Interesting view. However, while mirrorless start to compete with (almost) professional DSLR (Sony A7r for instance), the lower range DSLR's are also developped and pricewise still very interesting. Take a Nikon D 3300 or 5300 e.g. that have a great 24MP-sensor but are less expensive than the latest mirrorless at about the same weight and size.

Hi Jane and welcome to the group,

during the film age, in almost every photography school the advice was to buy a simple and reliable camera with just the necessary features in order to learn "the physics" as you call them. In those days a Nikon FM was more than enough for every student to master the art of photography. A camera is only the tool and it's up to the photographer to take advantage of its full capacity or not.

Some people can create superb photos with just a mobile phone camera and others with top pro equipment may produce just junk.

The advice I would give to a novice is NOT to look where the market is going, BUT how He or She sees his own way into photography and how serious is for him. You can do many things with the suggested camera but certainly less than with the cameras suggested by Thomas (for many reasons).

If you look seriously at your photography you have to be able to use an SRL and perhaps later you may find that for the style of photography you want to do, you will be better with a mirrorless or a pro DSLR, or any other camera.

I agree with you on the point that such insisting suggestion may be suspicious but don't forget, it's very much easier for an instructor to have all his students with the same tools, just this is no excuse if she wants to inspire you and teach you. The point is not to challenge her on technical aspects but to get the most out of her.

 

Gianni Giatilis

Gear talk Administrator

Thank you, A Almulla, Thomas and Gianni for your opinions

and advise. What resonates with me is first finding the type

of photography I want to pursue and then choosing the best

camera to achieve it. Right now I am in the learning phase

but it is good to have this resource to know what my options are.

 

Thank you for this group and for your time!

Jane

Hi Jane

 

It does seem the wave for the future are the mirrorless cameras and have read opinions they will dominate the marked in very few years.

 

Leica invented 35mm photography and still going strong. The current crop are closer working to a regular DSLR with the big difference in having an electronic viewfinder vs through the lens viewing. As they get better electronic viewfinders will be as good as the others.

 

One area which will keep the DSLR around is focusing. The mirrorless do well but are no match in action since they for the most part do not use contrast detention. In quality they are amazing. The new Sony a7R is rated by DXO as high as Nikon D800 and just one point behind the D800e.

 

The future will be exciting and not far away, it all depends on what type camera suits your needs. The one you had a link for is excellent for a fixed lens camera, but has an APC sensor and for action will fail even compared to the simples DSLR. Would suggest going for a full frame which you can change lenses. Sony seems to be it but does not have many lenses unless you go for adapters. Bought one to use with my Leica lenses but does not do well with wide angle lenses. Had to sell. Look at the mirrorless as a specialized type camera with a narrow application.

 

I know its all confusing but encourage you to try before you buy ! Lots of online places you can rent for a few days and see/fell the difference for yourself. It all depends on your needs and do place weight on the suggestion by Gianni, excellent advice.

 

Best Wishes

al

Working with Nikon D300 and couple of DX lenses and very satisfied, but I was looking for an second camera, less heavy and more compact.

 

I was seduced by the Sony RX 100 M2 or Sony RX 10.

 

I chose the last one, Sony RX 10: (kind of bridge camera):

 

20MP with a 1 inch sensor (the biggest in compact camera's) with a Zeiss lens Vario-Sonnar T 24-200 f 2.8 (on the complete distance).

Good EVF and LCD screen and easy to use.

Good quality, sharp images till 1250 iso, Raw/JPG with NR/DR/HDR functions build-in. No need to changing lenses anymore, no dust on senor.

 

A point to shoot camera, light weight, with a fabulous Zeiss lens for +- 1300 $: expensive but with such a lens?

I did some tests and was very satisfied.

 

Min point: zoom is rather slow, but is good for filming.

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/rx10/

 

P.S.: I still have master the camera and hope to stay satisfied as I'm now.

Thanks Al and Ben. I am lucky to have access to B&H and will be sure to

rent any camera that I wind up considering. I will try the Sony, for sure.

 

I watched a video on the new Nikon mirror less that is going to be introduced next month and really understood a fraction of the new features they were talking about. I thought that since I began with Nikon and am finally able to navigate the

menu and settings that it would make sense to stick with Nikon if I make a change. Again, my instructor advised against it as she thinks Nikon is new to this

technology and the lenses that I have (55-300, 18-200, 55mm) are slow lenses

and require an additional mount on the camera and defeat the portability

feature.

