Mirrorless comparison - Does anything announced recently help you?

Nikon - 45.7 mp in a compact weathersealed package...

29 (34.1%)

Canon - wow - a 28-70 f2.0!

5 (5.9%)

Fuji - GH5-alike video with "best of APS-C" stills and great controls - or reasonably priced MF?

17 (20%)

I'm waiting for Panasonic - might it be a RED I can afford?

8 (9.4%)

Sony hasn't released anything in the past few weeks, but I like my mature system.

26 (30.6%)

Total Members Voted: 69

[Telecaster]

Lossless Raw compression isn't necessary but it is trivial to implement and saves storage space with no downside other than the brief amount of time it takes to compress & uncompress. Using continuous mode? Stick with uncompressed Raw. Otherwise why not cut down on file bloat?

-Dave-

[gkroeger]

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-

Not just hardwired... but you have to install rootkit software to do it.  I always use a virtual machine to isolate the Sony upgrade software.

Glenn

[D Fuller]

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

Everything you just described is what I’m hoping for with the Z7. But with more gradeable video (10 bit 4:2:2), adjustable focus speed for video, better color out of the camera, menus I can understand, better ergonomics, and time lapse.

If it works out to be as good as all that sounds, my travel rig will shrink as much as yours.

[sbay]

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

If you do any multiple shot images, the extra memory requirements really start to add up. E.g. an A7r2 raw is about 40MB and uncompressed is 86MB. Now imaging doing a star trail with 400 shots. Or  a stacked panorama (my friend recently did a multi-row panorama with about 30 frames with a 5 stack at each one).

The extra memory requirements then bleed over into all your backups and is especially painful for online backup.

[sbay]

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.

I've encountered it a few times while shooting. Usually it occurs in high contrast edges (in the horizontal direction) such as around a window or in a cityscape. Here's an example album: https://imgur.com/a/fRRs2

I just had it happen to me last week in a cityscape (I was rushed and forgot to switch to uncompressed).

[Alan Klein]

They're still too heavy and big to schlep. 

[johnvanatta]

I like how your poll emphasizes the positives. I was struck by how much of the Z internet response was harping on what was 'missing', and it seemed nobody wanted to talk about the opportunity.

As for me, I'm in exactly the same position as Dan Wells. I want lightweight and weathersealed for backpacking and wilderness; and high resolution and dynamic range for nature and landscape. I've got an EM-1mk2 which checks the first two, but it falls a little short on the last two. The lens I can't live without is the Oly 12-40/2.8, and Nikon has a credible replacement in the 24-70/4. I'm hoping I can stomach the modest weight increase because the Z7 has everything I want in a camera: good handling, highly accurate CDAF, EVF, IBIS, a top notch sensor, and (hopefully) superb lenses that pair with it.

The Z7 announcement made me ecstatic.

[Two23]

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

Sounds like you enjoy the process more than the results. 

I use a tripod >90% of the time for personal shots, and for most all family portraits I do.  Also use one for the "formals" at a wedding.  For the informals I use VR lenses, or extremely fast lenses, or flash.  Flash works very well.  It's very, very rare that i don't use a first class tripod and head for shots.  Remember I also shoot 4x5 & 5x7.

I enjoy having fun, and the results are publishable.  I now have photos hanging in the main lobby at our airport.   I honestly don't see how the new cameras with their very limited selection of lenses is going to advance me at this time.  An honestly, I'm gaining much more attention & interest with my c.1880s dry plates than with my digital shots.  With practice my results have become pretty good.


Kent in SD

[Tony Jay]

They're still too heavy and big to schlep.

Mirrorless cameras were never primarily about providing small, light cameras - and the new offerings from Canon and Nikon with large lens mounts proves the point...

They are, however, about innovating new technology - not so evident (apart from the lens mounts) in the new offerings from Canon and Nikon...

