I am going to take a serious look at the Z7 once serious (i.e. where actual images are evaluated not just looks through the viewfinder) reviews start to appear.

My goal is to make a final decision in the next year or so and begin rebuilding a lens collection. (while lamenting my departed Apo-Grandagons and Super-Symmars).

Glenn

Telecaster · « **Reply #16 on:** September 11, 2018, 03:30:14 pm »

I'm also mystified by the lack of lossless Raw compression on the Sonys. That and the silly firmware upgrade process. With all my other cameras I can upgrade without needing to be hardwired to a computer. This is 1990s-era stuff.

-Dave-

faberryman · « **Reply #17 on:** September 11, 2018, 03:43:31 pm »

Why do you need lossless compression of RAW files? There is plenty of room on SD cards for hundreds of shots without it.

chez · « **Reply #18 on:** September 11, 2018, 03:48:55 pm »

Quote from: gkroeger on September 11, 2018, 03:13:01 pm

I am (intentionally) cameraless right now (except for P&S Sony). I have been renting the Sony A7RIII when needed, and like many features. What I don't like is the 24-70 f/4 Zeiss lens nor the lack of lossless compression of raw files. Seriously, lossless compression algorithms are taught in second semester CS classes... are you telling me that Sony software engineers didn't get that far? I also don't like the loss of intervalometer functionality. So, I am going to take a serious look at the Z7 once serious (i.e. where actual images are evaluated not just looks through the viewfinder) reviews start to appear.

My goal is to make a final decision in the next year or so and begin rebuilding a lens collection. (while lamenting my departed Apo-Grandagons and Super-Symmars).

Glenn

Have your images suffered from the lack of lossless compression? Is so, can you possibly post an example as I don't see any differences in the tests I've done.

gkroeger · « **Reply #19 on:** September 11, 2018, 03:55:39 pm »

Quote from: chez on September 11, 2018, 03:48:55 pm

Have your images suffered from the lack of lossless compression? Is so, can you possibly post an example as I don't see any differences in the tests I've done.

No, I just use uncompressed raw. But that and the loss of intervalometer capability and the lack of focus stack/shift function suggest that Sony isn't keeping up on the software I need as well as
Fuji and Nikon. If I did portraiture, Sony's eye priority AF would be a driving factor. Doesn't mean I won't end up with Sony, just that I will scope out the alternatives before investing in a system.

Glenn

Poll

Which (if any) of the new mirrorless systems interest you?

Author Topic: Mirrorless comparison - Does anything announced recently help you? (Read 15428 times)