 

My brain is hurting. There is so much to learn. Again, we are being

indoctrinated with the need for "fast lenses". All of my lenses are slow,

including the 55mm which is (an inexpensive and barely adequate) lens

that is f1.8 but slow?

 

I am remembering what Gianni said about figuring out what I really want to shoot

before I make any changes. Our weather has been awful and I took this class hoping to learn how to get more out of my camera and to learn how to shoot

manually. What I learned is I have outdated equipment and slow lenses.

Thankfully, our weather is getting better and Steve Hill is a good teacher.

 

Again, I appreciate the information and opinions I am getting from all of you.

Jane

Jane, I started digital in 2007 with a D80 and 18-200mm VR and then added a AF 50mm f/1.8D (which is a fast lens), and in 2012 I replaced de body with a D90 and added the Nikkor AF-S 35mm F/1.8 (exceptionally good and worth the money DX-lens which equals to 52mm on full frame).

I am still using it regularely in addition to my considerably heavier FX-gear, and my pictures are not better or worse with one or the other equipement because I am still learning and the best camera is always the one you actually have at hand. So, I fully support Gianni's advice and suggest you reconsider the need for new or other equipment once you feel yourself having matured in photography. There will always come new products on the market, but that does not mean that your current equipment does not allow you to take good pictures.

Thomas

Hi again Jane,

As I see in your portfolio you have a general interest in photography (street, portrait, landscape) you may not need to change anything yet.

Fast lenses...ok if you shoot action or night scenes but an accurate and fast autofocus system is more essential in my view.

Could you give us a list of your current equipment and the subjects you mainly want to shoot in the near future?

 

Gianni

 

Hi Gianni

I use a Nikon D90. I have the Nikkor 18-200 lens which I've become addicted to

because of the range but Nikon has repaired it 3 times and it really only works

well when I use a tripod.

I am now using the Nikkor 55-300 and on occasion I use the Nikkor 55mm.

 

I developed so many bad habits when I first began and am now trying to learn

to shoot manually to understand the relationship between iso, shutter and aperture. I am still experimenting in terms of finding a subject or style that

I find compelling and want to personalize. I know I need to get the basics down

before I think about another camera.

 

Thank you, again!

 

Jane

 

Hi again Jane,

in my opinion you don't need to change your camera, at least not yet. This body is very good and don't see the point on investing on another one until you discover the limits of the one you already have. If you want a faster lens you can get the excellent fast prime 35mm1.8 DX (it's also dead cheap).

The two zooms you have are adequate for start but you may need to change the 18-200 since it's not working properly. In this case you may get the 18-55 DX 3.5-5.6 also very cheap. Eventually you will have a full range from 18 to 300 mm without an overlap and you will be able to cover many different subjects.

If money is not an issue sky's the limit but changing systems and brand frequently it's not cost effective and you need more time to get accustomed to new menus and camera/lens behavior and performance.

Learn your camera, read books and shoot as much as you can, then you will discover a way to go and start your own photographic journey.

Just one more thing, talking about gear can become an obsession. There are hundreds of sites where you see detailed technical reviews and disputes about one brand or the other, one lens or the other. If you get involved you may end up being lost in specifications and useless theories instead of learning real photography. Take your camera and go out and shoot, get inspiration from good photographers and you will be fine.

 

Gianni

 

Gianni is spot on.

 

50 years ago people took better pictures with lesser quality gear.

For instance, the Sony A7 Series really broke new ground, because of having

a fullframe sensor inside a palm-sized, mirrorless body. the best thing with E-mount is that i can adapt virtually any lens since the 50's to my A7, as i love

to use old mf prime lenses - which comes in way handy.

 

but as you might know...it's not the gear, it's always >YOU< the person behind the

lens, which makes a difference. i'm just a amateur enjoying my shots, i am not a

photoshop artist neither i do have pro-gear, but i don't care, and that doesn't matter for me at all. :-)

 

you can do good shots with almost every camera avialable, iso 100 and good light...analogue or digital, it doesn't matter...or even a brownie box.