[Alan Goldhammer]

If I win the lottery this week, I'll put an order in for a Z7 otherwise I'm staying with my D810.  The other big question is what the trade in value for the D810 and the f4.0 24-105 zoom would be if I did make the move without winning the lottery.  I would not need two cameras for the work I do.

[BernardLanguillier]

I like how your poll emphasizes the positives. I was struck by how much of the Z internet response was harping on what was 'missing', and it seemed nobody wanted to talk about the opportunity.

As for me, I'm in exactly the same position as Dan Wells. I want lightweight and weathersealed for backpacking and wilderness; and high resolution and dynamic range for nature and landscape. I've got an EM-1mk2 which checks the first two, but it falls a little short on the last two. The lens I can't live without is the Oly 12-40/2.8, and Nikon has a credible replacement in the 24-70/4. I'm hoping I can stomach the modest weight increase because the Z7 has everything I want in a camera: good handling, highly accurate CDAF, EVF, IBIS, a top notch sensor, and (hopefully) superb lenses that pair with it.

The Z7 announcement made me ecstatic.

I totally agree with your views.

A large majority of the negative comments about the Z system and Z7 were written by people who never ever intended to buy a Nikon mirrorless body for a variety of reasons, including totally reasonable ones
- existing D850 users happy about their camera (and who wouldn't be happy about a D850) who don't see value in a more compact body and who don't believe/don't think they need (in) the higher optical performance of the Z S series lenses
- trolls afraid to see a new competitor for their existing mirrorless body, one with a more future proof lens mount and a truly coherence mirrorless philosophy that is bound to result in a better system a few years down the road
- ...

I believe that the only totally legit concern about the Z7 is the lack of double memory slot, even if this isn't an issue for many photographers who end up not using a second card in their bodies due to the important performance impact (typically D850, a7rIII, 5DmkIV users). For the rest, even if AF isn't 100% as fast as the best bodies on earth, it is still faster than a large collection of bodies who were used to shoot sports at the Olympics not that long ago.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Mirrorless cameras were never primarily about providing small, light cameras - and the new offerings from Canon and Nikon with large lens mounts proves the point...

They are, however, about innovating new technology - not so evident (apart from the lens mounts) in the new offerings from Canon and Nikon...

Well, I am convinced that 90% of the success of the a7 series is due to 3 objective factors:
1. the compact size of the body and initial lenses
2. their appeal for Canon users at a moment where Canon was falling behind siognificantly sensorwise: the superior sensor compared to Canon DSLRs and the ability to adapt Canon lenses with reasonable AF performance - in other words value without downsides
3. one value added innovative capability - eye AF (but I don't think they invented it, they just improved it)

There are in fact very few innovative technologies invented by Sony. They did a splendid job at assembling in one package ideas that had been developed by others and leveraged their remarkable historical ability for making things more compact.

So I think that it is fair to say that compactness was part of the DNA of mirrorless, and the naming of this category in the forum (compact system cameras) is a very good indication of this historical fact. Of course then we understood that good quality f1.4 lenses and tele zooms on the Sony were at least as large as on Canikon and this initial hope for compactness mostly vanished for those looking for top quality glass. Mirror less before the Nikon Z was about choosing between bulky top quality glass or compact ones with medium quality.

But this is exactly where Nikon is delivering significant value with their S f1.8 lenses. Bring back to life the hope for a compact yet super high image quality system isn't it?

Cheers,
Bernard

[johnvanatta]

"But this is exactly where Nikon is delivering significant value with their S f1.8 lenses. Bring back to life the hope for a compact yet super high image quality system isn't it?"

Yes, I'm really excited where Nikon is going with their lens lineup too. I don't really understand the constant clamoring for faster and faster lenses even as higher resolution demands makes the designs ever larger (and ISOs can be pushed much harder).

I imagine they'll switch to producing a f1.2/1.4 prime line later on, instead of an f2.8 line which would make me *really* happy--but so long as they complete all the f1.8 primes and both promised f4 zooms, I should be good for a long while.

I'm expecting to be able to replace my m43 kits with only a small increase in volume and perhaps 300-500g more weight. A price, for sure, but I'm willing to pay it for the sensor.

[chez]

Well, I am convinced that 90% of the success of the a7 series is due to 3 objective factors:
1. the compact size of the body and initial lenses
2. their appeal for Canon users at a moment where Canon was falling behind siognificantly sensorwise: the superior sensor compared to Canon DSLRs and the ability to adapt Canon lenses with reasonable AF performance - in other words value without downsides
3. one value added innovative capability - eye AF (but I don't think they invented it, they just improved it)

There are in fact very few innovative technologies invented by Sony. They did a splendid job at assembling in one package ideas that had been developed by others and leveraged their remarkable historical ability for making things more compact.

So I think that it is fair to say that compactness was part of the DNA of mirrorless, and the naming of this category in the forum (compact system cameras) is a very good indication of this historical fact. Of course then we understood that good quality f1.4 lenses and tele zooms on the Sony were at least as large as on Canikon and this initial hope for compactness mostly vanished for those looking for top quality glass. Mirror less before the Nikon Z was about choosing between bulky top quality glass or compact ones with medium quality.

But this is exactly where Nikon is delivering significant value with their S f1.8 lenses. Bring back to life the hope for a compact yet super high image quality system isn't it?

Cheers,
Bernard

The A9 with its speed and focusing abilities is built around it's truly innovative sensor. Bernard, like always you brush over other manufactures success with your rush to highlight anything you can about Nikon. You claim you are not a fanboy...yeh right.

[BernardLanguillier]

The A9 with its speed and focusing abilities is built around it's truly innovative sensor. Bernard, like always you brush over other manufactures success with your rush to highlight anything you can about Nikon. You claim you are not a fanboy...yeh right.

The a9 is a great camera and have a lot of respect for its abilities, but the point of my post was clearly the reasons why mirrorless was originally successful focusing on compactness... the a9 hasn't much to do with this and there was therefore no particular reason to mention it.

You reading into this fanboyism is speaking more about your own bias than about mine my friend.

Where does this need for constant validation of your choices comes from?

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

The a9 is a great camera and have a lot of respect for its abilities, but the point of my post was clearly the reasons why mirrorless was originally successful focusing on compactness... the a9 hasn't much to do with this and there was therefore no particular reason to mention it.

You reading into this fanboyism is speaking more about your own bias than about mine my friend.

Where does this need for constant validation of your choices comes from?

Cheers,
Bernard

Really? The A9 competes against the D5 and is hugely smaller and lighter and coupled with the much smaller and lighter 400 2.8 makes a sports package that saves an awful lot of weight and bulk. You don't feel that contributes to the mirrorless compactness? Really?

Add the A73, which is a better camera than the Z6, coupled with lenses like the Sony 12-24, 35 2.8, 55 1.8, 85 1.8 and the Batis 18, 25, 85 and 135...and you don't feel the Sony system has high quality light lenses to form a nice compact system? Hmmmm...

[BernardLanguillier]

Really? The A9 competes against the D5 and is hugely smaller and lighter and coupled with the much smaller and lighter 400 2.8 makes a sports package that saves an awful lot of weight and bulk. You don't feel that contributes to the mirrorless compactness? Really?

Add the A73, which is a better camera than the Z6, coupled with lenses like the Sony 12-24, 35 2.8, 55 1.8, 85 1.8 and the Batis 18, 25, 85 and 135...and you don't feel the Sony system has high quality light lenses to form a nice compact system? Hmmmm...