 

I'm happy with my D90, D7000 bodies, and shoot them with the 35mm/1.8 DX,

or Tamron 17-50/2.8 Lens, because they're cheap, and the Tammi without AF and

VC inside is already sharp at F2.8, a bargain for the price. (got mine in new condition for just 175 EUR)

 

apart from that, i'm more the prime lens guy, and shoot old mf lenses on my sony

A3000, which i bought only for that reason to attach various old primes from minolta, yashica, zeiss and so on...with cheap adapters via ebay or amazon. (fotga for instance is a good one - for less then 10 EUR here into germany incl.

shipping) i also ordered a mitakon lens turbo for C/Y mount, because i have much

old lenses for that contax-yashica mount, and with the lens turbo, similar to the

metabones adapter, but way cheaper, i've equal FF inside my APS-C Alpha 3000,

which means simply for instance a 28mm/2.8 zeiss lens feels & handles like 28mm then with the lens turbo, the aperture will be better from 1/3 to 1 full stop,

depending onto the lens.

 

The Nikon 18-55 DX II or VR are both dead cheap to get in mint condition on ebay, but it'sa slow kitlens in terms of optics, for the 6 to 12 MP DX bodies it's

alright, but already onto the D7000 with 16 MP it's not as good in resolution

terms...i'm way happy with my Tammi 17-50/2.8 onto the D7000.

 

hope that helps a bit...

 

greetings marc

 

About mFT mirrorless: the biggest plus for mFT format is that are many (!) lenses avialable....much more than for Nikon DX since 99, and also fast primes...but the sensor onto mFT is smaller than APS-C/DX, so the dynamic range/color depth/lowlight ability is a bit lower...but not that much.

 

being way happy with my underrated Sony Alpha 3000 - because everything onto this body is dead-cheap, the display, the EVF (horrible resolution) way plastique feeling...but the great thing on it is - it does have the E-Mount, so i can

adapt almost everything, and 2nd the Sensor inside it is way good, for an APS-C.

almost as good as my D7000 sensor, for a fraction of that price, and finally, it got

focus peaking, for manual focusing way great.

 

so, in the end it depends much on what subjects you'd like to shoot, and therefor

you'd consider & buy your lenses...and the body for it.

 

Yes DSLR are bigger and more heavy, but also faster and more reliable. Bigger optics also means more light. I am a pro gear user but also have a small mirrorless Fuji. I still prefer the bigger one!

 

Good Morning Robert,

 

i know. ;-) But check out the Sony A7/A7R/A7S....Sony really nailed it here -

i'd prefer the A7 anytime over the D600/D610, because it's way lighter,

and i can install any lens via adapter.

 

Its an interesting camera for sure and the test are good but still pro gear has so much more to offer.

Hi Robert

 

I am a Leica M user and tried the Sony a7r, spectacular image quality, not that impressed with the noise but did not work with the Leica lenses. Sensor being built different for SLR type lenses. There is a plugin from Adobe which will correct the purple fringing and vignetting but a pain to shoot a reference image each time.

 

Zeiss is making excellent optics for Sony but most seem on the slow side, more toward consumer market and making them smaller. So far for Pro applications the ones having a ball are landscape people. For any action the performance with adapters is not acceptable.

 

Not sure what the future will bring but they do need faster AF and lots of lenses, again depending the market they are after. Interesting camera.

Hi Alfred,

 

sorry to interrupt, but that's not true in fact. You can use a Leica M to Sony E-Mount Adapter and still use all your Leica Lenses onto the A7R.

 

But in which case you're right - serveral wide-angle lenses producing purple/margenta CAs & fringing onto the A7R, the A7 doesn't suffer from that issue.

 

I've a handful of old Contax Zeiss MF lenses, which are doing great onto the A7.

Same goes for the Yashica/Tokina and Minolta Rokkor MC/MD legacy lenses.

 

With Sony E-Mount, you can virtually adapt every lens onto the A7 Series, so the investment in Canon/Nikon/Pentax etc. whatever lenses is being saved.

 

Thanks Mark

 

You are totally correct in that the A7 does work better than the a7R, I tried one but did not give me the corner quality I was after, center was fine and there was no purple fringing.

 

Basically the sensor of the Sony and all others for that mater, are not made for lenses that end so close to the sensor and light enters areas around the edges at such an extreme angle. Leica does make up for it and results are noticeable, the problem starts at 35 mm and have seen difference even with a 50mm.

 

The newer designed lenses like the WATE do work well with either showing no problems at the corners. It was a joy to use for a couple of month but it also came down to being so comfortable using a rangefinder camera. Do have to agree Sony is coming up with interesting and high quality gear.

thanks, alfred. if i could afford it, i'd buy asap the A7S, because i don't do cropping (seldom, really) and 12 MP are enough for me - the 24 MP from the A7,

together with no compression unlike my Nikon DSLRs, gives me relative huge files.

 

some years ago, i never thought i'd use ISO 3200, and most of my pictures are

within the ISO 100 to 800, sometimes 1600 range.

 

but 2 weeks ago i was shooting my niece baptism into a dim-lit church, the D7000 with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 @F5.6 and a like, and AutoISO went up to

3200 ISO, to my surprise, but the files have been pretty useable.

 

Hi Marc

 

Not sure what program you are using for cleaning the noise but LightRoom does the best job I've seen.

 

If you use any of the plugins be careful with the settings, for example, Noise NInja has sharpening builtin by default. Need to go into the settings and disable. Gives some nasty results.

 

With the M, 1600 is routine and 3200 totally usable. The one that is ridiculously good is the Monochrom, right up to 10,000 and images look fine.

al

Now after so much reading about this sony camera i will get one and try by my self. Normally i have problem with sony and the always strange file format which troubles me and my MAC always. Also the very product specified behave from each model to another model was keeping me away especially for video. Lets see:-)

Hi Robert

 

Will have no problems reading the files with a Mac !!!

al

 

Hello Jane

 

1- It is very true that your photography should be lead by your creativity and not by your gear......and then you fall in the catch 22 where you need a particular gear to achieve a particular look.

 

2- Glass is way more important than camera bodies.

 

3- Shoot within the limits of your experience and your gear.

 

4- There is no best camera and the D90 is a very good camera.

 

5- I would not get a Range Finder or a Mirrorless for my type of photography. This does not apply to any other photographer and it is futile to go into a discussion of why DSLR and not Mirrorless.

 

6- The Sony A7/R like any other camera has flaws, namely the light leak and vibration as well as some other quirks which are minor or major depending on the photographer.

 

7- EVF vs OVF is again a personal choice. Maybe sometime in the future EVF will be technically acceptable. Live screen viewing is available on all cameras.

 

8- Whatever and whichever gear you use is only the start and today photographers have to be well learned in post production in addition to photography practice and theory.

The days of one fantastic picture straight out of the camera is diminishing and pictures coming out of Photoshop are increasing.....these are the ones winning Awards!

 

9- Photography has never ever had better days than today.

 

10- As a personal advice, sell all your zooms and get Primes.

 

Finally, my strongest advise is to stop reading and visiting websites. Get you camera and go shoot and process.

 

 

Greetings Alfred,

 

i'm using Nik Software Dfine which is part of the Nik Collection (by Google) to denoise my pictures, mostly. I usually don't go over 1600 iso, but with the D7000 and A7, i can use 3200 without problems. The M is a very fine camera, but i'm afraid could never afford it in reality, together with decent lenses.

 

greetings

marc

Hi Marc

 

I used Dfine in the past and found that it produced some artifacts which I have to assume come from sharpening? Never went deep into the program to find all settings, Only did so with Noise Ninja and found the sharpening as a default. Amount would vary according to the strength of the reduction. Supposes to make up for the slight softening than can happens (usually does).

 

On my wife's advice, tried LR for the reduction and has been perfect for me. Easy to use, working on the raw image and can see results. The space bar will take you to 100% and usually need to adjust luminance only. Can play around with detail but normally don't do much since there is little noise.

 

Great threat and lots of good information.

 

Hi Camilo

 

Lots of good points and solid advice. Spending on glass and the best was the last ... stop reading and visiting websites :) There is excellent information out there, the problem is lots of it is just wrong ! Need to find a source and trust ! Even from strict professionals will find bias toward some brands due to affiliation or getting something back etc.

 

al

 

Greetings Camillo,

 

i agree with you into the terms, that gear doesn't matter (almost) and you can shoot with whatever you like to make great pictures.

 

I'm a optical viewfinder guy instead of EVF, but i must say against my thoughts, the EVF onto the A7 Series body is really nice, from resolution & features, it's of course something different as a OVF, but i really can life with this, and it'sa real good one built into the A7 Series.