Yes, the a9 has all these qualities, but it isn't any more compact than the other a7 bodies. The Sony 400mm f2.8 is a great achievement in terms of weight compared to the previous iteration from canon (now in line with MkIII) and Nikon (4 years old), but it isn't more compact.
Sony: 158.1 x 359 mm
Nikon: 159.5 x 358 mm

The lens is so much larger than than the body that you'll need similar packs sizes for these 400mm lenses, regardless of whether they are mounted on an a9 or D5. As a D5 + 400mm f2.8 E FL owner for years now, I believe that the D5 has the right body size btw for these kind of lenses (and I hope that the Z8/Z9 matching them will be larger than the Z7), but this isn't the point of this discussion.

So I stand by my point that the compactness of the a9 has not been a relevant factor that has driven a significant number of photographers towards the Sony mirrorless system. The a7 did initially.

Yes, there are compact lenses in the Sony line-up, but they are overall of average quality compared to their G Master counterparts and in absolute terms.

Just compare the computed MTBF of the Nikon 24-70 f4, 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 to their Sony counterparts and you'll understand what I am talking about.

It doesn't take any fanboysim to see that Nikon has chosen a different route than Sony from that standpoint. Sony has focused on high-end G Master glass with very high level of image quality, but they are not compact at all anymore.

You don't need to believe me, just check the Sony line-up and tell my which G Master lens is compact?

Do the same with nikon S line (that I am sure you'll acknowledge is the equivalent of G Master) and 2/3 of them are compact designs.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

Yes, the a9 has all these qualities, but it isn't any more compact than the other a7 bodies. The Sony 400mm f2.8 is a great achievement in terms of weight compared to the previous iteration from canon (now in part with MkIII) and Nikon (5 years old), but it isn't more compact.
Sony: 158.1 x 359 mm
Nikon: 159.5 x 358 mm

The lens is so much larger than than the body that you'll need similar packs sizes for these 400mm lenses, regardless of whether they are mounted on an a9 or D5. As a D5 + 400mm f2.8 E FL owner for years now, I believe that the D5 has the right body size btw for these kind of lenses (and I hope that the Z8/Z9 matching them will be larger than the Z7), but this isn't the point of this discussion.

So I stand by my point that the compactness of the a9 has not been a relevant factor that has driven a significant number of photographers towards the Sony mirrorless system. The a7 did initially.

Yes, there are compact lenses in the Sony line-up, but they are overall of average quality compared to their G Master counterparts and in absolute terms.

Just compare the computed MTBF of the Nikon 24-70 f4, 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 to their Sony counterparts and you'll understand what I am talking about.

It doesn't take any fanboysim to see that Nikon has chosen a different route than Sony from that standpoint. Sony has focused on high-end G Master glass with very high level of image quality, but they are not compact at all anymore.

You don't need to believe me, just check the Sony line-up and tell my which G Master lens is compact?

Do the same with nikon S line (that I am sure you'll acknowledge is the equivalent of G Master) and 2/3 of them are compact designs.

Cheers,
Bernard

I truly beg to differ with you Bernard. The A9 size coupled with the 400 2.8 adding the AF and speed of the A9 has totally revolutionized the "bigger is better" attitude of the sports photography market. It's shaken things up quite substantially with the only things holding it back are the 500 and 600 lenses that are coming from Sony.

As far as a compact high quality system based around a Sony camera...again you are totally wrong. You do not need the GM line of lenses to get quality images. The entire Batis line delivers fabulous quality and all are light. The Sony 12-24 is light for this type of lens...yet blows the doors off the much more heavier, expensive and bigger Nikon 14-24. Sony's latest 24-105 is the lightest 24-105...including the yet to be released Canon R version...and it's image quality is better than anything out there in that range.

I've put together a fabulous travel kit based on my Sony system that is very light and delivers great images.

Your view that to get great image quality with Sony cameras you need to use heavy GM lenses is speaking from an ignorant position. I have been using the Sony system for my travel photography coming on 3 years and I know from experience that you can build a light compact system which delivers great image quality...that's from shooting nearly 3 years with it.

As a side note, many of my lenses are still Canon mount so I'm keeping my eye on where Canon might go with their system. Initial release gas nothing for me, but I'm sure Canon has more releases to come.

[BernardLanguillier]

I truly beg to differ with you Bernard. The A9 size coupled with the 400 2.8 adding the AF and speed of the A9 has totally revolutionized the "bigger is better" attitude of the sports photography market. It's shaken things up quite substantially with the only things holding it back are the 500 and 600 lenses that are coming from Sony.

I guess that's the reason why we still only see Canon and Nikon super-teles at major sport events.

I agree that the a9 and 400mm f2.8 are a very nice combination, but let's be real for a change. The 400mm f2.8 has only been available for a few weeks. It has had absolutely zero impact on the sports shooters market. It has the potential to make an impact, but it has not yet.

Your sentence describes what you wish will happen.

As far as a compact high quality system based around a Sony camera...again you are totally wrong. You do not need the GM line of lenses to get quality images. The entire Batis line delivers fabulous quality and all are light. The Sony 12-24 is light for this type of lens...yet blows the doors off the much more heavier, expensive and bigger Nikon 14-24. Sony's latest 24-105 is the lightest 24-105...including the yet to be released Canon R version...and it's image quality is better than anything out there in that range.

Right, Batis lenses are designed by Sony... and since they are not, why bring them in this discussion about the design intent of both companies?

I agree there are some nice non G Master lenses in Sony line up, there are always exceptions.

My point is the intent of Sony and how they have segmented differently their lenses, but it seems that any proposition that doesn't put Sony at the absolute top of everything known to human kind isn't acceptable to you... 

I've put together a fabulous travel kit based on my Sony system that is very light and delivers great images.

Your view that to get great image quality with Sony cameras you need to use heavy GM lenses is speaking from an ignorant position. I have been using the Sony system for my travel photography coming on 3 years and I know from experience that you can build a light compact system which delivers great image quality...that's from shooting nearly 3 years with it.

Calling the image quality of a 24-105 zoom lens, be it from the all mighty Sony, great helps us understand your quality referential.

I'll stop here, our respective points of view should be clear by now.

I have a lot of respect for Sony and am totally objective about the impressive values of the Sony system but you seem unable to look at Nikon's offering with similar eyes.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

I guess that's the reason why we still only see Canon and Nikon super-teles at major sport events.

I agree that the a9 and 400mm f2.8 are a very nice combination, but let's be real for a change. The 400mm f2.8 has only been available for a few weeks. It has had absolutely zero impact on the sports shooters market. It has the potential to make an impact, but it has not yet.

Your sentence describes what you wish will happen.

Right, Batis lenses are designed by Sony... and since they are not, why bring them in this discussion about the design intent of both companies?

I agree there are some nice non G Master lenses in Sony line up, there are always exceptions.

My point is the intent of Sony and how they have segmented differently their lenses, but it seems that any proposition that doesn't put Sony at the absolute top of everything known to human kind isn't acceptable to you... 

Calling the image quality of a 24-105 zoom lens, be it from the all mighty Sony, great helps us understand your quality referential.

I'll stop here, our respective points of view should be clear by now.

I have a lot of respect for Sony and am totally objective about the impressive values of the Sony system but you seem unable to look at Nikon's offering with similar eyes.

Cheers,
Bernard

Firstly, I don't care who manufactures the lenses for my camera...I have a compact system of lenses for the Sony camera that deliver great images. Seems to me Sony and Zeiss have a working relationship...so who cares what label is on the lens...other than a fanboy.

Secondly...have you shot any images with the Sony 24-105? Thought so. People who have including a very respective lens rental employee claim the lens delivers prime quality images...especially at the wide end. Same goes for the 12-24 lens.

I sell my prints...many very large in the 72" range and never once has any customer complained about the lack of image quality. People that chase that ultimate lens for that last drop of image quality, digging deep into the image corners for it...are measurebaters than photographers as in the end where the rubber hits the road...the print, no one gives an ounce of damn for that far corner pixel shining bright.

That's the bottom line IMHO.