 

About the light leaks - the Fuji X-T1 also suffered from the same problem,

and even the Canon 5D III had the same issues when it was brand-new onto the marked, even Nikon suffered from this issues, which are already fixed by now.

 

About the A7R shutter vibration - that issue is very rarely, mostly a theoretical one, you should have post the dpreview forum link here for instance,. no offence. :)

 

Of course, the D90 is still a good DX (APS-C) DSLR, and i still love my D90,

using it these days sometimes only with the 35mm/1.8 DX Nikkor, or with

my Sigma 30/1.4 Art Prime lens - i've also more than a dozen primes collected

within the years, mostly Contax Zeiss glas, but also a few zooms, and from

minolta, yashica ml, M42 glas, and so on....i love primes also way much, but i must also say that i never exchange lenses when i am out my my flat, that means onto the street or at a specific location when doing my shots, so i'd take another body w/me often with another prime, or a small zoom with me to catch the pictures that i want.

 

as for in general, people, including myself, suffering sometimes from the G.A.S. syndrome - that gear aquisation syndrome - whileas new DSLRs/Mirrorless, Cameras with up2date sensors could give you higher resolutions, more dynamic range, more color depth, then older generations before - the best camera is always that one with you...by your side....because otherwise without it, you'd have missed that shot.

 

overall, i'd never say to sell all your zooms, because zooms often come in handy, and you shouldn't compare their image quality with fast prime lenses - but i can tell you from my own experience, that with a zoom, you're standing at a specific point, and "dial in" that means you zoom in or out, adjusting the focal length...whereas with a prime lens, you simply think much more about the composition, to catch or capture that specific image, what you want to shoot.

 

as my grandpa said to me when i was a teenager, you've got the zoom into your legs. and a well known photographer said (name forgotten) if you pictures are bad, you haven't been close enough..so, exactly that's the point.

 

i love my primes, but i like also my zoom lenses, got a few ones, for instance the zeiss 28-85/3.3-4, 28-70/3.5-4.5, 35-70/3.4 (which sharpness is equal to primes), minolta 35-70/3.5, tokina 28-70 SD II (which was dead cheap for instance, and really could compete with primes when stopped down to F8 to F11 for example, it uses SD glass, which is super low dispersion glass)

 

so much for that. always have good light, guys.

 

greetings,

marc

 

Greetings Alfred,

 

i use Dfine with low denoise settings, just right. Apart from that, noise ninja

also gives me pretty useable results. I never used & considered myself as a LR

fan, because i don't like that kind of catalogue thing with lightroom, but i know

and read/heard from friends of mine, that the noise reduction with LR should give very good results, just right.

 

What i've had forgotten to write here: every new technology have it's flaws at the beginning, for instance, my A7 startup with firmware 1.01 (factory pre-installed) was pretty slow and took roughly about 10-12 sec. which is unbearable considering you've got a picture opportunety and need your camera fast.

 

now with firmware 1.02 (also a specific 1.02 for the A7R) download avialable since

19.3. - the startup time from both the A7/R had been greatly reduced, and also the AF onto my A7 seems to be faster, for instance.

 

I realize this topic was introduced a long time ago and if all in the group are done and satisfied, or perhaps a group member already provided what I will comment, please don't let me waste your time.

 

Mirrorless vs dSLRs is also a matter of economics of industry. By that I mean camera manufacturers have billions invested in inventory, machines, detailed production drawings and engineering design experience to produce units whose bodies contain a mirror that flips and lenses to fit them. If mirrorless is to dominate in the future, the time it will take will probably be somewhere around the amortization time of the factory combined with engineers' time to adapt, design and test, and finally marketing's phasing plan.

Hi Rodrigo

 

It is hard to tell what the future will bring, I have no doubt the new cameras without a mirror will dominate the market in the future and not too long.

 

At the present level, they are not there for some applications, DSLRs are a necessity. I think the one area improvement is needed has to be speed in focusing. The new A7 II is a big improvement over the previous, have only been using for one week and already see the difference. Do want to give it more time before making a judgement.

 

It is possible and most probable that both will exist side by side. At this time the most used camera is the cell phone, a couple of years ago, took over from the point and shoot. Point and shoot sales had increased every year since their invention, think one of the first was the Kodak 104? I'm talking about modern conventional point and shoot, not including the likes of Kodak Brownie.

 

al

 

I had an interesting conversation with a salesman at B&H last week.

He said that many pros that he works with are using and loving mirror

less cameras but psychologically have not been able to show up on a commercial

shoot with a camera that fits in their pocket.

It was not that long ago when a professional I used to hire for interior shots (film)

would arrive with two assistants and a truck load of lighting and camera gear.

Arriving solo with a camera in your pocket is a very different gig.

 

I've been following the mirror less developments closely. I cannot imagine

what Nikon and Canon, who are very late to the game, are going to do to

keep the dslr relevant, if that is still possible. It's a very interesting time.

It is an interesting conversation Jane.

 

As of right now, Sony seems to have a wide lead and they even make the sensors for the Nikons !! The A7r sensor is basically the D800e

 

For anyone considering the system is best to rent one and find out for yourself. I have been looking at these A7 II files and keep getting impressed. I'm comparing the files to my Leica M (type-240) and keep scratching my head.

 

There is talk about the A7r getting the same stabilization and even a Pro body in the future. As it stands right now the A7 II rules for what is supposed to do. I don't like letting emotions take over, just look at results and use the best camera for the job which at times can be a simple point and shoot.

 

al

The camera trend seems similar to what desktop printers went through.

 

Back in the 80s a dot matrix was something to dream about and get even though it was noisy, slow and prints in black.

Later the colour dot matrix was all the rave.

Then the inkjet.

Then the laser printer.

 

Now its walk into a store and just grab whats off the shelf for everyday home printing that your kids abuse.

 

Future looks like mirrorless and cameraphones. With some current mirrorless achieving shutter speeds far beyond what a dSLR can get at this time, it might not be too long in the future when we walk into a store and grab whatever mirrorless is on the top shelf.

I think the mirrorless drive is being motivated by smaller gear and smaller lenses.

 

I think mirrorless cameras will become sexier in the future with each sensor 'upgrade', the better the sensors the more able they are to 'act' on their own with out a mirror to focus with. With sensors getting better and better, the ability to do action shots and faster shutter speeds will become increasingly better.

 

Right now the limitations on a mirrorless is mostly shutter speed and action shots. Sensor size (there is only one 'full frame' camera, Sony A7 and its cousins at the time of writing this) is also another concern. Most of the 'good' mirrorless cameras are APS-C or smaller sensor sizes. For some people this doesn't matter...for others it matters entirely too much.

 

Also the camera your teacher is recommending is not what I would buy but that is your own discretion. I would go with Sony a6000 as it is cheap APS-C sized sensor camera with decent auto focus or one of the Olympus EM-5/10/5II or EM-1. Panasonic has better cameras in their line up. I wouldn't necessarily drop a Canon or Nikon for a mirrorless unless you are already wanting to change.

 

One more note and I'll stop. The size of the lenses on a mirrorless camera is really what decreases the size of your bag. The mirrorless cameras on the whole have smaller lenses, especially the primes. Olympus especially makes some small, metal nice primes. The zooms are larger but still on the whole smaller than most zooms on a DSLR. Sony has also clued in on adapters for some of their own Minolta lenses as well as some interesting picks like Leica lenses and Contax G Zeiss lenses.

Excellent post Nelson, agree on all points !!

 

I am currently using the A7 II and A7s. Finding the quality of the A7 II same as my Leica M-240 with better ISO performance. The A7s has no competition.

 

Hope more lenses will be coming out in the mid tele range. Right now using the Leica 75 apo Summicorn but would like an AF fast prime.

 

My only disappointment with the lenses for Sony (Zeiss) is the 24-70 f 4/0 We tried two copies and both were not up to standard. The 16-35 and 55 are very sharp. (both Zeiss)

 

There will be an announcement soon regarding a Pro Body Sony, talk about A9 or A7r Mk II etc Will be around 50 MP, full sensor and 5 axis in camera stabilization ..... should be interesting.

 

al

The Future is very easy to understand: Mirrorless is here to stay, as it does have many advantages over traditional DSLR cameras. DSLRs would very likely pushed into the very high end market, whereas all other areas (Beginner, Enthusiasts, Semi-Pro) would be a DSLM, mirrorless System within some couple years.

 

Even Canikon & Nikon do realize this.

 

The current 24-70 Zeiss eMount is not up to the rest of the Zeiss Lenses standard,

but i'd guess a Mk. II perhaps into 2016 could/would be from IQ much better.

 

Hi Jane,

 

Sorry if I am adding my thoughts on this topic a year later, but I have just recently joined 1x.com.

 

I, like others, had the opportunity to shoot different mediums. Meaning film and digital. I have shot with a number of different cameras ranging from a pocket 110 camera, viewfinders, rangefinders, SLRs (35mm and medium format), and dSLRs.

 

I have not had the opportunity to shoot with newer mirrorless cameras to have an opinion on it. However for me, the physics and/or philosophy behind shooting with mirrorless cameras (past or current) is the same. One of the main advantages is, mirror shake has been removed from the shoot. But, that doesn't mean you as the photographer don't shake when pressing the shutter release.

 

Regarding light weight cameras, the D90 is a fairly light weight and very good camera. In terms of lens speed, you can invest in faster lenses. But before putting yourself into debt, what is it that you feel you can't do with your existing lens arsonal, that you need a faster lens, for the type of shooting you do?

 

As mentioned in other posts, faster lenses are good for action, low light conditions. But even fast lenses have limitations. You can bump up your ISO to improve the exposure, when using a slower lens. You would may have to do that as well with a faster lens, depending on the lighting conditions.

 

Are you looking for a mirroless camera with a non removable lens, so you can put it in your pocket? Or a mirrorless, with interchangeable lenses? The dSLR cameras do have a large selection of lenses by the camera manufacturers and 3rd party manufacturers.

 

The Nikon D90 is a very good camera. I would play with your camera, free from a course instructor's input, to build you own opinion and understanding of what is best for you and your style of shooting. After that, if you feel you can achieve better results with a mirrorless, then perhaps that is the way to go.

 

In the end it not the camera that paints the picture, it is you.

Hi Phil

I began this thread when an instructor at a photography course I was taking

told our class that SLR's were old technology and that we should buy a mirror

less camera, not so much for size and transportability but for low light conditions..

 

I am on a photography team and all of my teammates are tech heads and

have the latest 'stuff' and I felt compelled to update my d90. I did look

at the Sony mirror less but decided that because I could not use the lenses that I have (without adapters) and also I have always used a Nikon so the learning curve with a new system seemed daunting at the time when I was in the middle of a competition I decided to get the Nikon 7200.

 

I have not had it very long but so far I am very pleased with the image quality

and I love that it performs so well in low light situations.

 

I appreciate your advise and the time you've taken to share it.

 

Jane

Hi Phil

 

Welcome to 1x and thanks for giving your opinions. Make sense and sound.

 

Not sure if you are up to the Sony files? I have not seen anything that gives the quality at high ISO (A7s) On my recent trip used at night, all images were made at 6,400 or 16.000 To judge the quality I started an Album titled Antigua, Holly Week.

 

For daytime, have gone to the A7 II. Files are so good, no longer using Leica M-240

 

Renting is the best way to go before purchasing. btw the shake introduced by the photographer is helped by the five axis in camera stabilization. Only get the full effect with native lenses. With third party, will have three axis only.

 

I think its best to determine what type of photography one is planing, then purchasing the gear.

 

al

The D7200 can all do you can do also with the D7000 & D90, but you've to be really good to push the D90 & D7000 to the limit. (I own them both) High ISO for

example is never a issue for me, i use a tripod (night photography or landscape) and otherwise i don't go over ISO >800, because the DR, Color Fidelity, Noise etc.

starts to get on my nerves, it's not the same as base ISO, as always.

For very important shots, i do use my Sony A7.

 

Hi Jane,

 

Glad to hear you found a camera that better suits your needs.

 

I agree with your assessment to purchase another Nikon body. I shoot with a Nikon D2x and I am currently looking to purchase a D4s. I can't imagine at this time purchasing a new camera body, in addition reinvesting in lenses.

 

I look forward to seeing your photos, shot with the 7200.

Hi Alfred,

 

I took a look at your Antigua, Holly Week album. The Sony A7 produces impressive results. Of course, much of it has to do with the person behind the camera.

 

I agree with you regarding renting equipment before investing in the equipment. Approximately 2 years ago, a coworker suggested I rent the lenses I need for a shoot. At first I was skeptical about using rented equipment, because I feared that the renters would treat the equipment poorly. But, my coworker brought in a Canon lens for his Canon body, and I was impressed that it was in quite good condition. And the results of his shoot were fantastic as well.

Hi Phil

 

I have been renting before buying for the past few years, did not with the A7 II. That knew would be a winner.

 

Glad you like the images, we sure had fun. There is a you tube slide show with music, will post the link below. The images are from Fabs (my wife) and mine. Its a preliminary slide show, working on the final.

 

al

 

https://youtu.be/E1o0e6qGjQA

If you Guys using any kind of the Sony A7-Series, please consider to sign this Petition, it just take you 2 Minutes or even much less.

 

https://www.change.org/p/kazuo-hirai-enable-uncompressed-or-lossless-compression-raw-files-on-the-a7-cameras-and-future-f-e-mount-cameras?utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt&utm_campaign=new_signature&tk=mY0Pu-maf0lRUt8DDw7jJzgWGhd0Q7k6rb4UcJQzCXE

 

Because we want a decent RAW Mode, not 11bit RAW with Delta Compression,

as Sony does it currently. Nikon offers lossy & lossless compressed RAW into

12/14bit flavour in current Nikon & also older Nikon DSLR Bodies.

 

Hello Everybody,

 

BATTERY LIFE

 

I have a lovely x100s. The main problem with mirrorless is battery life. If you stay out for a whole day and you shoot a lot, one battery is not enough, you need two at least. That's fine, but if you return late in the evening and the day after you have another run, that becomes a really big problem. SInce recharging takes some hours, what do you do? I read that a fellow photographer sets her alarm at 3:00 am in order to swap the recharging battery. To me this looks like a nightmare.

Some weeks ago I was in London for a business trip and took my X100s with me. After the meeting I went out with my camera and shot a lot, for around 5 hours. I devoured two batteries and returned to my hotel at 11:00 pm. The day after I had one battery only, the one that I recharged during the night.

I would have not brought with me a D800, so the mirrorless improved my photographic chances. However, I would not choose a mirrorless as my main body until battery life improves drammatically.

Ciao

Paolo

The Problem is the EVF - which constantly sucks energy out of the battery.

All mirrorless do work with an EVF, because a OVF is not possible. So you should have enough spares with you - i do usally have 3-5 extra spares in my pocket, then.

 

Beside that battery issue, i prefer an OVF anytime over an EVF, no matter how good it is from the size & resolution. I don't need to see a live histrogram, or the aperture effect into the EVF, i'd check the histogram after the shot being taken.

 

Hi Paolo

 

Look into Watson Chargers, they charge two at a time. Use interchangeable plates, able to charge different types. Same charger for the little RX -100 batteries and will charge the A7. Extra plates are a couple of dollars.

 

Makes more sense than buying a dedicated charger? ... also remember, you can charge one in camera. One double charger plus the in camera, makes it three.

 

al

 

Hello Al,

 

BATTERIES' MANAGEMENT

 

Nice to know. However, life is difficult, the logistics of life even more, I am looking for simplification, not complexity. I cannot manage more than two camera batteries & one charger in my life. The idea of 3-5 extra spares as Marc reports is not for me. I cannot add batteries' management to my daily life schedule. If one decides to go mirrorless, batteries' management is a price to pay.

Paolo

 

Why not Paolo? These NP-FW50 Batteries & Clones (best ones are for ages PATONA, german brand - don't know about in UK, US..as Alternative)

are very small & light to Handle. It's not a "Mirrorless" issue or -Problem,

i'd never go out for a important Photowalk/Location or -Shooting without having

at least 1-2 spare Batteries with me, that goes for the DSLRs here, and at last the same goes for my Mirrorless Cams, at last.

 

Addenum...when you go for taking pictures, you won't have also only one SD/CF Card with you, that into your Cam - but also a spare, don't you`? It's always good to have a backup, always.

 

Good point regarding the aftermarket batteries.

 

They cost about half of the price for Sony and work well

 

al

Yes Al, exactly that way. I do use Patona-branded Batteries for as long as about 5-6 years, and never had a issue with them, into about >10-12 different cameras, that includes my DSLRs and DSLMs as well. For instance, the slightly newer Patona Premium batteries are of higher capacity, i do use them currently for my 5D. Very good price-performance ratio, better than the original BP-511(a) Canon.

 

Interesting view :)